Economics are by far the most important issue for politicians to get right. Certainly more important than civil liberties, as liberty is itself impossible without a thriving economy and strong property rights.
If Milei can salvage Argentina and turn it into the country it was always meant to be before Perón fucked the whole thing up, he'll deserve the Nobel Prize for everything.
Germany 1932: take your pick - the Nazis or the Communists. The outcome of this election will be tragic. There has been little to laugh about up to now, and there will be less after the election.
The Nazis would be considerably preferable for the Germans, since much of the losses were borne by other countries. The Communists would inflict those losses primarily on the German voters themselves.
Hitler also had many options to secure a better outcome for his belligerence. He could have easily aligned with Poland to jointly crush the U.S.S.R. if he weren't so fanatically racist and militant.
Tragically, his tyranny was largely popular with the Germans until near the end of the Reich. If he had died after the conquest of France, he'd probably be remembered the same way today as Napoleon, even if his successors worked towards the same or similar atrocities afterwards as they did while he was alive. It took generations before the majority of German people actually thought national socialism itself was bad, rather than merely a good idea that was executed poorly.
The People have always been belligerent and retarded.
Does a moral action taken in solitude (out of the view of others and thus with no effect on them) make morality any more or less important, necessary, and a positive good?
You might also consider the edge case where one's vote DOES "matter." What moral obligation does one have then? And if one extra vote is added (or two or three or 40 million) how does that change the moral calculus in play? What you do in the dark is still of your doing and will live with you forever.
The insights of Epicurus are indeed a comfort (I have an entire website devoted to him at https://epicurus.net/ ). If there is a case to be made for embracing humor and good cheer in the midst of such mass insanity, the Epicurean poet Titus Lucretius Carus offered this:
In 1796, President George Washington wrote that political parties allow "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men" to "subvert the government of the people." Until people understand that electing government from among the representatives of organized crime groups - political parties - is absurd and suicidal, there will be wars and genocide. Humanity is being deceived by so-called democracy. What kind of democracy is it if the government is elected not from among the people, but from among the representatives of criminal groups - so-called political parties?!
Except he himself favoured the Federalists to the point of being an unofficial partisan, making his point rather moot. If my doctor smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish, I’m hardly likely to listen to his hectoring on those points. Like it or not, similarly minded groups will come together to put forward policy and help each other implement it and there you have a political party
All progressive parties were organized by the champions of justice and rationalism, but after a year or more, these parties acquired supporters from among the swindlers and demagogues and turned into an ordinary party of soulless careerists. No party escaped this fate.
Millions of useless parasites and fools provide themselves and their descendants with a comfortable life, creating the appearance of useful and rational activity. Why is this the norm and how it happens everywhere? Fake democracies provide power and careers mainly only for swindlers and windbags, therefore all bosses from this environment are criminals, without exception. In the USA there are millions of homeless death row inmates, the government you elect, of any party affiliation, refuses to save them. In fact, everyone who takes part in elections is an accomplice to these legalized murders. Today's election rules are a farce and a deception of the majority. And those who call for the creation of another party of the Knowing, care first of all about their income and glory, and last of all about the people. Absolutely all, the most progressive political parties, which set the task of achieving universal happiness, turned out to be murderous mayacres.
“Just a reminder to all that I accurately called this election, and had publicly posted in writing beforehand. With my forecast for the electoral margin of victory being very likely to be >95% accurate as well, pending final votes.”
I was also wondering how to tackle the election. In my classes, I had to do a lesson on the electoral college and politics surrounding elections here. I was thinking I could touch on international student befuddlement at a lot of our system (including voter ID). In the end, I decided to do a more lighthearted plea to move abroad https://collegetowns.substack.com/p/7-reasons-why-should-actually-move
calling Harris a communist is like calling, Eisenhower a communist. Similarly Trump isn't a Nazi, he might allign with some definitions of facism, my real worry is him to be an idiocrat. Immagine any president not listening to any of his advisors, because he is sure of knowing more about everything than the experts. He could do everything everytime, because no one is left to reign him in, to advice him over things he knows nothing about.
Kamala's sole constant political belief is in the importance of equality of outcome, which is even dumber than communism and only tempered by her being both too stupid and too domesticated to come close to realizing her vision even in the unlikely event of her being a two-termer. And Trump wants to have the same kind of generals as Hitler because he's very dumb and doesn't read and doesn't know that the German officer corps was actually fairly independent and repeatedly tried to kill the Fuehrer. What he actually wants is to have Putin's generals, who have no independence at all.
Neither of these should be acceptable candidates in a healthy country, and the heated rhetoric on the awfulness of their ideas is justified. It's just we're so inundated with heated rhetoric no one takes any of it seriously, and we're so far ahead of our nearest competitors that no amount of fuckuppery in our next term is gonna leave us anywhere other than number one by the time it's over.
I don’t Harris thinks that. She is just trying to get the stupid people among democrats on board. Equality of outcome would mean you take everyone’s wealth and distribute it to everyone and do the same with income. Not even sanders argues for that as far I know. The thing is whoever advises her will tell her that this kind of economic policy is stupid
Even if she wants equal outcomes there is no way no way she can achieve that goal. Also this was 2020 when she needed to convince the left in a primary. Equal outcomes are unconstitutional and have never been implemented anywhere let alone in the United States. It’s just phrase I think.
Nobody can achieve the goal, evdn if it was constitutional. It's why even though it's literally dumber than communism, it's not as dangerous, because people smart enough to attempt to implement it would realize how dumb the idea is and either give up on it or evolve their thinking to a more sophisticated, more dangerous philosophy. Marxism, for instance.
It is necessary to change the rules of elections. There are several options for implementing rational elections. This can be in the form of preliminary testing of candidates for power. Two tests are enough, for a certain level of knowledge and for the ability of the test subject to altruism. Only smart altruists will get into power. No party member will be able to pass such testing, although there are smart ones, but there are definitely no altruists. Six months after the elections, the parties will self-liquidate and disappear forever.
What doubts? Have you ever met selfless people in your life? I can recommend one of them, mathematician Grigori Perelman. It is absolutely certain that he will work only for the benefit of the majority of people, and not for himself or any groups. In the 21st century, it will not be difficult to create a test for a person's ability to altruism. There is only one problem - people's ignorance.
It always matters who the president is. We're just so rich and powerful that even bad presidents can't take us from number one to so much as number two. At least not anytime soon they can't.
We need charismatic libertarians to be running for office. Milei types. Until that happens I’ll be pessimistic on this country's government
Other than his economics Milei seems like just the kind of demagogue Bryan deplores to me.
Economics are by far the most important issue for politicians to get right. Certainly more important than civil liberties, as liberty is itself impossible without a thriving economy and strong property rights.
If Milei can salvage Argentina and turn it into the country it was always meant to be before Perón fucked the whole thing up, he'll deserve the Nobel Prize for everything.
Two-party system that filters such that only statists make the final cut.
That’s why running in primaries is paramount. Jared Polis types need to do it for the Dems. And Rand Paul types need to do it in the GOP.
Germany 1932: take your pick - the Nazis or the Communists. The outcome of this election will be tragic. There has been little to laugh about up to now, and there will be less after the election.
Much to cry about, and more as time goes on.
The Nazis would be considerably preferable for the Germans, since much of the losses were borne by other countries. The Communists would inflict those losses primarily on the German voters themselves.
Hitler also had many options to secure a better outcome for his belligerence. He could have easily aligned with Poland to jointly crush the U.S.S.R. if he weren't so fanatically racist and militant.
Tragically, his tyranny was largely popular with the Germans until near the end of the Reich. If he had died after the conquest of France, he'd probably be remembered the same way today as Napoleon, even if his successors worked towards the same or similar atrocities afterwards as they did while he was alive. It took generations before the majority of German people actually thought national socialism itself was bad, rather than merely a good idea that was executed poorly.
The People have always been belligerent and retarded.
"Meanwhile, both parties are . . . "
I know this is pedantic, but that should say "both major parties are". There are not just two parties in America.
Yeah. I even VOTED FOR a "third" party. In desperation.
News for you: you threw your vote away.
Throwing my vote away was FAR preferable to supporting the evils embodied in either of the two leading candidates. I can't be a part of that.
You're responsible, in part, for whichever set of evils prevails. You should think on that some more.
Empirically that responsibility is minuscule no matter how he votes, or even if he doesn’t. See Myth of the Rational Voter for the math.
See Germany in the 1930s. Not a myth.
All votes are statistically thrown away. Your chance of changing the election are virtually zero.
Does a moral action taken in solitude (out of the view of others and thus with no effect on them) make morality any more or less important, necessary, and a positive good?
You might also consider the edge case where one's vote DOES "matter." What moral obligation does one have then? And if one extra vote is added (or two or three or 40 million) how does that change the moral calculus in play? What you do in the dark is still of your doing and will live with you forever.
I, on the other hand, find it hilarious!
The insights of Epicurus are indeed a comfort (I have an entire website devoted to him at https://epicurus.net/ ). If there is a case to be made for embracing humor and good cheer in the midst of such mass insanity, the Epicurean poet Titus Lucretius Carus offered this:
'Tis sweet, when, down the mighty main, the winds
Roll up its waste of waters, from the land
To watch another's labouring anguish far,
Not that we joyously delight that man
Should thus be smitten, but because 'tis sweet
To mark what evils we ourselves be spared;
'Tis sweet, again, to view the mighty strife
Of armies embattled yonder o'er the plains,
Ourselves no sharers in the peril; but naught
There is more goodly than to hold the high
Serene plateaus, well fortressed by the wise,
Whence thou may'st look below on other men
And see them ev'rywhere wand'ring, all dispersed
In their lone seeking for the road of life;
Rivals in genius, or emulous in rank,
Pressing through days and nights with hugest toil
For summits of power and mastery of the world.
O wretched minds of men! O blinded hearts!
In how great perils, in what darks of life
Are spent the human years, however brief!-
O not to see that nature for herself
Barks after nothing, save that pain keep off,
Disjoined from the body, and that mind enjoy
Delightsome feeling, far from care and fear!
In 1796, President George Washington wrote that political parties allow "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men" to "subvert the government of the people." Until people understand that electing government from among the representatives of organized crime groups - political parties - is absurd and suicidal, there will be wars and genocide. Humanity is being deceived by so-called democracy. What kind of democracy is it if the government is elected not from among the people, but from among the representatives of criminal groups - so-called political parties?!
Except he himself favoured the Federalists to the point of being an unofficial partisan, making his point rather moot. If my doctor smokes like a chimney and drinks like a fish, I’m hardly likely to listen to his hectoring on those points. Like it or not, similarly minded groups will come together to put forward policy and help each other implement it and there you have a political party
All progressive parties were organized by the champions of justice and rationalism, but after a year or more, these parties acquired supporters from among the swindlers and demagogues and turned into an ordinary party of soulless careerists. No party escaped this fate.
Millions of useless parasites and fools provide themselves and their descendants with a comfortable life, creating the appearance of useful and rational activity. Why is this the norm and how it happens everywhere? Fake democracies provide power and careers mainly only for swindlers and windbags, therefore all bosses from this environment are criminals, without exception. In the USA there are millions of homeless death row inmates, the government you elect, of any party affiliation, refuses to save them. In fact, everyone who takes part in elections is an accomplice to these legalized murders. Today's election rules are a farce and a deception of the majority. And those who call for the creation of another party of the Knowing, care first of all about their income and glory, and last of all about the people. Absolutely all, the most progressive political parties, which set the task of achieving universal happiness, turned out to be murderous mayacres.
“Just a reminder to all that I accurately called this election, and had publicly posted in writing beforehand. With my forecast for the electoral margin of victory being very likely to be >95% accurate as well, pending final votes.”
https://www.betonit.ai/p/talking-build-baby-build-with-tom/comments
I was also wondering how to tackle the election. In my classes, I had to do a lesson on the electoral college and politics surrounding elections here. I was thinking I could touch on international student befuddlement at a lot of our system (including voter ID). In the end, I decided to do a more lighthearted plea to move abroad https://collegetowns.substack.com/p/7-reasons-why-should-actually-move
calling Harris a communist is like calling, Eisenhower a communist. Similarly Trump isn't a Nazi, he might allign with some definitions of facism, my real worry is him to be an idiocrat. Immagine any president not listening to any of his advisors, because he is sure of knowing more about everything than the experts. He could do everything everytime, because no one is left to reign him in, to advice him over things he knows nothing about.
Kamala's sole constant political belief is in the importance of equality of outcome, which is even dumber than communism and only tempered by her being both too stupid and too domesticated to come close to realizing her vision even in the unlikely event of her being a two-termer. And Trump wants to have the same kind of generals as Hitler because he's very dumb and doesn't read and doesn't know that the German officer corps was actually fairly independent and repeatedly tried to kill the Fuehrer. What he actually wants is to have Putin's generals, who have no independence at all.
Neither of these should be acceptable candidates in a healthy country, and the heated rhetoric on the awfulness of their ideas is justified. It's just we're so inundated with heated rhetoric no one takes any of it seriously, and we're so far ahead of our nearest competitors that no amount of fuckuppery in our next term is gonna leave us anywhere other than number one by the time it's over.
I don’t Harris thinks that. She is just trying to get the stupid people among democrats on board. Equality of outcome would mean you take everyone’s wealth and distribute it to everyone and do the same with income. Not even sanders argues for that as far I know. The thing is whoever advises her will tell her that this kind of economic policy is stupid
She's like this in private, too. It's not about appealing to the base:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/politics/harris-racism-sexism-policies.html
If someone's a certain way in both public and private, what more inducation can there be than that is the way they are?
https://reason.com/2020/11/02/kamala-harris-equality-equity-outcomes/
Even if she wants equal outcomes there is no way no way she can achieve that goal. Also this was 2020 when she needed to convince the left in a primary. Equal outcomes are unconstitutional and have never been implemented anywhere let alone in the United States. It’s just phrase I think.
Nobody can achieve the goal, evdn if it was constitutional. It's why even though it's literally dumber than communism, it's not as dangerous, because people smart enough to attempt to implement it would realize how dumb the idea is and either give up on it or evolve their thinking to a more sophisticated, more dangerous philosophy. Marxism, for instance.
Yes I agree
Here’s my prediction. In a shocking near upset, an open borders libertarian will fall exactly one vote short of winning the election.
It is fine... Life goes on, either way
It is necessary to change the rules of elections. There are several options for implementing rational elections. This can be in the form of preliminary testing of candidates for power. Two tests are enough, for a certain level of knowledge and for the ability of the test subject to altruism. Only smart altruists will get into power. No party member will be able to pass such testing, although there are smart ones, but there are definitely no altruists. Six months after the elections, the parties will self-liquidate and disappear forever.
What sort of a test would be passable by altruists but not by non-altruists?
What doubts? Have you ever met selfless people in your life? I can recommend one of them, mathematician Grigori Perelman. It is absolutely certain that he will work only for the benefit of the majority of people, and not for himself or any groups. In the 21st century, it will not be difficult to create a test for a person's ability to altruism. There is only one problem - people's ignorance.
It's unfortunate that you don't understand what I'm saying.
Please explain what you mean?
Who says losing your august counsel for a week is "bad news"?
Not I.
I do.
So your 3rd party vote was cast due to Caplan's counsel? You're in worse shape than I thought...
My optimism comes largely from the fact that I don’t think it matters much who the president is. Am I wrong?
It always matters who the president is. We're just so rich and powerful that even bad presidents can't take us from number one to so much as number two. At least not anytime soon they can't.
Depends. Short term, no. Long term, oh yeah. You don't import immigrants; you adopt lineages.
True, but still sad regarding the state of the world