tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post132719833202889215..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: The Sore Loser British ElitesStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-41350521804155244272016-06-28T20:52:33.279-07:002016-06-28T20:52:33.279-07:00Ares, if you emerge from your burrow and see your ...Ares, if you emerge from your burrow and see your shadow, what happens? Do we get a vacation from your nonsense for six weeks?Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-57832090822966410992016-06-28T18:37:43.270-07:002016-06-28T18:37:43.270-07:00IAC: You believe what you believe 100%, yet questi...IAC: You believe what you believe 100%, yet question others' beliefs. <br /><br />I'm agnostic, and I'm constantly questioning my best understanding of the world, so if you see otherwise, perhaps its because I try to select more concrete examples when I can, where I can have some idea whether I'm saying anything real.<br /><br />IAC: Ares, what on earth is "irreversible" about Brexit?<br /><br />Well, the resigning PM Cameron is saying "no revote" for one, but its true, maybe if no one wants to be PM under Brexit, perhaps the UK will never bother invoking article 50, and say "Just kidding!"<br /><br />And assuming the UK does go through with leaving the EU on the 2 year schedule, you can be sure Europe isn't going to invite them back easily. <br /><br />Is there any likely world where the US would invite back Texas to the union after an imagined secession? Everyone loves Texas, but most of us can be very happy for them to be their own country. And then the U.S. Supreme court wouldn't keep overriding them.<br /><br />IAC: There is no such thing as a "bonding bill." <br />I was talking about the Minnesota Viking Stadium as an example of a long term public debt that has to be paid. And you're right people can default, as long as they're willing to abandon all future borrowing. Or maybe its like Trump's leverage - if you own the bank $500, its your problem. If you owe the bank 500 million, its the bank's problem?<br /><br />IAC: The Congress could end Social Security tomorrow if the president would sign the bill. There is no "trust fund"... it's a pay-as-you-go program.<br /><br />I agree there's no "trust fund", although there are promises made to future retirees, expressed in estimates for your benefits if you retire at a specific age, and assuming a projection of your future income.<br /><br />If we ended SS in 2030 when the imaginary surplus is empty, certainly something would have to replace it, given the vast needs it is providing. Although its Medicare that is the real dragon.<br />http://www.epi.org/blog/social-security-effective-anti-poverty-program/<br /><br />More likely than ending SS, its future comes down to not overpromising, so myself, I'd support chained CPI for cost of living adjustments to slow down the growth of payments over time, which seems sensible with an unknowable future. Obama supported it to the anger of his own party and got rare support Republican leaders.<br />https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/10/the-ins-and-outs-of-chained-cpi-explained/<br />-------<br />Who likes chained CPI?<br /><br />Republicans do. Even as GOP leaders slammed Obama's budget as a whole Wednesday, they found room to offer some praise for his approach to entitlements, which includes Social Security.<br /><br />"The President seems prepared to finally concede this time that at least something needs to be done to save entitlements from their inevitable slide toward bankruptcy," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Obama "does deserve some credit for some incremental entitlement reforms that he has outlined in his budget."<br />-----Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-38876254771318799382016-06-28T14:05:03.439-07:002016-06-28T14:05:03.439-07:00Ares, what on earth is "irreversible" ab...Ares, what on earth is "irreversible" about Brexit? There is no such thing as a "bonding bill." The Congress could end Social Security tomorrow if the president would sign the bill. There is no "trust fund"... it's a pay-as-you-go program. No enactments on any Congress are binding upon the next. A bond is a promise to pay, but people always have the choice to default and not pay it back. You can't make anyone do anything.<br /><br />You really are an interesting person. You believe what you believe 100%, yet question others' beliefs. That's not a open exchange, that's you trying to run the show. I am happy that Stuart deleted your comments today. They're pointless... it's like talking to a wall.Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-58276843727349354902016-06-28T08:14:54.393-07:002016-06-28T08:14:54.393-07:00IAC: A supermajority referendum is a rigged game, ...IAC: A supermajority referendum is a rigged game, designed to maintain the status quo. I'm sure you think it's okay, supposing you like the status quo... ostensibly because you're smarter than everyone else. Maybe we should have supermajorities for tax increases. Democrats don't usually like that idea. <br /><br />It probably would be a good idea to require supermajorities for bonding bills. I talked to my state rep awhile back how the Vikings got their billion dollar stadium half paid by state money, and she said it was a war of attrition. You can say no to lobbyists 10 years in a row, but if they have one good year with 51% purple pride, taxpayers suddenly have 40 years of debt obligations, so people who are not even born yet will be paying for it.<br /><br />But in general, anything that has multidecade consequences should be set to a higher standard than 50%+1 of direct democracy.<br /><br />Status quo is a troublesome place, an unfair advantage, but its also about honoring past promises, and generating trust that people know what to expect in the future and don't have to worry about fickle majorities flip-flopping all the time.<br /><br />Ideally for me, I believe in the right to make mistakes, and especially when nervous nellies tell you the sky will fall if you act progressive, different than the past, rather than conservative, and sticking to what you know works. But when mistakes are fatal and irreversible, myself, I'm on the conservative side. <br /><br />Or if I think status quo is going to break anyway, then I'd like to start small and experiment with parallel systems that don't burn all the old bridges before I'm confident I'm ready to move forward.<br /><br />But I understand the value of burning bridges too, at least symbolically, like when you have addictions, and you don't trust yourself to say no to the lure of your next fix. So you can accept you'll be more miserable for a while, and stay away from your enabling friends who don't understand.<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-61218667531154610042016-06-27T20:21:50.790-07:002016-06-27T20:21:50.790-07:00A super-majority threshold is a rule, Ares. It'...A super-majority threshold is a rule, Ares. It's what we use to admit a state, impeach a president/judge, pass an Amendment to the Constitution or in the Senate invoking cloture. Those are the rules, and they're in place to ensure stability. These are constitutional rules, not democratic rules. Democracy is the rule of the majority. <br /><br />A supermajority referendum is a rigged game, designed to maintain the status quo. I'm sure you think it's okay, supposing you like the status quo... ostensibly because you're smarter than everyone else. Maybe we should have supermajorities for tax increases. Democrats don't usually like that idea. <br /><br />The reaction we're seeing to Brexit is the latest in elitist apoplexy. It is amusing to watch. Given the way the French and German leaders are reacting today (doubling down on EU-squared), I'd say the British made the right move... or at least the majority of them did. <br /><br />So, once again, democracy is majority rule. If you want to put in some kind of constitutional limitation or process threshold that is requires more than 50%, that's a constitutional limit. But it's not pure democracy. A referendum is direct democracy. We don't have that at the national level in America because we are a constitutionally-limited federal republic. That's why we have structures like the Electiral College... thank God. <br /><br />You said it wasn't democracy, but "something a little smaller." That's silly. It's still democracy. And majorities make democracy work. When there are arbitrary barriers or rules that prohibit change, produced and levied ad hoc, people get mad. You were never going to have a supermajority threshold for Brexit. <br /><br />And the Scots are on their way out. They like being subsidized, and the EU represents deeper pockets I hope the Quebeqois want to leave Canada, too... good riddance. Maybe Vermont will secede, too. <br /><br />Overreach by the Ruling Class may lead to the reinforcement or redefinition of the nation-state. This may lead to disintegration of polities into smaller states or regional authorities. I can see the United States breaking up in the next 20 years if this Ruling Class trend continues. People aren't going to put up with this incessant national, political and cultural transformation against their will. Courts are not democratic bodies, they are legal institutions, and they have grown far too powerful. If the Suoreme Court is to continue to be as powerful as it has become in the last 50-69 years -- as a Ruling Class rubber stamp -- the Justices should be elected. Or are the people too stupid to choose their own justices, Ares?Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-80881196598921304942016-06-27T19:33:34.532-07:002016-06-27T19:33:34.532-07:00IAC: Ares, democracy IS majority rule.
No, actua...IAC: Ares, democracy IS majority rule. <br /><br />No, actually you don't need simple (50%) majority rule. You can have super-majority rule, like 60% for instance. So if today we need to 60% agree on a course of action and that is reached, we can also agree it'll take 60% tomorrow to completely change that course.<br /><br />In contrast, if a direct democracy 50.0001% agree today to steer north, and tomorrow 50.0001% agree to steer south, if we have only one ship, we're not going to get very far, especially if every change of direction costs billions of dollars.<br /><br />Of course the problem with super-majorities is when a threshold of people fail to agree to any single course of action, then the Titanic keeps sailing towards the iceberg. So that's when we need a bold captain to change course on her own wisdom, and submit herself to the courts for constitutionality complaints later when the imminent danger is avoided.<br /><br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-35425136502894503822016-06-27T13:50:11.809-07:002016-06-27T13:50:11.809-07:00"In fact there's a phrase called "Ty..."In fact there's a phrase called "Tyranny of the majority" that isn't just about "sore losers" but a pragmatic reality that 50.000001% are not always better informed and prudent than 49.99999%."<br /><br />So who's going to figure it out for them? You? You're the "better informed and prudent?" My, my you are arrogant!Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-48749543966838872252016-06-27T11:48:51.886-07:002016-06-27T11:48:51.886-07:00Ares Olympus @June 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM:
"Act...Ares Olympus @June 27, 2016 at 5:21 AM:<br /><br />"Actually 51.9% of people voted for Brexit, so what we have isn't "democracy" but something a little smaller called "Majority rule.""<br /><br />Ares, democracy IS majority rule. Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18222603717128565302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-50724980923154945892016-06-27T09:20:04.053-07:002016-06-27T09:20:04.053-07:00Amazingly, the super-financial class and the so-ca...Amazingly, the super-financial class and the so-called Left are agreed on Bremain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-2432296657608074362016-06-27T09:13:07.028-07:002016-06-27T09:13:07.028-07:00Have the pro-EU Brits just move to EU... or Africa...Have the pro-EU Brits just move to EU... or Africa or the Middle East since that is what EU is turning into.<br /><br />They don't have to stay in the UK is they prefer the EU or the World.<br /><br />Funny that those who voted 'Leave' want to remain in Britain, whereas those who voted 'Remain' would do better to leave the UK.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-67510056591923849812016-06-27T09:07:15.752-07:002016-06-27T09:07:15.752-07:00Meanwhile...
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/colum...Meanwhile...<br /><br />http://heatst.com/culture-wars/columbias-mattress-girl-awarded-woman-of-courage-award/?mod=sm_tw_postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-52005147310114910122016-06-27T05:21:05.585-07:002016-06-27T05:21:05.585-07:00Stuart: People voted for Brexit because the ruling...Stuart: People voted for Brexit because the ruling classes had been ignoring them. <br /><br />Actually 51.9% of people voted for Brexit, so what we have isn't "democracy" but something a little smaller called "Majority rule."<br /><br />In fact there's a phrase called "Tyranny of the majority" that isn't just about "sore losers" but a pragmatic reality that 50.000001% are not always better informed and prudent than 49.99999%.<br /><br />If 51% could cause Texas to secede from our union, you can be sure Texas would now be its own country. And perhaps Minnesota would have joined Canada.<br /><br />I agree a "revote" is a wrong answer, the same wrong answer that produces "recall elections" that usually produce the same results as the original election if nothing has changed, but also we can consider that the referendum is more of a sign of discontent than certainty about a destination, so perhaps in the next 2 years, better ideas will come along that will allow the UK a final chance to stay.<br /><br />I know, its unlikely, and no one likes limboland, and once the grain of sands started sliding toward "leave", its easier to follow that course with a strong leader who believes in it, and take what happens.<br /><br />People have regret all the time. Regret by the minority side is expected. But there may also be future regret by the leaving side, when the EU starts setting up its own walls that make their choices smaller, whether pettiness or practicality of the EU needing to take care of its own now.<br /><br />Anyway, next stop, referendum for Scotland's independence, right? The United Kingdom will soon be tested how united it really is.<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.com