e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
Sometimes when I uncover some obscure fact, I want to ensure that other persons can find it without having to go through the tedious research I had to undergo. But that's a matter of degree, innit?

Some levels of accessibility of a given proven fact (to a random American), in approximately descending order:

 –  Takes seven seconds of Googling.

 –  On the Wikipedia page.

 –  In every book on the subject, incredibly basic part of the field.

 –  Most undergrads in the field can tell you.

 –  Most everyone who works in the field can tell you.

 –  Most everyone who works in the field can figure it out in short order, because either one of their colleagues knows it or it's in one of the well-known and respected books.

 –  You have to spend a day at the library, plus another day once the book you've requested from the Harvard Depository arrives.

 –  You have to check the indices of all 72 books on the subject at the Library of Congress.

 –  You have to check the indices of all 1137 books on the subject, and the one you need is at some random university library thirteen hundred miles away.

 –  It's randomly buried in an obscure book on the subject, and not indexed in any way.

 –  It's randomly buried in some random book in the university stacks.

 –  It's randomly buried in some random book somewhere.

 –  Not extant.



e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
Epistemic status: Might not even be internally consistent.

Any littering is bad, so I don't litter. But why do I do things that have no impact unless tons of persons do it? I vote for President, I turn off the water while I brush my teeth even when an institution is paying the water bill, I put scrap paper into the recycling bin, and so on. Such actions have a couple benefits:

- If I ever want to convince someone to do it, it's easier if I'm also doing it. (I guess I could wait until that exact moment to make a pact with them  –  "I'll do it if you will"  –  but who cares.) 

- If people see me doing it, it seems more normal and societally expected of them.

- Virtue signaling.

"But Jo, but Jo! Haven't you stolen a tiny piece of the Berlin Wall from a museum?"

If everyone starts doing that, I'll return my piece.

"Haven't you walked on the back lawn of Queens' College?"

If everyone starts doing that, I'll stop.

"Haven't you checked out a very demanded book from the library?"

I returned it as soon as I'd finished reading it, and I attained my priority in checking it out via the equally applied library procedure (which in this case was simply requesting it early).

"Haven't you visited a national park?"

If everyone were doing that, I wouldn't  –  and in fact probably wouldn't be able to, because one hopes the Forest Service would put a cap on visiting (if they haven't already).

"Haven't you entered Classroom B at 11:14 on Tuesday the Sixteenth of March 2019?"

If everyone were doing that, I wouldn't. Thanks for such a friendly PoI.

"Happy to help. But let's go in a different direction. You vote, because if a few million people do the same, that might tip the election. But you don't boycott Coca-Cola, even though if a few million people did that then that might make them use more humane practices."

Hm. Maybe I firmly avoid doing negative harmful-only-in-aggregate acts iff other persons are doing them; and I will sometimes, to be a nice guy and a proper young lady, elect to do positive helpful-only-in-aggregate acts whether or not other persons are doing them; and if tons of other persons are doing helpful-only-in-aggregate acts, then I'm even more likely to do them. (There is no objective ethical difference between a positive act and an omission, but in my life I recognize a difference between the two simply as a matter of practical morality.)

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 The person who wrote the Biblical Book of James is the 'Jacobean Epistolist'.
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 Whether or not Julius Caesar provably referred to himself using the Latin noun 'Imperator' has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was an emperor.

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 To begin with, the United States of America is not a nation, nor, indeed, has it ever been; so it's a bit inaccurate to call any song our National Anthem. Nobody calls a certain extract from 'Ode to Joy' a National Anthem, although *its* Union also has a shared identity and federal government. (And indeed, I cannot help but suspect that the occasional Scot bristles at hearing 'God Save the Queen' referred to as the "National Anthem", for Scotland stands its own nation although Westminster's parsimonious condescension of devolution does not allow it to be a sovereign state.) What, then, to call the patriotic song which we elevate to be the highest, standard, and default musical representation of our country? Dr Devereaux, given his splendid take on why we are not a nation (https://acoup.blog/2021/07/02/collections-my-country-isnt-a-nation/), might suggest 'civic anthem'. Works for me!

 

Alright, so we should have a Civic Anthem. Luckily we've already got one, right? The 'Star-Spangled Banner'! But I am here to propose that we use another song.

Downsides of the 'Star-Spangled Banner': you cannot competently sing it unless you are an *unusually* skilled singer, it is about a single battle in a single war which we didn't super win (weep slightly for the Library of Congress), and it's got a vibe of soft-clad caressing angels rather than, well, anything practical. Also, it talks about relatively few American values: freedom, bravery, and the literal flag.

(I *would* say that an indictment of the song is that nobody even knows more than the first verse, but then again a minority of Americans could recite any of the Battle Hymn of the Republic.)

The catch is that I don't know what other song we should use.

 

Aaron Copland's 'Fanfare for the Common Man' is good, but, well, no lyrics. Also it isn't as soaring as I'd prefer.

 

Caesarsaladinn says: "the Battle Hymn of the Republic is...unironically really good and would be a much better U.S. national anthem. it’s catchy, energetic, strong in rhythm and rhyme, easy to sing, and is a reminder of this country’s most righteous moment. the overt Christianity is unfortunate, but not out of place in political rhetoric, just saying the quiet part out loud imo."

I think that the Battle Hymn of the Republic should remain exactly that. If ever I am mowed down in a hail of bullets in the course of defending my homeland from military threat, I can think of no more fitting song to accompany the releasing of my soul; so too is it a derned rousing chant as you march off to a glorious death. But yeah, it's not secular, and it's pretty martially focused. I must emphasize that good sense, good taste, and possibly even law all require that the anthem of any polity with an Establishment Clause be wholly secular!

 

Caesarsaladinn also suggests that "The Battle Cry of Freedom is even more sing-along-able, totally secular, equally righteous, and only needs a few words changed to make it timeless instead of 1860s-specific. the poetry of the lyrics is worse (and pretty repetitive), but still worlds better than the current anthem, and could be improved with a little effort. it’s a strong contender".

Hm, if we want to improve the lyrics, what might we want to improve?

 

Difficulties include:

 –  How domestic we want our battles to be. Many Americans are of the opinion that we should not be the world's policeman, although in practice the US has been quite imperial since the days of Monroe. Of course, many Americans are also of the opinion that our guns should not sit idle while residents of some far-off land are getting massacred (recall that Captain America fights by throwing his shield). And then there's the quagmire of how violent we're willing to get in distant regions to protect our economic interests... Given this mess, I think the song should not take a stance on this particular issue, but rather leave it ambiguous.

 –  The fact that we actually still have slavery, it's just illegal now. We have eliminated perhaps 99% of slavery in the US, not counting when the court inaccurately rules someone as having consented to the performance of labour (eg, forged contracts, innocent persons sentenced to hard labor); obviously, that's a huge achievement, and we should celebrate everyone who worked for it, but the asymptote hasn't *quite* hit zero and I would prefer that each detail of our anthem be at least vaguely accurate.

 –  The fact that the US constantly fails to live up to its ideals. I do not consider that to be a real objection to the Anthem. Of *course* we fail to live up to our ideals; if we didn't, that would be a big sign that our ideals aren't ambitious enough. Also, nobody ever said that ideals are the same thing as present behavior.

 –  As Caesarsaladinn says, the repetition. That can be fixed by a decent poet.

 –  Also as Caesarsaladinn says, it's a bit focused on the Civil War, which please Lord I won't have to go back and edit to say "the first Civil War".

 –  The unfortunately forced rhyme between 'hurrah' and 'stars'.

 –  The slight paucity of American values. American values that *are* in the song include: our weird love for the literal flag, freedom, our willingness to fight martially for freedom, our willingness to fight martially for the unity of the Union, heroism (albeit possibly a non-individualistic ideal of such, perhaps unlike our norm), a dislike for the Confederacy (and probably by extension traitors to the Union...but not traitors to the British Empire, ahem), that our ancestors (or at least forebears) fought the same fight which we are continuing, loyalty, nobility, bravery, abolitionism, possibly willingness to let noble people become Americans, possibly respect for the poor, national identity covering a wide geographic territory from sea to shining sea, and that America is our favorite country. American values (thanks to https://www.state.gov/courses/answeringdifficultquestions/assets/m/resources/DifficultQuestions-AmericanValues.pdf and https://www.fordham.edu/download/downloads/id/3193/values_americans_live_by.pdf) *not* (very explicitly) in the song include: any civil liberty besides lack of slavery (especially freedom of speech), republican democracy, separation of powers, federalism, immigration, immigration for one's own ancestors and for nobody later, having the most powerful military on God's green Earth, (more explicitly) melting pots, American literature, America's natural scenery, unsurpassed wealth and natural resources, Christianity, religious freedom, rebellion against the British Empire, beating the Nazis, capitalism and free markets, ACTUAL rule of law (I'm looking at you, Parliamentary sovereignty), invention, innovation, nuclear families and single-family homes, cars and automobile-centric transportation infrastructure, American television and cinematic hegemony, individualism and atomization and self-determination, self-reliance and self-sufficiency, government minding its own d--n business, guns and fireworks, equal opportunity without ever guaranteeing equality of outcome, a lack of predicating self-worth on class combined with a moderate denial of existing class divides, certain sports, Boy Scouts, consensual charity, meritocracy, friendliness, racism, racial equality, Great Men (who are certainly permitted to be women), protection of property, consumerism and materialism, paranoia regarding government power, productivity which is quantifiable ideally in monetary terms, dominance of man over nature, competitiveness, *relative* lack of deference to tradition, the Protestant work ethic, possibly pragmatism, big business and small businesses, being tough on crime (though notably less so than many other countries), relatively little formality with much of formality being in a casual/social/friendly style (eg, down-home Southern belle etiquette), and taming nature to man's ends.

 –  Many feminists' inevitable objection to using 'brothers' and 'man', although to a small extent this is historically accurate as few women fought in the US military until relatively recently.

 –  The fact that it doesn't talk about how we WENT TO THE G-DD--N MOON.

 

But honestly, fixing all that would be massively overhauling the song. We might just want to come up with a new song entirely. Give John Williams a check for a hundred grand, open up a contest for the lyrics, and Lord Salisbury's your uncle.

 

We could, of course, simply choose 'Yankee Doodle', but while I'm all for reclamation I think we have to draw the line somewhere.

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
To the persons who claim that collecting first editions is worthwhile because first editions are the versions closest to the author's hand and therefore best reflect the author's intention, I give this quote from the first edition of Hamlet:


"To be or not to be, ay, there's the point"


e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 Most everyone thinks that everyone else's religious beliefs are false.
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 

The "consent of the governed" is somewhat true even when it is without the consent of 49% of the governed, because a ton of citizens of democracies in real life feel some sort of "Well, I guess it is us making this decision" even when they're in the 49%. They are consenting only because they think they're consenting. Like fairy magic and abstract currency, it works only because they believe in it. 


Of course, many people don't believe this, especially when the 51% has voted for their imprisonment or extermination. That's where it's really just a polite fiction resulting from a self-deceiving attempt to rationalise to yourself that forcibly imprisoning people is done with your victims' consent. 


"So, uh, are you just opposed to majoritarian democracy?" No! I like majoritarian democracy (or at least support it due to its status as one of the lesser evils). I just justify it because it results in good things without causing too much suffering, rather than dishonestly shoehorning it through some kind of libertarian natural-rights "And so you see, by not walking into the ocean, they consent to be governed by our laws" ethical kludgery.


Join utilitarianism! We have cookies, and you're allowed to eat them even if your only purpose in doing so is because it gives you pleasure!

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
Confusingly, when we use the adjective 'legal' or the verb 'to legalize', we mean one of two things:

The government does not order its subjects to refrain from something.

The government does not state its recognition of something which it considers to be true and will act on.


Owning guns, juggling beanbags, smoking cigarettes, flipping off your grandmother, consensually kissing people (outside of covid), complaining about corrupt mayors, reading War and Peace, eating carrots, swearing at random pedestrians, and collecting stamps are all the first kind of legal.

My parents' marriage, my name, my birthday, the Marquis de Lafayette's US citizenship, the current occupation of Joseph Robinette Biden Junior, my eye color, my mother's height, OJ Simpson's innocence of the criminal offense of murder, my right to freedom of worship, and Tara Westover's birthday are all the second kind of legal.


The opposite of the first kind of legal is when something is illegal, aka unlawful, meaning that the government has prohibited it. Most illegal things are things for which the government can punish you.

The opposite of the second kind of legal is when something is extralegal, aka nonlegal, meaning that the government has no opinion on it. The government doesn't 'sanction' it in either sense of the verb. 


Robbing banks, hunting peasants for sport, smoking marijuana, malicious untrue defamation that will probably be believed, nonconsensually kissing people, throwing bricks through shop windows, stealing from investors, and poaching are all illegal.

My friend's relationship with her girlfriend, my nickname, Tara Westover's actual birthday, the proposition that I committed a crime four years ago, my religion or lack thereof, the color you temporarily dyed your hair for Halloween, which novel is my favorite, the weakness of Sauruman, my incredible inabilities in the area of jazz dancing, whom I voted for Homecoming Queen, and whether OJ Simpson committed the criminal offense of murder are all nonlegal.


So. When you say that the government legalized same-sex marriage, you mean the second kind of legal. You don't mean the first kind of legal, because the government did that, uh, forever ago, or at the latest 2003 (or 1967 if you're in Merrie England). If you live in 2014 Georgia and you are in a same-sex marriage, the government of Georgia has not declared your marriage illegal. You are not going to be arrested and imprisoned for being in it. The government of Georgia has refused to recognize your marriage; it is nonlegal, not illegal


Why do I care about this? Two reasons.

First, a marriage can exist and be valid even if the government doesn't recognize it. Two slaves jumping over the broom were in a marriage whether or not their owners deigned to recognize it. Same-sex married couples in 2014 Georgia were married whether or not the government gave them tax benefits. To say that a romantic commitment does not exist, merely because the people we've voted to hold the biggest guns don't happen to agree, is nonsense. 

Second, you are being darned insensitive if the government allows your marriage but doesn't afford it special rights and you say that that's basically the same thing as your relationship being criminalized. Until 2003, same-sex sexual intercourse was a crime in much of the United States. As I write this, on 29 May 2023, polygamous marriage is a felony (but not really enforced, thank God, unless you have some problem with being deported). If the government refuses to recognize your marriage as valid for some asinine reason of bigotry, that's an unacceptable indignity which is by right beneath you; but for G-d's sake, you're not being sentenced to the Reading Gaol here. (Lack of legal recognition can result in suffering worse than going to jail for a few years, but that's not automatic.) They're two different things! 


And that's why I refer to 'legally recognizing same-sex marriage' when everyone else says 'legalizing same-sex marriage'.

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 

People often say that the value of the humanities is that it enriches your soul and teaches how to live your life; the usual argument against that is that it's difficult to see how such goals are accomplished by way of assigning essays regarding symbolism that might be in a boring novel written about rich people by a dead guy.


Well, I have a very expensive piece of paper on a frame behind my desk that says "Jo" and also "English" and also the name of a prestigious institution of higher learning. I don't totally regret it, even though I proooobably should have just applied to UCL law straight outta high school. Here are some benefits of being an English major that I've noticed.


One benefit. You go to an English class, the professor says, "Here are a bunch of social conditions in England" and then you read a novel set in the social conditions of England, and the professor talks about the author's background and how his upbringing probably affected the novel. So you've read an interesting novel, and your reading has been greatly enriched by having all this background knowledge about its setting, its purpose, and the process of its creation. Maybe not worth eight thousand dollars. But not a bad use of time.


Another benefit. "Oh, that's what it feels like to choose the right thing over the evil moral compass which you were raised to have." (Admittedly, 99% of people who read, eg, Huckleberry Finn then say "Good thing my political beliefs are flawless and I don't have to question them like residents of slaveholding societies should have questioned theirs!") Theoretically this can be better accomplished by nonfiction, but some of the best books in this department happen to be (heavily based on reality) fiction.


Another benefit. Someone writes an essay saying that, whether it's intentional or not, a certain novel works surprisingly well as a metaphor for becoming a blacksmith. They could afford the time to write this essay because they get paid to do it; their salary is in part funded by forcing total strangers to pay for it or go to jail. So there's an interesting take on an interesting book. Maybe not worth forcing people to pay for it on pain of imprisonment. But not a bad use of resources. And it's a miniscule fraction of the government's budget anyway.


Another benefit. "Wow, I never would have slogged through this book if I hadn't signed up to be forced to finish it!"

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)

For all of the extremely worrying problems regarding AI-created "art", I nevertheless am very annoyed by the human artists who are saying "The purpose of novels and paintings isn't to enrich people's lives and instill them with a sense of beauty and make the world a better place, but rather to increase my personal bank account, since I am entitled to a monopoly over the creation of pretty pictures."

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)

I would be fine with:

a) "To heck with equal opportunity, we want racial equality in higher education. Universities should have a racial quota in proportion with the population. There are enough sufficiently Ravenclaw blacks to occupy twelve percent of Harvard and Yale and every other school without flunking out. I get that the Fourteenth Amendment is an obstacle to this, so either universities will have to sacrifice state funding or we'll need to pass a Constitutional amendment allowing equality-of-outcome quotas."

b) "Look, we all want more racial diversity, but telling someone that they cannot attend an institution of higher learning but for their race is just unacceptable."

c) "Look, just 'cause Nazi Germany banned something because it was too beneficial to allegedly inferior races doesn't mean that we should allow it. And hey, a rich history of *American* antiSemitism also just *happens* to agree with me!"

I would be less fine with:

d) "Okay, admittedly having a firm racial quota means using government funds to tell people 'I don't care how qualified you are, if you people were all Feynman and Shakespeare put together we'd *still* reject you, because we simply cannot have more than eight percent Jews; if you were a member of a different race, you would be admitted, but too bad.' But it's necessary to *attain* racial equality. And hey, what's more 'Equal Protection' than proactive positive discrimination?"

e) "Racial diversity is a valid criterion as to the quality of a student body, and if you receive tax funding you can totally have it be a factor in admissions, as long as it isn't a big factor. Tax-funded racial segregation is totally fine as long as it creates a better community. What Fourteenth Amendment?"

f) "We use objective, race-neutral measurements of academic potential to evaluate applicants. Which measurements? Oh, we choose them based on which ones give the most advantage to whatever races we want to accept."

g) "You know what's good for fighting class and racial disparities? Predicating educational opportunities on face-to-face interviews, secondary schooling, extracurricular activities, and take-home assignments."

h) "Why are we searching for broadly popular solutions that would help oppressed minorities today, when we can easily convince a Republican Congress to end all root causes of racial disparity among college applicants?"

I would be even less fine with:

i) "Racial diversity is a valid criterion as to the quality of a student body, and if you receive tax funding you can totally have it be a factor, but it can't be a *big* factor. Also, you're not allowed to use a consistent algorithm that clearly shows exactly how much of a factor it is."

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)

(a la https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/06/17/slightly-skew-systems-of-government/)


In the jurisprudence of the American Empire, it was verboten to specify numerically what a "reasonable doubt" is in the area of criminal convictions. The Dominion of Australia thought this was a cowardly way of covering up the injustices of their system, and held a vote to determine how certain you had to be. Article IV of the DoA Constitution thus said that no one may be convicted of an offence unless a judge or jury has decided that if there were one hundred cases with this evidence then no more than one of them would have an innocent defendant. The Constitutional Convention thought that this struck a good balance between minimising harm to innocents while still ensuring that some criminals got convicted. After a decade of this, some activists ran the numbers and cried that, statistically speaking, there were now ten thousand innocent people in prison. Fortunately for the public prosecuting service, however, nobody knew who those innocent people were, and any given convict was 99% likely to not be one of them. 


The Free City of Boston has a much smaller distinction between torts and criminal offences than we do. Literally anyone can prosecute a crime, provided they have a lawyer. (You do have to give the public prosecution service a few months to see if they want to handle it.) They don't get paid to prosecute it, unless they're an actual employed public prosecutor, but they can prosecute if they want to. It's often done by activist groups who think that the DA is shamefully letting some terrible person get away with it. 

(This is actually rather similar to Conquest-through-Renaissance prosecution in England.)

(Update: Turns out this was already suggested by David Friedman!)


The Grand Commonwealth of the American West wanted to avoid tragedies of the commons as regards the landscape which formed its raison d'etre, and so its constitutional convention sent a delegation to the Great Boston Library to read up on Georgism. Eventually, they announced that all land, air, and water were outright by the government, which would contract out use thereof to the most cost-effective private distributors. They immediately ran into the problem of heavily bribed legislators selling destructive use of irreplaceable landscapes to money-grabbing corporations, and over the course of three terms of office enacted a patchwork of overlapping laws that succeeded in more or less protecting most of the really valuable natural resources from permanent damage. Eventually the sovereign polity known as the Nature Conservancy recommended some of their own lawyers from Boston and Europe, and the Commonwealth government hired said lawyers to write a constitutional amendment which barred any permanently deleterious effects to natural resources without a supermajority vote, no loopholes. This finally worked, and the Grand Commonwealth is renowned for its rugged beauty to this day.


After the highly controversial effects that WWIV had on the Levant, many Israelis decided to pack up and move. While Boston was of course a popular choice, and countries all over the world proved to be fertile grounds for the latest diaspora, many Israelis were drawn to the tiny community in India which claimed to be a descendant of the Ten Lost Tribes. The inevitable attempt to codify talmudic law failed, however, for one reason: it transpired that sometime in the past fifty years, the community had decided that since their exile from Israel predated the Mishnaic period, they ought therefore to use only the Mosaic Law as written in the Pentateuch. The resulting explosion of interpretation kept scholars extremely busy for some one hundred years until a basic functioning legal code had been decided; in the intervening period, the community maintained order via a kritocracy which used English Common Law as its base.


The highly impoverished nation of Eastern Cabinda had been granted many printing presses by the Free City of Boston's foreign aid programs, but unfortunately had no other kind of printing press to make currency with; the result was that anyone with a press could perfectly forge money. First the government considered seizing all printing presses in the country via eminent domain, but the Free City had explicitly banned this approach, threatening to withdraw any future foreign aid. International trade regulations precluded hiring a foreign printer. The government then decided to simply buy a special printing press that ordinary presses could not match, but ironically did not have the resources for it. Exportation of fabbers to developing nations was highly regulated, but a charity in Puget Sound without a good lawyer thought they could get around the regulations by donating a fabber which, though it could use any substance as material, was carefully built so as to not be capable of generating anything but six-inch strips of unforgeable paper saying "ONE EASTERN CABINDAN DOLLAR". Eastern Cabinda quickly realised that having a fiat currency was far less valuable than having the ability to convert garbage into paper; within a year, houses were thatched with bills, clothes were sewn from them, and fishing nets were painstakingly woven from them. The Puget Sound charity found itself facing a great deal of public embarrassment, not to mention heavy fines, but it proved to be a great boon for Eastern Cabinda, which had switched to using gold as currency and later adopted the euro.


The Kingdom of England had come under a lot of flak for its department of child protection, which had a track record of needlessly removing children from perfectly fine parents while simultaneously neglecting to remove children from illegally abusive parents. When sued, the department said, "Whoa whoa, man; first you're saying that we're taking too many children away from their parents, and then you say we're taking away not enough? Make up your mind, man! This is, like, a Catch-22! You can't expect us to actually be competent at our jobs. That would be totally unfair. Imagine if you handed a soldier a loaded gun and told him that he has to shoot enemies, but can't shoot anyone who's not an enemy! If he then started refusing to shoot enemies while simultaneously shooting innocents, you wouldn't be mad at him, would you?" The courts agreed that this would indeed be too high a burden on the poor department, and let them off scot-free. (The judges said that the soldier argument was a brilliant comparison, as it was indeed a rich English tradition to let soldiers get away with massacring civilians as long as the victims were of undesired ethnicities.) However, a later election put a very left-wing element into power. The new House of Commons said, "The government will guarantee that children not be in abusive households. Our agency will endeavour to remove children from illegally abusive parents. Wherever and whenever the agency fails in this task, the child in question can (when an adult) apply for compensation in the form of suing the agency in the tort of negligence." This new initiative cost quite a bit of tax funds, but did increase the efficiency of the agency once the agency's pensions were made to come out of the same budget as the reimbursement fund.


Greater Pennsylvania, before its independence, had tended to have matters of law decided by judges and matters of fact decided by juries. However, many issues of statutory interpretation, as well as many suits in tort, depended on what the "reasonable person" would think to be the case, or on the abilities of the "reasonable person". It made no sense, said the Greater Pennsylvanian jurists, for questions of what the "reasonable person" thinks to be a matter for educated elite judges, when we already have the institutional infrastructure to poll twelve ordinary citizens. The Superior Court of Greater Pennsylvania thus ruled that all questions of the "reasonable person" must be decided by juries. There was subsequent controversy over how much precedential value such rulings had (for example, presumably the average person's ability to drive a manual transmission changes over time), but the real difficulty began when the juries started saying, "Sure, I'm a reasonable person, and I've definitely texted while driving before."

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
Yes, I spelled it that way on purpose.

I basically take the Clement Attlee stance. We're always going to have patriotic zealots pouring nationalistic hero-worship at the head of state. If we're lucky, said head of state will be some totally powerless figurehead who can't combine that hero-worship with actual power to start wars. If we're unlucky, said head of state will have significant legal powers, and will combine populist kowtowing with their formal governmental prerogatives in order to invade Canada or exterminate undesirables or what have you. Right now, a significant portion of Tory ride-or-die loyalty is directed at a man who has no actual power whatsoever; can you imagine if all of that was redirected at Rishi Sunak? 


I'm not saying that monarchy is always a good thing. But it is one way to avoid George W Bush. 


(There is a balancing act. We want the monarch to be sufficiently legitimate-appearing that he actually gets the hero-worship. But we also want him to be so blatantly illegitimate that he doesn't dare step a foot out of line lest he be introduced to le louison. The British are gradually realising that monarchs are just corrupt randos, which is unfortunate for this balancing act. Perhaps we should take the Irish/German route and elect our powerless figurehead. Or we could have some sort of elaborate selection process  –  that would be fun to design.)


Another benefit: they're great for building unity! Because Lizzie 2 was an apolitical sweet old lady (mild racism notwithstanding), everyone could get behind her. We pay these idiots less than the Red Sox, and in exchange they give us decades of photo ops, handshaking, and senile smiles  –  that actually work. Even if we'd squeeze just as much money from tourists after guillotining the royal family and expropriating the Sovereign properties, we get half our national unity for less than the cost of a baseball team. As patriotism-building exercises go, the Mountbatten-Windsors are an incredible bargain. 


Also, don't Americans love parades? Yes we do.

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 

Once upon a time, there was a knight who had never slain dragons by his own hand. He was an immensely clever knight, one of the cleverest of all, but he did not care to shoot or slice his way to a better world (and it was not where the peak of his talents lay anyway). He did his good, and earned knighthood in the process, by crafting a mirror. The mirror was called the Discworld.

The mirror Discworld was crafted in an intricate fashion that was a certain kind of beautiful and which could only be crafted by someone as skilled as Sir Pterry (for that was the knight’s name). It reflected many things, but what it reflected most of all was the Earth, and the parts of Earth that it most reflected was human nature trying to squeeze itself into a society.

The mirror was not a perfect one; it magnified some parts of the reflection, while other parts were misty and hard to make out. But this was still useful, for the magnification showed people parts of their Earth that they had never before noticed, and which they had certainly never considered that way.

As the mirror was pleasing to look at for its carving alone, let alone the reflections it gave, Sir Pterry was given his knighthood for his services to the world through art.

He did not live happily ever after, for he died before his threescore and ten; but he lived happily until then, and his legacy lived forever after. And although I never met him, I suspect rather strongly that he would have preferred that to the other way around.


e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 

(Title taken from the Tom Lehrer song.)

Some people say that we ought to refer to slaves as 'enslaved people', because that emphasizes their humanity.

As someone descended from Confederate soldiers, I am VERY reluctant to adopt any kind of euphemism regarding the Peculiar Institution. However, it's polite to call a group what they want to be called, so I will grudgingly defer to them. If some survey conducted by Amnesty International or whatever says that they prefer 'enslaved people', then I will accede to that.

I strongly suspect that it is bad in the long-term, since it is bad to use softened terms to describe horrible evils. But it is polite to call a group what they want to be called. It is important to me that I am called by my proper name which I choose to bear, and so it would be very rude of me to not honor that wish when others have it. (I mean, we say "He's a plumber", but we would cease if he objected to it.)

Possibly more concerning, however, is that it looks like most of the people arguing for this change in nomenclature haven't actually asked (former) victims of human trafficking how they feel about it? Even more concerning is that it looks like it hasn't even occurred to them that they ought to ask? Hopefully I'm just missing something.
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
“Royal Propagandist!”
“Yes, Lord Solomon?”
“We have more problems with national unity. The Southerners are saying we originated in Egypt, while the Northerners are saying we originated from a wandering Aramaen. I need you to figure out some way that both can be true.”
“Certainly, my lord.”
“And in the process, make my tribe look better than the other eleven.”
“Yes, my lord.”
“Say, what tribe are you from, again? You’re from the one that doesn’t count, right?”
“Yes, O King; I am bat Joseph.”

Utopia-13

Apr. 13th, 2023 03:55 pm
e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 

Ozy Brennan once wrote about a day in "Ozy's utopia which is designed for Ozy". I thought maybe I should write something about Jo's utopia. 

Unusually for Utopia, I am writing this under many constraints. Well, actually, that's pretty usual for Utopia. Unusually for Utopia, I am knowingly and deliberately writing this under many constraints. To begin with, this utopia is located in a universe that allows moderately hard SF and no fantasy; if you would like to see what my utopia might look like in a fantasy world, several options are in various works of my fiction. Second, this utopia is located in a near future  –  culturally near, if not necessarily chronologically near: human nature is basically as we Americans know it, and the world is pretty recognisable as a development of our own, and it isn't completely alien or bizarre to our eyes; realistically, this utopia world would develop into something totally alien and bizarre pretty quickly (from their perspective), but we're looking in at a point where things are still kind of normal. Because of that, this Utopia actually still contains great suffering, and the residents of its Utopia would look at it as a terrible place where few of them would want to live.

I will refer to the world you live in as Earth-2, and this new imaginary world as Utopia-13.

In Utopia-13, all basic material subsistence needs, such as food and water, can be provided by cheap, small gadgets that can last tens of thousands of years without maintenance. They are made by a very complicated global supply chain, because that's the cheapest way of making them, but bright minds have figured out how to manufacture them in the event of an apocalypse, and such instructions have been carefully written in countless formats in countless places. The number of persons who die deaths of malnutrition each year is measured and printed as just that: a number, rather than a percentage point; it's in the double-digits, and even then it's usually due to the rare person who has an incurably fatal mental illness.

Medical science has advanced to the point that any bodily infirmity you've ever heard of can be cured at some point. With any ordinary illness, you can be put in the Coffin, and some nanobots later emerge cured within the hour; med students grumble that they have to learn how all that works even though a computer is doing it, but it's important groundwork for solving problems that aren't as easily cured. More complicated illnesses might require consultation with anatomical and nanoscience experts, but those are very rare. Mental illness is much more difficult, but we've made enormous progress; the field is to Earth-2's version of it as the Moon Landing is to Aristotle. Coffins also (unless you opt out for Christ knows what reason) install a bunch of small improvements, so you never get random headaches and you can fence without needing PT for your knees. We have strong cultural norms that we should go to the effort to make special accommodations for disabled people even though they're super rare these days (which is probably for the best, given that our standards for disability are slowly growing to include, inter alia, 'needing eyeglasses'); nearly all of us have successfully trained ourselves to see disabled people as normal folks just like us even though they're rare. It's really rare to be conventionally ugly; usually it's because you belong to some strange religion.

Artificial wombs are provided to everyone for free (most governments guarantee it, and nonprofits and foreign aid provide the rest), although there are constant arguments among mothers as to whether a natural gestation is slightly healthier. 

Any kind of incentive to reproduce is stigmatized, although there is moderate social pressure to not reproduce in the unlikely event that you don't think you can provide your child with a happy life. Practically everyone uses some sort of genetech to make sure their kids won't have any terrible diseases, though of course this leads to a perpetual increase in our standards of a healthy child; eventually it will be seen as crazy to allow your child to be born with an IQ below what Earth-2 would measure as 165. Rich people, of course, are more able to make their kids super gifted, but nobody really minds, since that just means that there are more gifted kids; of course, if any one group started to actively prevent other people from using genetech, there would be a lot of yelling at legislators.

The governments do require all minors to submit to temporary sterilization. It does not feel like a big deal at all, not least because Coffins do it automatically unless you (illegally, or for some incredibly rare medical reason) opt out. The governments say that if reproduction truly is a right, then even then it still isn't one kids have.

Cool futuristic body modification is commonplace. Many mods are cheap and easy to get: you pay a very small (almost nominal) amount of money, and ask the cosmeticist's Coffin for it. However, designing new mods costs a significant amount of money, because you have to commission a designer and then commission a nanoscientist; designers love their jobs, but labor is expensive in Utopia-13 for obvious reasons. It is nearly always illegal to attempt to design your own body mods without a license, for the same reason that cigarettes would be illegal if this culture still had any respect for cigarettes. Because of this, tons of people go around with fangs or cosmetic wings or whatever, and people who want to show off great wealth or refined taste commission all sorts of weirder or more elegant designs. Since the only thing that makes a body mod expensive is whether it's difficult to design, many extremely complicated mods are super cheap simply because hordes of people want them; for this reason, it costs five bucks to gain the ability to switch sexes at will, but a week's wages if you wanted to grow the feathers of some random bird species on the backs of your arms.

People get largely cured of sleep around age thirteen (and school hours before that age account for children's natural circadian rhythms), requiring only a nightly forty-five minutes for optimal mental functioning. "Curing" a child of sleep when they're under the age of thirteen is against medical ethics, because there's no way to do that without messing up their brain development, but this works very well for parents.

Exercise is way less necessary than in Earth-2, although it's really best if you move around on occasion, and you will notice some small problems if you don't run on the treadmill occasionally; human bodies have been improved sufficiently that you are rarely naturally lethargic and rarely need to bathe, so usually this isn't much of an issue for people.

The world is culturally homogenous enough that some basic tenets have been utterly inculcated in practically everyone; the average human in Utopia-13 has the same spirit of kindheartedness as the average Quaker in the eighteenth century. For the sake of ideological diversity, many reservations and cloisters are maintained so people can grow up with outside perspectives; there is constant debate over how much we can get ethically them to believe horrible things, as well as constant debate over the fine details of forcibly allowing them entry into larger society, but so far none of the groups have gone entirely into Sparta-level dystopia. Even within the world at large, however, there's immense cultural diversity, with all kinds of weird foods, customs, religious rituals, and so on spreading out in pockets. The same, of course, applies with law. Governments try to maintain some sort of child-education program so people can have exit rights, and most areas have subpolities so specific that people always complain about how communities schism over every little thing.

While I'm drawing on Scott Alexander enough to talk about Archipelagos: Raikoth-style Third Eyes are slowly gaining traction among the ordinary populace, and are required for, inter alia, the people in charge of making sure that nuclear weapons are no longer manufactured, police officers, referees, and teachers. Three organizations are in charge of surveying the data when requested, they all audit each other (and are financially incentivized to do so), and random citizens can  –  with a massive pile of NDAs  –  audit them.

Factory farms are totally outlawed, but it's a nonissue because it's simply cheaper to grow pure meat artificially. Gourmets and conspicuously rich people eat meat from the wild or from ordinary farms. Hunting most animals is allowed, but only if you kill humanely (normally with an instakill rifle, which does not work on anything with the DNA of a prohibited species).

Taxes are low, but most citizens find themselves obliged to, grumbling, perform a few weeks of labor each year in order to pay them, in addition to the part-time seasonal job they usually work in order to afford the luxuries they want. Most countries are rich enough to, with these taxes, guarantee everyone a standard of living approximately equivalent to that of a monk in Earth-2. Medical science has advanced to the point where there are basically no free-rider problems: if you can't work, we know it; if you can work, we know it.

Institutes of higher education are surprisingly like on Earth-2, except not designed by Satan. Labor is expensive, even though many people like to teach, but the governments usually pay for everyone to get at least one degree in something unmarketable. If a profession has a shortage, its degrees are usually subsidized; especially pro-social degrees, such as medicine, are always free regardless of oversupply. Research, development, and humanities innovation are far less tied to institutional education than on Earth-2, so while colleges are natural nuclei of intellectual production, there are also countless unrelated nonprofits, comparable to the Huntington Library or Smithsonian Institution, that are as much so. 

I work a part-time job as a librarian. I used to be a judge, but alas, got outcompeted by genetically modified upstarts: unfortunate for me, but certainly good for the justice system  –  certainly it's good for the Supreme Court to have people smarter than me, since just one of their duties is recommending the legislature modify the Justice Algorithms. I could totally get by working much less, but I work six hundred hours a year so I can afford to commission artists. I do like my job: I get to listen to classical music when I catalog books, and I get to help people directly and immediately, every day.

Artists' labor is usually pretty cheap: the government pays for their first degree, they can spend almost all their time practicing since subsistence is guaranteed, and many people love to do it, so there's tons of supply. But I really like the stuff, so I'm always commissioning my favorite painters and sculptors and novelists. I usually don't bother with having sculptors handcarve anything, or authors handwrite their manuscripts  –  I just want the art to exist, I don't need its creating to be needlessly painstaking  –  but I do always, for the sake of avarice, have the author autograph my personal copy, just so I can have a little piece of it that's mine alone. (Utopia-13's culture stigmatizes taking satisfaction in exclusivity of ownership, but only for really big or important things; little things like well-designed body mods or autographs are seen as relatively harmless, economy-stimulating, methods of conspicuous consumption. In the long term, we hope to stop seeing conspicuous consumption as high-status.)

I spend a huge amount of my time reading books. For nearly any book published in the last century, I can read it instantly on my ultra-high-tech ereader, since I'm a member of one of the big subscription libraries. (You can also read practically all of those books for free if you don't mind the occasional waiting list. IP laws exist, but the only reason everyone actually obeys the honor system is that the restrictions are pretty limited.) I can easily take notes with my holographic desk. Of course, free nonprofit libraries have lots of recent books in hardcopy, for people who like that sort of thing (everyone can afford an ereader), and my subscription library also has an enormous collection of recent hardcopy books. For old books that haven't been digitized, I can use high-speed transportation to arrive at one of the stupendous research libraries in a matter of minutes. 

Unsurprisingly, I also write a bunch of my own books. Printing a hardcopy, or uploading a digital copy forever, is so cheap as to be free for all practical purposes. Naturally, sorting the wheat from the chaff can be a bit difficult, and dozens of ingenious crowdsourced ranking systems, evaluation services, and reviewing boards inform libraries and readers what books to prioritise. A few institutional libraries collect virtually any coherent print you send them, and they have vast catacombs of books retrieved by Mansueto-Library-style robots. AO3, if printed out, would fill a library the size of eighty Pentagons. I usually don't bother with seeking actual publishers for my fiction, instead simply uploading them to AO3-style sites and sending hardcopies to libraries once I get enough positive feedback to meet their benchmarks, but for my nonfiction works I naturally do submit to publishers known for stringency. After two hundred years in the business, I've filled three shelves.

Suicide is safe, legal, mildly stigmatised, and incredibly rare.


Inspirations for this: Terra Ignota, Terry Pratchett's Strata, various proposals for real life.


e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
An action that's kindhearted is not necessarily the same thing as an action that's good for the world; if you want to call kindhearted actions 'morality', fine, just don't confuse it with actions we want to happen.

e_jo_m: Scholar with long blonde hair writing, possibly taking notes. Commonly interpreted to be a real or ideal secretary or student of Saint Augustine, painted by Raphael Sanzio in fresco opposite 'School of Athens' in the Stanza della Segnatura at the Vatican, commonly referred to as 'Disputa'. (Default)
 

Epistemic status: quite uncertain, not really researched, corrections welcome.

When someone sells something, or rents it, or otherwise permits others to use it, the government, for the most part, allows the owner to require others to compensate the owner. Why? There are three main reasons. 

First, it incentivizes people to render the thing usable to others. 

Second, most politicians and civilians feel that someone is entitled to charge for the use of anything which they put effort into rendering usable. 

Third, most politicians and civilians feel that someone is entitled to charge for the use of anything which they put effort into acquiring.

But aren't there things that people charge for even when:

They didn't render the thing usable to others; and

They didn't put effort into rendering it usable; and

They didn't put effort into acquiring it?

Yes! Those criteria make up: how Mr Darcy gets his ten thousand a year, ie inherited land which he rents out (using a portion of the rent to pay the land-manager(s)). This is why we have such high inheritance taxes  –  but inheritance taxes are still less than 100%, not least because we don't want to interfere with the property rights of the guy who gives his stuff away. 

Some people, called Georgists, say that you shouldn't be allowed to make money off of merely owning something when you have neither:

Rendered it usable to others, nor

Put effort into rendering it usable; whether or not you have

Put effort into acquiring it.

The Georgists say that if you own land, then you shouldn't be allowed to make more money off of purely owning that square footage of the Earth's surface. 

(This also applies to, say, mineral rights. It (depending on which Georgists you ask) doesn't apply to, say, certain numbers, because we want to incentivize the discovery of useful numbers and the creation of certain data, which we can do by allowing their temporary privatization.) 

You should, they say, be able to make money off of, eg, building an apartment complex on the land, because we want to incentivize rendering the land more usable. By the same token, you should, they say, be able to make money off of, eg, digging up useful minerals on the land, because obviously we want to incentivize bringing useful minerals into the circulation of the economy; you should not, they say, be able to make money off of merely owning those minerals in the first place.

They say that when somebody does make money off of something like that, we should tax it all away from them. (In regard to real estate, this is called the Land Value Tax.) In fact, the Georgists think that we ought to tax them that amount whether or not they actually get paid it!

Some advantages to this approach, say the Georgists: we are disincentivizing people from letting land lie fallow (since we're essentially fining them for the privilege), we dislike it when people earn money for doing nothing (like Mr Darcy) and this will prevent them from doing so, and it gets us lots of lovely revenue from people who deserve to be taxed.

The main downside to this approach, is of course, the fact that there goes your retirement. The inconvenient thing about making money while doing nothing is that we all want that, hopefully starting no later than age sixty-five. The French have been rioting about it recently; professors have been on strike for the same reason. A potential solution: many Georgists propose a universal dividend, ie the money from the taxes being divided equally and given to all adults as a sort of social security program. This was first suggested by the French (specifically, the author of Common Sense). Lord knows if the electorate would be okay with that, let alone the economists. (Maybe the Georgists would allow us to invest in stocks and bonds, which is probably what your Roth is in anyway; the Marxists, of course, would still object to your making money purely from your ownership of capital.)

Also, as you have undoubtedly noticed, reason #3 for charging for usage is still not satisfied; if you spent your whole life saving up to buy a Zone 2 apartment building for your retirement, and right after you drop a million pounds on it then the Lib Dems (presumably by way of blackmail) railroad a bill through Congress saying you're not allowed to profit off your building any more than if it were in Northumberland, then you are going to be very upset with the idiots in the House of Commons.

I suppose we could give enough warning, so that land quickly becomes a depreciating-but-not-worthless asset, like in Singapore, until at last it finally becomes worthless/taxed-to-be-worthless. Get a Constitutional amendment saying "Georgism starting one hundred years from now and subsequently lasting unless and until two-thirds of Congress repeals it" and hey presto. Our descendants would thank us…the ones not expecting much of an inheritance, anyway.

December 2023

S M T W T F S
     12
3456 789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 8th, 2025 11:01 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios