Episode 266 has Skyler giving his commentary on the following topics: an article by C Jay Engel titled, “Governance As A Role Vs. The State As An Entity“; challenging jurisdiction; and more.Open This Content
Learning economics had the effect on me of shifting my moral outrage from capitalists and entrepreneurs to politicians and bureaucrats. For example, you might think a policy like rent control keeps greedy landlords from exploiting poor tenants. What rent control actually does, if we look at its economic effects in theory and in practice, is reduce the incentives for maintenance and upkeep and for new construction. What results is a housing shortage as current stock falls into disrepair, pushing tenants further and further away from city centers where they work, increasing commute times and congestion, and more. What is touted as a benefit for poor tenants becomes a major burden on both poor tenants and others. These effects are only reversed when rent control is repealed or significantly altered to be more in line with what market forces would generate. Like rent control, government interventions in markets produce unintended consequences that can seemingly only be solved through more government intervention in markets which produces unintended consequences that… ad infinitum. Or, cease the intervention and find non-governmental solutions to whatever it is you perceive as a problem. Learn economics and shift your moral outrage toward the people who deserve it. And that’s today’s two cents.Open This Content
It’s the 21st century and technology is lagging behind the times. Why? People. There are inventors and innovators who are wanting to put new tech in your hands. But people are stuck in the mindset we still need government to regulate the marketplace and we still need other centralized power.
Take the tech you’re using right now – social media platforms – Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and Reddit are behind the times. People don’t want products shoved in their faces or domineering policing policies. Ads and bans are way too common on social media today. There are options.
Instead of Facebook, try Minds or Mewe; instead of Twitter, try Mastadon; instead of Youtube, try Dtube and Peertube; and instead of Reddit, try Steemit. Mastadon is user-friendly and can introduce you to the future of decentralized networks. Minds and Steemit are user-friendly and can introduce you to the brave new world of crypto-currency.
If you’re tired of the ads and bans, try something new. Facebook is going the way of Myspace. But beware, a new platform is still capable of going the same way, so stay vigilant. If a Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, or Reddit alternative abuses you the same way as the current giants, leave it. Which new platform will you try in 2019?Open This Content
People often feel agitated and uncomfortable in the presence of religious/spiritual people. This is because holding any strong moral ideology infers judgement on behavior and that judgement implicitly means judgement of other people’s behavior. This makes people uncomfortable partially in the same way that overly dramatic people make people uncomfortable … their emotional disposition dictates the underlying tone and culture of the interaction.
While this isn’t how it emotionally works with religious people, the higher moral/ethical/personal standards make it so it strongly affects the behavioral culture within the climates they are involved and people don’t wish to be subject to judgement within an ideology they haven’t subscribed to. Additionally, most people feel various subtle feelings of guilt, confusion and a lack of purpose … the presence of someone who seem to have resolved these issues make them feel incompetent and diminished.
While many religious people intentionally elicit these feelings in others as a means of setting the culture, and attaining power/control/dominance, most probably don’t. Most people have these standards and don’t desire to use it as a weapon to hurt or control (at least in Western society). Sure, they might think your behavior isn’t a good idea, but they have no desire to control you or treat you as an inferior.
If you set a culture of tolerance and portray a sense of purpose, confidence, and a coherent value system, you can often feel very comfortable around religious people. You won’t feel subject to their ideology, and the religious person won’t believe it is appropriate to use their values and beliefs in any way to distort the situation. They will often respect the difference and no one will feel feelings of inferiority/superiority.
I believe our discomforts around people who aren’t malicious often reflect our own perceptions of inadequacy and/or insecurity.Open This Content
Why should it be up to the US Department of Justice, or this or that group of politicians or lobbyists, or some percentage of your state’s voters, whether or not you can place a bet on the outcome of a sporting event, a roll of the dice, a spin of the wheel, or what cards get dealt at a poker table?
Since a 2011 re-interpretation of the Wire Act, states have been able to permit, license, and regulate “intrastate” online gambling — that is, gambling where both sides of bets are located in the same state, even if the bets are placed over the Internet (for example, online poker games where all parties are located within their borders).
In December, rumors began to circulate that the US Department of Justice plans a re-re-interpretation of the Wire Act to crack down on such activities, which currently take place in Nevada, New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania.
Meanwhile, voters in a number of states decided ballot issues related to gambling in the 2018 election. In my home state of Florida, a coalition funded by the Walt Disney Company, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and an anti-gambling group successfully pushed through a measure requiring a statewide popular vote to license any new non-Seminole casinos.
The motives for such actions are obvious but mixed. Some people think gambling is immoral and shouldn’t be allowed. Some companies (and some criminals) know that limiting gambling is better for their bottom lines than allowing it, and can afford better lobbyists and slicker advertising than new companies trying to get into the business.
Of course, most people who want to gamble find their way to the areas where it’s allowed (but regulated), or buy into their state governments’ own versions (lottery tickets, for example), or just make bets with friends in the reasonably certain knowledge that they’ll never get arrested at their weekly poker games or while handing over the money they (foolishly) bet against the Kansas City Chiefs to go all the way this year.
But why should anyone have to sneak around? Again, I ask:
In what universe is it legitimately the business of DoJ, or Disney, or the Seminole Tribe, or a legislature, or the little old lady next door who thinks that a deck of cards is The Devil’s Picture Book, if you and I want to bet five bucks on the outcome of a coin flip or anything else?
If I want to put money down on the spin of a roulette wheel, it’s my money. If you don’t, then don’t. Problem solved. Unless, that is, you just have an unscratched itch to run other people’s lives. In which case that should remain your problem, not mine.Open This Content
Sarcasm only works for me when you don’t demonstrate dishonesty while attempting it.
I listen to Scott Adams’ “periscopes” to keep an eye on what some of those on the pro-government side are thinking. He’s right about half the time– when he isn’t in his pro-government box, unable to see beyond its horizon. But sometimes it amazes me how dishonestly he frames an issue. I wonder if others notice.
Of course, since he is a trained hypnotist, it may be intentional on his part; an attempt to manipulate the opinions of his listeners. I don’t criticize him for that– it’s what I hope to do with my blog. But I hope to do it honestly, without deception. I am not trying to be sneaky about it.
A day or so ago he was mocking Nancy Pelosi’s absurd contention that “walls are immoral“.
I agree conditionally; walls are not, in and of themselves, immoral. Unless your particular morality is somehow anti-wall, which I seriously doubt. Morals being what they are (“situational ethics”) I can see how someone might have a set of morals which doesn’t allow for walls, but it’s not likely. It’s more likely to be political posturing.
The real question is whether or not walls are ethical. For simply being walls. The answer is: walls are ethically neutral.
You can almost always use your own money/resources to wall off your own property from adjacent property without any ethical problem.
Or you can help wall off “collective property” in the very rare cases where you have part-ownership in some actual collective property and there is unanimous consent to build and fund the wall.
There is an ethical problem if you wall off property which doesn’t belong to you, or if you force others to pay for a wall they don’t want to pay for.
If you wall off a neighbor’s property a few doors down, you have unethically built a wall.
If you force someone to help pay for a wall around your own property, you have unethically built a wall.
You could say those particular walls, under those circumstances, are unethical walls. Probably even immoral walls.
“Government land”– dishonestly referred to as “public land” in the same way kinderprisons are called “public schools”– is not yours to wall off. It isn’t true “collective property”, and there is not unanimous consent. Nor does it really belong to the government. Everything government claims it either stole from the rightful owner or bought (and maintains) with stolen or counterfeited money. A thief does not own the stolen goods he possesses, so government can not rightfully own anything. Any wall financed with stolen money is not an ethical wall.
A “border” wall fails on both accounts. No matter how “necessary” you believe it to be. It can not be done ethically under government.
You can sarcastically mock the truth, but the truth doesn’t change to suit your wishes. Not even if you are a president or Scott Adams.Open This Content