An overly complicated process just encourages grifters because there’s more ways for them to create confusion and conceal what they’re doing.
I was born in a very small town in California. They didn't want to become just another highway stop for shopping. They wanted to keep their small town flavor/community/charm.
So of course they made TONS of rules and roadblocks to stop "The wrong people" from building there.
It's now a highway stop with a bestbuy and the like....because it turns out that the massive corporate chains can pay people to sit there and jump through your hoops, but the smaller well meaning community developer will just say fuck it and move.
Nothing wrong with that
People are free to choose what suits them best
The more arduous you make it, the more likely you price out people who actually do work.
The government contracting system in my experience and learning, all the way back to Boss Tweed, is a MAJOR source of corruption and theft. ALWAYS sold with the best of intentions.
I would draw a hard line at disparate arbitrary and capricious allowances, i.e., making an affordable housing developer in a poor area jump through a ton of hoops, but letting a polluting power plant developer sail right through.
But seeing as this process is an exception to equality under the law granted at the whim of a board that may not even be elected in some cases, I have no qualms with making it by default really hard.
You want to change zoning laws? Fair. Do it for everybody via the elected town council or state legislature where the public has input.
What is this argument?
If you hire a lawyer to defend you in coirt, wikk you measure how goos he is by the amount of paperwork he submittes to the court?
Whether "enough" means "a lot" or "each and every hurdle that is already in place" is precisely what's at issue here. But I suppose it's convenient to take the side of maximum administrative burden if your goal is to minimize the amount of housing that is built.
> usually in special variance of zoning that the rest of us have to abide by
The solution is to remove the zoning in the first place, not add more requirements to get an exception to it.
Experiments should have control groups! Where are the control group cities?
Why do experimental social regulations have to be universal? Would life without them be great? Would it be terrible? I doubt that mankind evolved to require so much micromanagement in all aspects of life.
Deed restrictions, density restrictions, lot size restrictions, buffering ordinances, tax incremental investment zones, history preservations, airport zoning, neighborhood petitioning, etc.
US/Canadian automobiles are also needlessly expensive, there are many awesome vehicles sold in Mexico etc., like the Hilux, and I don't see it as a conspiracy to keep poor people down, but an overabundance of caution from bureaucrats covering their ass and regulatory capture.
It's really hard to argue the libertarian point of view because you're always trying to point out the "unseen costs".
Having to track down whoever built the house to figure out what standards they followed is painful enough when the house is a few years old let alone decades.
Similarly vehicles safety isn't just about the driver (although that is very important) some of the safety changes have been made to minimize impact on others. While everyone bitches about easy to scratch bumpers those bumpers help almost accidents not result in terrible things for pedestrians.
Not to say there isn't regulatory capture or that the rules are the correct strictness. It is just it is less "unseen costs" and more "things people don't think about" of course the only reason they don't think about it is the bureaucracy.
You should be free to drive a car with friggin spikes on the front, and the insurance industry should be free to charge you accordingly for the liability risk. That's freedom.
Then I shouks be free to shoot your car on sight if it gets withing 100 meters of my children? You can't bring them back from the dead
After all the city gets a house for the supply and you get your money back when you sell. Statistically everyone sells on long time scales after all.
On the topic of cars: that is stupid. 16.5 people died per day in 2019 in the US from being hit by cars. It is in everyone's best interest to bring that number down. It was double that in 1979 and while no one thing necessarily explains a big change like that newer safety requirements have helped a lot.
To be clear while recently some vehicle safety tests that protect the passengers from weird impacts have come up nearly as many regulations are actually related to protecting pedestrians whenever possible. Obviously hitting someone at highway speeds can't be helped but you would be surprised how much technology can reduce injuries in more minor accidents (and by extension reduce deaths in the non-extreme cases).
Regulations are not the primary reason for safety in vehicular design. I know you'll never believe that, however, it probably goes counter to your entire world view, so don't bother responding.
Whether you like it or not, there is dollar number on the value of a human life, and liability insurance (and vehicle design and regulation) revolves around it. Safety has diminishing returns and there is a market clearing point. Brush guards are just as dangerous as spikes, for instance, would you like to ban them? Or would you make a government form to apply for an exception if the brush guard is for an approved acceptable use by you for someone who has a license for their proper use off-road by someone with an acceptable economic reason fitting the social and economic calculations for the current five year plan determined by your Ministry of Truth?
Huh? That isn't what I said. I said "there are benefits". You can totally build a log cabin in jurisdictions that require inspections you just need to do a little more than setup some logs... Additionally I bet the definition of "house" is more flexible than you imply from your offhand information.
> Regulations are not the primary reason for safety in vehicular design. I know you'll never believe that, however, it probably goes counter to your entire world view, so don't bother responding.
I mean I can point to regulation changes resulting in additional safety but you don't believe that at all. The reality is vehicle safety has trended very closely to regulations if you pay any attention. Some minimal amount of safety is provided but it isn't like consumers are asking what happens if you impact a another care at 55 MPH vs 35 MPH.
> Whether you like it or not, there is dollar number on the value of a human life, and liability insurance (and vehicle design and regulation) revolves around it.
That is an incorrect statement. California has a minimum liability for injury of $15,000. We do not as a society agree that a human life is worth that little.
> Safety has diminishing returns and there is a market clearing point. Brush guards are just as dangerous as spikes, for instance, would you like to ban them? Or would you make a government form to apply for an exception if the brush guard is for an approved acceptable use by you for someone who has a license for their proper use off-road by someone with an acceptable economic reason fitting the social and economic calculations for the current five year plan determined by your Ministry of Truth?
You are just making shit up now. Feel free to quote any sources rather than making up stuff.
These are one in the same. Regulation is a euphemism for corruption, market manipulation, favoritism, cronie "capitalism", and so on. The intention might not be to keep the status quo (e.g., poor remain as such) but that - time and again - is the result.
Given these are the facts. This is the tradition. It's not all that difficult to argue the libertarian pov because if nothing else it's obvious what is not working.
Make it less profitable to provide housing and my money goes somewhere else, could be anywhere, I don't care. Make providing affordable housing the most profitable thing I can do, and you will have affordable housing.
I'm not jumping through any hoops for you. Your choice.
What I want is an affordable housing market. If I have to pay you to put up units and then impose rules about who and how you sell or rent them, I’ve already lost.
Nothing.
You have nothing to offer me, other than taxation.
Have a nice night.
At least, that was my takeaway from your original comment describing the behavioral characteristics regarding the affordable housing market.
basically this is the curse of the low density again. in denser cities where building a ~500 unit apartment complex takes the same approval more affordable units are going to enter the market.
The conservative strategy is "fine, if we can't kill this social program, we'll just drown the whole process in paperwork to make people go away...under the excuse of preventing fraud and slash the funding of the agency that processes it, and do our best to stuff the agency full of conservative bench-warmers who will gleefully, but as slowly as possible, reject paperwork for the slightest infraction."
Getting WIC benefits (food stamps for pregnant or new mothers) involves multiple in-person interviews per year (which means taking off time from any work, and usually traveling to a regional office that isn't accessible via public transit)...those interviews seem singularly focused on making sure that the pregnant lady is still pregnant, then actually produced a child, and then later, still has the child under their care. Because, you know, there's all these women who file for WIC, get abortions but then keep claiming WIC benefits.
The government is very, very concerned about getting scammed out of a maximum benefit per month of: one gallon of juice, 6 gallons of milk, 2 pounds of cereal, 1lb of cheese, 2 dozen eggs, $11 for fruit and veg, 2lb of bread, 1lb of beans or other legumes, and 1 lb of peanut butter.
What's going to happen is that they will start voting for the most blatant grifters running for public office, because they're the ones who are going to lie to them about solving this without raising taxes.
Citation please.
We know what the math is due to towns near the border of Los Angeles along the I-15 corridor. Thsoe suburbs that decided they wanted to not be a part of Los Angeles received a very rude awakening as to what stuff really costs.
As I said, the NIMBYs are already paying for all this stuff. The federal money is not a charity of some third parties, it’s what the very same people paid in taxes in the first place.
Agreed, but I wonder if the hurdles that are currently in place are even remotely optimal.
Would it be funny if they were not, and no one really cared?
these rules should be set and the application validated somewhere around state level. if the city wants to do their own thing, sure, they can set up their own separate system (to provide more funds for example in exchange for more/stricter rules), but that should be optional for the developer.
Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else.
It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s
Me? I prefer a dictatorship. But, of course, only if I'm the dictator.
Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0]
[0] often attributed (possibly apocryphal) to Winston Churchill
This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals.
> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s
Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality.
> Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0]
It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.
It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring?
>and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues.
Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.
Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure?
>We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals.
Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public.
Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system?
>> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s
>Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality.
I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Unfortunately, while such an analysis is interesting, it doesn't provide real information. Rather, it only provides a platform for speculations that can't ever be proved. Stanislaw Lem made a similar "argument"[2] which demonstrates the (lack of) usefulness of such an analysis:
Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while
this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman,
it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The
School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly
unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the
banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated,
there is no need for us to discuss it any further
here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem
analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of
dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely
hypothetical. They were all, one might say,
nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely
different way.
>It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.
Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Perhaps you should learn more?
Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-pol...
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT0... [PDF]
https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file... [PDF]
https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-econ...
In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])?
I look forward to haviung a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that...
Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy.
> Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.
I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that.
> Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure?
It's an idea worth considering imo.
> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.
> That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public.
Indeed we do - whether this design "works" as intended/perceived is another matter though.
> Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system?
I think "we the people" would benefit in many ways from a serious first principles based investigation into a complete rewrite of democracy. At the very least, it would be an extremely educational and maybe even ~enlightening undertaking, depending on how one went about it of course (putting The Experts in charge might not be an ideal approach, for obvious reasons).
> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.
Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.
> Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area.
Has the truth been revealed?
> Perhaps you should learn more?
Surely! And perhaps you should as well.
> Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems."
This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.
> I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).
I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows.
> In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government?
I consider such things to be unknown - if one would like knowledge, then there are no shortages of examples of how to go about acquiring it - this scenario is surely trickier than many, but human beings have demonstrated themselves to be quite clever, when they set their mind to something.
> Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])?
I am open to all ideas, but have a bias towards competent coordination in complex systems.
> I look forward to having a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you.
Thank you for the kind words, and I look forward to it as well.
>Democracy - more specifically, the various implementations (both the abstract design and the comprehensive physical practice) that we use today, but most specifically American democracy.
What, specifically do you find illegitemate about American democracy?
Getting some specific thoughts about this would be nice. Much better than what you did say, which I interepreted (perhaps incorrectly -- but the lack of detail is pretty telling) as a metaphorical rolled-up newspaper along with "American democracy bad! Bad American democracy!"
I have specific issues with the American political system myself, including but not limited to, the pervasive impact of money in our political system, especially as to how it strongly reinforces the current two-party hegemony.
However, I don't see it as illegitemate as you appear to do. So I'll ask again. What specifically makes American democracy "illegitemate?"
>> Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system.
>I'm thinking more along the lines of some form of direct democracy - I am partial to this one, but am far from an expert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
>And yes of course, there is no shortage of problems with simply implementing something like that.
It's an interesting idea. And one that certainly deserves (and has/is getting) attention and investigation.
As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day.
That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind.
>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.
I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth," which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes. As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless.
For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless.
>>I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.
>Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.
In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning.
I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie?
>> Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems."
>This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.
That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view.
What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system.
That makes it really difficult to take you seriously.
>> I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad).
>I think this touches on a very interesting phenomenon that can be observed: in internet discussions, it is not uncommon to encounter people shitting on the poor thinking of the members of their various outgroups and claiming that they should ~"think better". But what's interesting is that almost without exception (in my experience anyways), if a person is to engage with such people by doing the very thing they recommend, the typical response is: poor thinking (rhetoric, insults, memes, evasion, etc). It seems to me that all humans have an upper bound of ability to be serious, and an extreme aversion to discussing sacred cows.
I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here. As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions.
I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group.
And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here?
Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not. Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all.
That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion.
You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support.
I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker.
Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage.
I hope you have a good day.
Also: excuse spelling/grammar errors, I will try to do a cleanup pass a bit later.
> What, specifically do you find illegitimate about American democracy?
That it (at least implicitly) claims to be "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", that the projected and perceived as accurate narrative is that it exercises "the will of the people". When in fact, the will of the people is not known, because very little attempt has been made to determine what the will of the people is (and other things: "the people" are, generally speaking, "not too bright", and the causality behind this unfortunate circumstances is not known or well investigated, but if you were to dig into it, what you will typically find at the end of the strong is: the government).
I could go on and on and on, and based on extensive experience discussing such topics with a very wide range of people, I confidently predict that if we were to get into the fine-grained details, before long you would balk, you would accuse me of "overthinking", being "pedantic", start making various "ya well" style excuses, and so on and so forth.
Or another way of putting it might be something like:
select distinct behavior_type from human_activity where topic like '%government%' and reality_level='perception'
At this point, a typical cards that are typically played (by my counterpoint in the conversation, or dang if he was to encounter this thread) is something along the lines of "we can't know anything, nihilism", "you're talking metaphysical jibber jabber" "your words have no meaning", "HN is not the place for this sort of X", etc. This sort of thing, I propose to you, is your nature.
You want detail? I am at your disposal, and I suspect my willingness to discuss what is true (or may be, or not) can easily outlast your ability to remain curious about what is true.
> Getting some specific thoughts about this would be nice. Much better than what you did say, which I interpreted (perhaps incorrectly -- but the lack of detail is pretty telling) as a metaphorical rolled-up newspaper along with "American democracy bad! Bad American democracy!"
"the lack of detail is pretty telling" is an interesting (but not uncommon) phrase. When you say this, what are you referring to? I will take a guess: might it be ~reality?
> I have specific issues with the American political system myself, including but not limited to, the pervasive impact of money in our political system, especially as to how it strongly reinforces the current two-party hegemony.
To my style of thinking, this is one item (with an unknown epistemic status, and an unknown comprehensive-causality-weighted importance), in a set of utterly unknown (but perhaps imagined as known) size.
> However, I don't see it as illegitimate as you appear to do. So I'll ask again. What specifically makes American democracy "illegitimate?"
I propose that a highly optimal way to think about such things is as a tautological statement + question: "What makes American democracy illegitimate, is that which makes American democracy illegitimate. So then: what is it that makes American democracy illegitimate, accurately and comprehensively?"
Do you possess the answer to this question? Does it seem like you possess the answer to this question? Do you care what the answer to this questions is? And when considering such questions, be mindful if your mind is conceptualizing them as binaries (True/False) or a spectrum (the degree to which each "is" (or may be) True/False).
Do you like this sort of thinking? In my experience, most people not only do not like it, but they reject it outright, often with strong emotions and supreme confidence. I believe that this is our nature, at least for now. (Here it may be useful to consider the history of the aggregate conceptualization of (aka: ~reality) African Americans by the population of the USA, and elsewhere.) Sometimes humanity can modify the fabric of reality, but usually they seem unable (and unwilling).
(continued...)
This reminds me somewhat of this homeless senior I know that hangs out at the 7/11 by my house - he too "is" "getting attention", in that I bought him a coffee last week.
> As you note, many issues with implementation of such a system including universal access, the role of money/moneyed interests and the time/capacity individuals have to investigate, comprehend and form opinions about the dozens (perhaps more?) of local, state and federal laws debated every single day.
Indeed. There's a surprising amount of complexity in reality (although it tends to not seem that way).
> That said, I support the idea of tweaking democratic processes to improve governance. Ranked Choice Voting[0] comes to mind.
Why only tweak? Do you support the general notion of society having a serious(!), mainstream conversation (substantial MSM coverage) about the merits of a complete rewrite?
>>> Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds).
>>110% agree - hence, I prefer to think in terms of ~"plausible range of epistemically sound possibilities", since what is true is typically impossible to achieve, and is not necessary anyways.
> I'm not really clear on what you mean here. I didn't say anything about "truth,"...
Is "one can really know the mind of anyone" not necessarily intertwined with truth: that which is(!) the state of a person's mind? (Assuming we care about it of course.)
> which is irrelevant (as you note) to a person's state of mind/internal thought processes.
I said Truth cannot be achieved, not that it is irrelevant. Although for the vast majority of instances of mind, I would agree that what is true does not matter (at the perceptual level) - but there are exceptions here and there (me, for instance).
> As for what's "epistemically plausible," that's so broad as to be practically useless.
By what means have you come to possess comprehensive knowledge about what "is" "useless"? Useless for what? To what end?
> For example, it's "epistemically plausible" for someone to support the "decent, hard working people of this great nation." But such a statement is so vague that it's meaningless.
Vagueness erases meaning? Perhaps in your mind, but this is definitely not how my mind works.
>>> I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis.
>> Not really. I prefer something more along the lines of thinking in very strict (but dynamic / extremist) epistemology, ontological complexity, yadda yadda yadda. Perhaps some new styles of thinking will have to be developed along the way.
> In that case, you shouldn't have used the term "counterfactual casuation[sic]" which has a well defined meaning.
Can you explain why the "well defined" "meaning" of counterfactual causation is somehow incompatible with what I've said?
> I'm sorry, but that sentence is a word salad...
The theory of relativity and many other things are also word salad to those who lack the necessary background knowledge to understand it. (And if you have the urge to point out that because this is true, it does not prove that what I've said is also true, then don't bother, I well realize this.)
> ...that doesn't describe, at least not in terms someone not living inside your head, what you "prefer." You make a statement about "strict epistemology" and "ontological complexity," but those must be employed in any reasonable discussion of just about anything beyond what I want to eat for dinner. What, specifically, is this "yadda, yadda, yadda" you mention, as it seems that's where some semblance of a reasonable argument might lie?
Herein lies complexity that would take essay length writing to even begin to address it with any precision. I think there's more than enough here already to measure the quantity of curiosity you can muster and sustain, taking into consideration the ~"utterly shit" communication medium (platform, language, etc) we are using.
>> This sounds like an investigation into that which exists - it's certainly useful, but I am also interested in that which does not yet exist.
> That's great! I'm glad you're interested. But you have made a whole raft of assertions which you haven't supported with any sort of data or even logical analysis, despite having the opportunity (and taking that opportunity -- twice) to elucidate your point of view.
I propose that reality (and communication about) is highly contextual, and that humanity's current norm is ~"good enough". When writing this, did you consider the distinction (that exists somewhere) between haven't supported in my model and haven't supported in this conversation? I do realize you explicitly specified which one (in this conversation), but my question is whether you had the other one in working memory when composing the above.
> What's more, understanding how current (and historical) systems (don't) work is critical to any attempt to tweak or rewrite the rules of any complex system.
Indeed - we best have on our thinking caps!
(continued...)
Agreed - this does indeed seem to be the nature of the default mind, as it has been trained (mainly in the AI sense of the word, but also in the ~propaganda/culture sense). But to your credit, you are exerting substantially higher than average effort to discuss and understand - credit where credit is due and all that (gosh....have I committed a cultural faux pas here? If so, sincere apologies, but limited).
> I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but in this particular case, I'm not doing any of the things you list here.
Not at all? If you had, would you necessarily know?
> As such, I have to ask why this is relevant, unless you're describing your own actions.
Roughly: https://www.vedanet.com/the-meaning-of-maya-the-illusion-of-...
> I don't insist that you "think better." I don't know what "group" (well, other than human -- and so am I. I guess we're in the same group huh?) to which you might belong, so I have no basis to class you (other than I noted parenthetically above) in any in/out group.
A basis to (subconsciously) classify someone is not necessary, much of that is performed for us automatically (thanks evolution!).
> And I haven't engaged in any of the other things you mention. So I ask again: Why is that relevant here?
In return I ask: what is it you are talking about here? Reality?
> Or are you making the (unfounded) assumption that I understand you and what's in your mind (impossible, as we've already discussed) and am just baiting you. I assure you (the best I can do in this forum) that I am not.
Very approximately, I would say what you are doing here is "humaning".
> Rather, whether it's due to ignorance/stupidity on my part or poor communication on yours, you have not made yourself clear here at all.
See "theory of relativity" above.
> That's what I'm asking for. Communicate clearly and provide detail as to what supports the ideas you're presenting. You have done neither. That's not intended to be an insult or reprobation, rather it's the minimum that's required to have a reasoned, fruitful discussion.
Which portion of the infinitely large, logically inconsistent/paradoxical/illusory/ virtual idea space would you like to discuss? And in what way? With English text on a forum? Houston, we have a problem.
> You go on at some length after this, but the low information density of your comments makes it difficult to discuss this stuff. You've layered vague ideas about governance on top of assertions that those ideas don't support.
You're not wrong!
You know what? I am starting to get the feeling that you may not have a proper understanding of the complexity of the problem space you are working in, it's composition and behavior, and so forth and so on. Nor do I, of course, but then understanding is not a binary.
> I'm happy to continue this conversation with you, but I'm having a difficult time understanding what the hell you're talking about.
Perhaps the complexity is beyond the capability of our tools. It seems to me that science has similar problems in a wide variety of ways...I wonder what they did to deal with this problem such that they could advance their field.
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to me being a native English speaker.
As am I, although I am "on the spectrum" (to put it nicely and imprecisely), so I think a common language is only a small slice of the problems we are experiencing.
> Should you choose to provide specific, relevant and supportable ideas, I will happily continue to engage.
99% of the general population is focused on object level details, or some bastardized illusion of that, my interest is in where that comes from.
> I hope you have a good day.
Thanks, you as well. I realize that the way I write is hard to understand (and not only because of the subject matter), but be that as it may, I propose to you that despite this, "something" does indeed exist here, and that it is worth understanding (or at least trying to understand), assuming that you ~truly care about the things you seem to care about (generally: the well being of the people within overall humanity - now, and in the future).
PS: for some extra fun: what do you think I am "up to" "here" (and elsewhere)? I will give you a hint: I propose to you that there is a "level" of sorts that ~exists, that this level can be ~seen, and that you currently do not have the means to see it.
How's that for provocative (and hyper-confident, plausibly bordering on sheer delusion) rhetoric!!?? But then at the same time: what if it's ~true? Or maybe even more interesting: what if it scales?
https://genius.com/Dr-seuss-oh-the-places-youll-go-excerpt-a...
(It's an interesting site, this genius.com - I wonder if there may be some unrealized and unharvested value there. I sometimes wonder if the same is true of the one we are on.)
And now I can't get that time back. Oh well.
Peace out.
Peace to you as well, fellow traveler!
I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups.
basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"
>I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups.
Fair enough. My apologies if it seems I pushed a little hard on that. It's just that far too many people seem to take every opportunity to metaphorically roll up their newspaper and take swipes while yelling "Gub'mint bad! Bad gub'mint!"
I'm emphatically not claiming that's what you were doing, but knee-jerk condemnation of "gub'mint" is far too common in the US these days, which makes me a little over sensitive on that topic.
That idea is, at least in the US (and other democracies), ridiculous in the extreme given that we are the government, or at least we elect the folks who run it.
I agree. There are many opportunities for conflicts of interest, arbitrariness and outright graft, especially in state and local government.
That said, I'll repeat my statement from the comment to which you replied:
You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing
it right, then elect someone else.
>basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"
Not sure how it is where you are, but we have separate "branches" where I live in NYC[1]. The Mayor (and myriad city agencies) makes up the "executive" and the city council (as well as local community boards -- at least in an advisory capacity) makes up the "legislative" branch.
They are separate entities and, just as it is in the Federal government, no legislator can simultaneously serve in the executive branch or vice versa.
I know that many (most?) parliamentary democracies don't operate that way, with sitting legislators from the ruling party/coalition serving in executive roles.
That's just not the case where I am, or in most other state and local governments in the US AFAIK.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Manes#Downfall_and_suic...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City
How about an Amazon warehouse?
But yeah, to your point, building more housing in a supply constricted market requires like way more proof.
Having lived in downtown San Francisco for 7 years now, I can’t help but notice how all the new highrises and fancy apartments have pushed down the prices of the normal stuff.
My current landlord tried to sell his house before we moved in and couldn’t get “enough” money for it because why pay $1,000,000 for a house from 1906 when you could pay the same for new construction across the street? Instead he had to settle for renting (to us). 3 years later and similar apartments in the area are now selling for $800,000 because there’s even more new construction around.
Rents are down too. Why pay $4000/mo to live in an old house when you can pay $4200/mo to live in a luxury highrise across the street?
Of course there are other metrics to consider than economic impact.
see also:
Those commercial and leisure entities you're talking about often push for these elements too, but they usually have to promise something in return, even so far as accepting clawback provisions and fines for failing to do so. Affordable Housing builders AFAIK never have these strings attached. If you'd counter to me with examples where this wasn't part of the agreement for commercial/leisure or where it was for affordable housing, I'd completely agree those are exceptions worth a closer look.
Or could be even easier to show that the lack of said units led to displacement for actual families.
I'm not saying it's easy peasy but if affordable unit advocates believe they are important then logically enforcing the regulations they fought for shouldn't be just shrugged off, at least as a signal to cities and developers.