[FRIAM] labels

Sun Oct 11 12:44:48 EDT 2020

But.... <General Social Scientist Hat On> It is a "first principal
component" in our particular culture at this particular point in history.
To reify it's status as the first principle component into law would make
it very hard for a different dimension to come to account for a larger
percentage of the variance at some point in the future. The existing power
structure benefits from convincing us that it will never be the case that a
different dimension could ever become so important that it deserved
that level of attention, because that would legitimize parties identified
primarily upon that other dimension... and such hegemonic processes should
generally be viewed with suspicion (and derision).

<Libertarian Hat on> Tying to some of the other discussions, we should be
suspicious of attempts by the bureaucracy to use law and regulation to
mandate that social distinctions currently-important to the bureaucracy
remain important into the indefinite future. Would we be better off if, for
example, what if, people in the 1790's made a compromise where, by law,
half of SCOTUS justices had to be "for a weak central executive" while the
other half had to be justices had to be "for a strong central government".
Or if people in the 1830s had come up with a compromise where, by law, half
he SCOTUS justices had to be "for state rights" while the other half had to
be "against slavery." My intuition is that such efforts would not have
benefited society. We should *not *be in favor of the government engaging
in such efforts, and we should scrutinize every regulatory effort to try to
minimize such effects (to the extent that is practical).
<echarles at american.edu>

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 1:23 AM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> It is the first principal component..
>
> On Oct 9, 2020, at 8:40 PM, Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
> I agree that the illusion of there being only the single axis of
> Left/Right is a travesty.
>
> I also intuit that my own preferences for ranked-choice-voting to *allow
> in* more dimensions may be naive in some way I don't fully apprehend.
>
> I'd love for you (and others) here to explore the paradoxes and
> inconsistencies implied in all of this.
> On 10/9/20 9:18 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
>
> --- reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but
> *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then
> ---------
>
> Note that one thing both parties agree on is that we should conceive
> politics as utterly and completely a choice between the two of them. God
> forbid that we conceive of judges using any other dimensions. In fact,
> let's enshrine it in law that we must forever focus on exactly whether we
> have a "balance" of "left" and "right". Ugh!
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 4:48 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> Ha!  I refer to the last bit as "ok fine, TWIST my drinking arm!" when
>> someone offers to buy me one...   the only one to twists my drinking arm
>> this last six months has been Mary... and Maybe Stephen and his circle
>> on "ZoomGrappaNight".
>>
>> I don't like the language around "packing the court".   I don't think
>> "reconfiguring the court" is the same as "packing the court".   Clearly,
>> the (not so) loyal opposition to the Dems *would* pack the court...  add
>> 6 more justices and make sure they are ALL conservative leaners.   Pete
>> Buttegeig was the first to speak of this in my earshot, and HIS version
>> sounded pretty reasonable...   reconfigure (expand) it from 9 to 15 but
>> *balance* the Left/Right ideology (I think he proposed 5/5) and then
>> leave it to the Justices themselves to fill the remaining 5 (through
>> some arcane process?).    What the Republicans have been building up to
>> for decades is "packing the courts".
>>
>> Checks and balances are tricky, as is depending on social norms and
>> standards, but I think it might be "as good as it gets", at least for
>> the time being.
>>
>> - Steve
>>
>>
>> On 10/8/20 1:36 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
>> > Ha! That was the essence of one of the 538 panel member's phrasing
>> suggestion for Kamala Harris in response to Pence's question about packing
>> SCOTUS. The elaborated version was: "Because confirming Barrett, NOW, is
>> such a horribly wrong thing to do, we have no choice BUT to pack the
>> court." ... I.e. now look what you made me do. That was my dad's favorite
>> phrase to justify whatever abuse he chose to mete out that day. He once ran
>> over my bicycle with his truck. I *made* him run over my bike because I
>> left it laying in the driveway. It's a running joke with my fellow drinkers
>> who *regularly* FORCE me to drink more than I should. There is no free
>> will. I live to serve.
>> >
>> > On 10/8/20 11:28 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> >> Look what you made me do,
>>
>>
>> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC>
>> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/subscribe> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201011/4de06e51/attachment.html>