Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
what’s the book?!
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
i for one think we should bring the second best available evidence to the problem.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
or, will the Supreme Court, reveling in extratextuality and with an irony they’d find delicious, claim that the 14th Amendment nationalized the Presidential pardon?
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
look, if your wife is mad at you it’s fine, Donald Trump can just issue a pardon.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
"the public sector ought to have, and in practice generally does have, a much lower discount rate than the private sector. This used to be a big part of debates on the economics of climate change. But it’s also relevant to housing." (see also CA Prop 13) an excellent post by @jwmason.bsky.social
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
(the party is unusually fortunate at the moment.)
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
Interesting piece by @wertwhile.bsky.social argues treating certain kinds of algorithmic curation as first-party speech, removing them Section 230 liability protection, suggests tort liability as the least harmful way to regulate AI. www.theargumentmag.com/p/treat-big-... ht @ezraklein.bsky.social
Treat Big Tech like Big Tobacco
Link Preview: Treat Big Tech like Big Tobacco: The problem with TikTok and Facebook isn't their size
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
( i'm sympathetic to both of these ideas, see www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv... www.interfluidity.com/v2/8093.html on Section 230, drafts.interfluidity.com/2023/12/28/h... on AI regulation. )
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
i disagree. i think it important that a cause be just, beyond calculations about morale.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
“You can’t libel entire ethnicities and then cry about decaying standards. You are the lower standard, you cheap thug.”
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
bill 🤝 bernie brave new world.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
in a better world, my friend.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
a change can be a Kaldor-Hicks improvement, then its reversal can be a Kaldor-Hicks improvement. both, then, are potentially just causes. which prevails is a matter of conflict.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
instead, one way to understand the antivax movement is as a red herring to distract from the financial inconveniences of environmental causes.
Loading quoted Bluesky post...
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
They can lose their livelihoods at the corporations and their financial stake. If they’ve broken the law while serving the corp, they are liable for that (as they should be already). But they remain humans, who should be entitled to a life of security, whether in freedom or (if convicted) in prison.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
Yes, definitely. My formulation of “everyone” includes all natural persons, definitely excludes corporations.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
what if our republic were a multilevel marketing company? 🤔
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
yeah, i think that’s right, particular malefactors “should”, but never would, consent to punishment. i think there are limits to the severity of punishment in a just cause. 1/
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
but mostly i am thinking in terms of broader populations, rather than particular evildoers. 2/
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
ordinary “MAGA supporters” are on the other side of a cause I support, which is just because my cause offers them a place as full and equal citizens of a republic, even if it is a robust equality they themselves dislike and would not consent to. /fin
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
The desired end state for fossil asset holders is full citizenship in a social democracy such that any business losses they endure, having taken the business risk of fossil fuel exposure, leave them less well off but full and secure citizens. It is fine they should lose money.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
This isn’t a utilitarian argument. On the contrary. Ours would be an unjust cause if, for example, all XOM shareholders were to be enslaved or executed or driven into penury.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
Demanding they accept losses commensurate with risks they sought for profit (and historically profited from!) is demanding nothing other than equal treatment. Many other investors find their investments don’t work out. Fossil fuel political and environmental risk is well telegraphed.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
The only way any kind of capitalism can be a just cause is if it is attached to robust social democracy. A capitalism whose losers are immiserated plainly fails our criterion.
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
For a cause to be just, there has to be a telos, a desired end-state, that offers a decent outcome to everyone, even those perceived to be on the other side of the cause. 1/
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
"Decent" doesn't mean an outcome everyone desires or would at present consent to. If that were the case, there would be no conflict. 2/
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
But a just cause offers outcomes it can credibly argue all parties *should* consent to, all parties would be fairly served if they did consent to, even though for now they do not all consent. /fin
Steve Randy Waldman
@interfluidity.com
love you, grokma!