Maybe it’d be good if, in places like Texas, there were a list of lawyers willing to accompany pregnant patients.
It’s horrible that Texas has made lifesaving care a legal risk from the perspective of providers. Hopefully we find a way to remedy that soon. Maybe in the meantime we could make clear there are legal risks in both directions.
https://www.propublica.org/article/josseli-barnica-death-miscarriage-texas-abortion-ban
@Hyolobrika @dushman It’s not typically what “socialism” is defined as. Socialism is typically defined as a system in which the means of production are collectively or state owned. The collective is a much broader category than “workers” in any society. 1/
@Hyolobrika @dushman Typically ~50% of humans do not work, because they are children, informal carers, retired, or disabled. I think, under contemporary states, we’d all object to a system that restricted the franchise only to those formally employed. 2/
@Hyolobrika “Syndicalism” is the closest word I know to this system that you and @dushman are describing. /fin
@Hyolobrika p.s. @dushman is your name taken from the Romanian duşman?
@admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org @Hyolobrika I think in practice almost all desirable economic forms will be mixed economies. The details of what gets mixed will be very important! Cooperative worker ownership vs passive absentee ownership might be an important dimension within the sphere of privately held firms. I very much agree that we want a democratic state, where we all have a vote, setting the ground rules under which economic units whatever their form must operate.
@admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org @Hyolobrika I’m not saying ubiquitous cooperative ownership wouldn’t be meaningfully different or couldn’t be much better than contemporary forms of capitalism. It might! I’m just saying it’s also a form quite distinct from what most people mean by and want from socialism.
@dushman @Hyolobrika It’s not effectively socialism, bc some cooperatives might be extraordinarily successful, earn very high per worker profits, others might yield quite meager incomes, nothing would ensure full employment by some cooperative, guarantee education, housing, medicine, or retirement income. It’d be an interesting economic form, perhaps much better than contemporary capitalism, but still distinct from what most people are after from socialism.
@Hyolobrika The members of a cooperative are capitalists, in the sense they are a group of private individuals who own the means of production! There are many possible forms of capitalism, defined as private ownership of the means of production (and even more possible forms of a mixed economy).
@Hyolobrika If you define capitalism on the basis of emergence of a class of passive income recipients, people who earn without labor, then a system with only syndicalist cooperatives would not conform. There are challenging questions about how such a system would work in practice, but I’d sure love to see more experimentation.
The kid is learning about exponents, and I’m trying to help.
One trick I think useful is to suggest he define, say, 4^3 not as 4 x 4 x 4, but as 1 x 4 x 4 x 4. Of course the two expressions amount to the same thing. But if you get into the habit of including the 1, it becomes obvious why 4^0 is just one.
And since for positive exponents, subtracting an exponent corresponds to dividing by the base, you can just subtract past the zero exponent to define negative exponents.
“Part of Trump’s genius is being bad in so many ways that no particular way stands out and it seems like he must not be that bad.” #ScottAlexander https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-endorses-harris-oliver-or-stein
ouch.
Screenshot of Yahoo Finance notification with text: Breaking News Nvidia to replace Intel in Dow Jones Industrial Average (Reuters)
[new draft post] Private firms, public industries https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/11/01/private-firms-public-industries/index.html
@prw Yes, exactly. Not understanding Duverger’s Law (which, to be fair, would not be propounded until almost two centuries later) is how they inadvertently created a two-party system their own justificatory logic abhors.
James Madison in Federalist No 10 writes a virtue of a large republic is “the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest”.
Though they inadvertently produced one quite quickly, the “founding fathers” never favored a two-party system. A two-party system is repellent to the logic and aspirations of the Constitutional system.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist-no-10
they say success is hard work, but i contend that failure is more exhausting.
@joe@beige.party I’m not pretending any misstatement is an accident. I’m saying the remedy should be punishment under the law, however severe we decide it should be, not denaturalization.
@joe@beige.party I do think denaturalization should generally not be a thing, and hope existing practices to the contrary would change worldwide. Yes. I’m an American, so I concern myself mostly with what my country does.
@admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org @joe@beige.party For Musk, nothing really matters. He has multiple citizenships, I believe. He has infinite wealth, relative to his own living requirements. I’m not worried about any injustice to Musk. I’m worried about reinforcing an institution that a miserable political institution openly intends to accelerate and abuse, that both from a practical and philosophical perspective should not exist at all.
@joe@beige.party @admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org It’s USCIS’ job to perform due diligence, to catch material misstatements before granting citizenship. If you try to lie your way to an immigrant visa to Canada, they should check your claims and summarily reject you.
In my view, once a person is a citizen of a country, that should be a rock, a foundation. Citizens can be held accountable, punished for their crimes. But a person’s citizenship is like a person’s humanity, should never be at issue.
@joe@beige.party @admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org I’d like to see Musk punished for a bunch of crimes. He should go to jail for flagrantly violating election and lottery laws, for example. Perjury is a crime, and we can attach as steep a penalty as we wish to perjury for the purpose if obtaining citizenship. There’s no need for denaturalization as a remedy, and its existence renders a foundational aspect of people’s lives uncertain, reversible, and privileges natural-born over naturalized citizens.
@joe@beige.party @admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org I do want the law changed so that denaturalization is not a thing! What did I say happened that did not happen? Between 2008 and 2021, there were 228 denaturalization cases. 40% of those were 2017 to 2020, due to the Trump administration. Even with that acceleration, it averages less than 18 cases a year, out of 7-ish hundred thousand naturalized in an average year. It is a very rare event. https://www.aila.org/library/featured-issue-denaturalization-efforts-by-uscis
@joe@beige.party @admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org No it is not. People can be prosecuted for perjury. The logic of this thread is that citizenship is foundational, that denaturalization is not an appropriate form of accountability, for anyone. You can put people in jail with their citizenship intact if that is what accountability demands.
@joe@beige.party @admitsWrongIfProven@qoto.org It’s not the norm. It is extraordinarily rare.
