Monday's conversation with Timothy B. Lee; Joe Lonsdale on fixing bad systems; Richard Hanania names his FITs; Noah Smith on Millenials' economic prospects; Inquisitive Bird on crime and power laws
"what really matters for politics is probably not the number of kids that get born, but the number of people who end up having any kids at all."
I think that going from no kids to a kid is a big improvement, but I know a lot of UMC couples with just one kid they had in their late 30s. The thing about being well off with a single child is that you still aren't really forced to deal with reality. You don't need lots of expensive real estate. You can afford private school. The tax on your time isn't so great. Both parents can usually keep working. The bubble doesn't really get pierced. If the couple is well off enough even two kids doesn't change this. Especially if you've had nearly 40 years to develop you identity and politics before kids intrude.
It's when you get to 3+ kids that anyone but the elite needs to start utilizing public goods and public spaces. You can't buy your way out of public dysfunction anymore. And usually one spouse will dial back their career for a little while. One of the big marks of "elite" families is that they can afford 3+ kids on one income rather then the UMC which can't (well, the way they want to raise kids).
Curious that Richard Hanania’s list of FITs on the right doesn’t include any thinker or writer on the “actual” right. It’s just a list of centrists and libertarians that sit to the right of Richard. Shows a lot about Richard’s own biases.
Seems like part of a larger trend of moderately disaffected progressive thinkers who become part of the intellectual dark web or whatever after the landscape is pulled out from underneath them, as though they’re the first to discover the sea-change. They’ll complain about the shift, band together with other disaffected liberals, and rail against this or that specific failure of the new generation of progressives, but continue to universally disdain conservatives as a dumber breed not worthy of consideration. Rinse, repeat.
Really, had they been willing to read more broadly and engage with a broader spectrum of conservative writers, they might have realized that others had been calling out the shifting landscape for a long time, possibly as part of a larger cultural trend.
Re: "if someone is convicted of a crime, instead of giving him a prison term or letting him go free, you make him wear a device that enables him to be tracked and restrained from committing another crime. But be careful what you wish for. If such a device works well, it will be tempting for government to put it on everyone."
Although I share your mistrust of the dynamics of government surveillance, let me nonetheless adduce another reason why a tracking device might be a preferable substitute for incarceration, in some cases.
Incarceration greatly harms also the subset of innocent persons -- typically, family members -- who depend on the convict and want him free.
I have in mind cases in which the dependents were not (direct) victims of the crime. I have in mind, say, grand theft auto (currently punishable by several years incarceration) rather than spousal battery.
A key empirical issue is whether a surveillance device would sufficiently reduce recidivism. For example, alcohol consumption, which causes disinhibition, might override the deterrent effect of the surveillance device. The person is 'at large' in society, free to interact with the innocent.
By contrast, incarceration purports to achieve *incapacitation.* In prison, predation and crime occur mainly among offenders. Some gangs, however, straddle prison and society, thereby enabling some gang members in prison to continue to direct crimes beyond prison.
A surveillance device is not an ironclad deterrence mechanism. Incarceration is not an ironclad incapacitation institution. I suppose the least-bad remedy will vary case by case.
Arnold writes: "... if someone is convicted of a crime, instead of giving him a prison term or letting him go free, you make him wear a device that enables him to be tracked and restrained from committing another crime." This seems naive. Why would this work? There was recently in the news a story of a culprit who committed a carjacking while wearing a device that had been imposed for his previous crime of...carjacking.
Joe Lonsdale is a wealthy tech guy who wants more people to be into tech. Wokeness is not a side show. We live in a culture and it matters much more if children are indoctrinated into thinking that they are born in the wrong bodies and must mutilate themselves than if we go to space. It matters much more if I am fired for having orthodox Christian values than if GDP growth exceeds 2%. Culture matters much more than these guys who can afford to live outside of it want to believe.
Off-topic, but you've talked a lot about "government restricting supply but subsidizing demand". Here's a comment you might find interesting on the third step government then takes, allowing perfect price discrimination:
I've been thinking the same thing about electronic tracking for repeat offenders. Of course another relevant number is what percentage of repeat offenders do stop offending. I don't know the answer, but if it's high then obviously we should be more reluctant to put bracelets on them or whatever.
Seems like it is worth experimenting more with. Obviously the trackers are just one tech component of a larger system. House arrest trackers instead of prison for some offenses/offenders. Trackers and drug tests instead of prison for other offenders.
I’m surprised I didn’t see Noah Smith on your list. Even though he’s more to the left than me, he’s probably my favorite pundit for being so prolific, interesting and informative.
"what really matters for politics is probably not the number of kids that get born, but the number of people who end up having any kids at all."
I think that going from no kids to a kid is a big improvement, but I know a lot of UMC couples with just one kid they had in their late 30s. The thing about being well off with a single child is that you still aren't really forced to deal with reality. You don't need lots of expensive real estate. You can afford private school. The tax on your time isn't so great. Both parents can usually keep working. The bubble doesn't really get pierced. If the couple is well off enough even two kids doesn't change this. Especially if you've had nearly 40 years to develop you identity and politics before kids intrude.
It's when you get to 3+ kids that anyone but the elite needs to start utilizing public goods and public spaces. You can't buy your way out of public dysfunction anymore. And usually one spouse will dial back their career for a little while. One of the big marks of "elite" families is that they can afford 3+ kids on one income rather then the UMC which can't (well, the way they want to raise kids).
Curious that Richard Hanania’s list of FITs on the right doesn’t include any thinker or writer on the “actual” right. It’s just a list of centrists and libertarians that sit to the right of Richard. Shows a lot about Richard’s own biases.
Seems like part of a larger trend of moderately disaffected progressive thinkers who become part of the intellectual dark web or whatever after the landscape is pulled out from underneath them, as though they’re the first to discover the sea-change. They’ll complain about the shift, band together with other disaffected liberals, and rail against this or that specific failure of the new generation of progressives, but continue to universally disdain conservatives as a dumber breed not worthy of consideration. Rinse, repeat.
Really, had they been willing to read more broadly and engage with a broader spectrum of conservative writers, they might have realized that others had been calling out the shifting landscape for a long time, possibly as part of a larger cultural trend.
But I’ve digressed.
The frontier-core axis is reminiscent of Julia Galef's scout-soldier mindset axis. (What ever became of Julia Galef?)
I have been wondering the same thing for some time now. She seemingly disappeared...
Re: "if someone is convicted of a crime, instead of giving him a prison term or letting him go free, you make him wear a device that enables him to be tracked and restrained from committing another crime. But be careful what you wish for. If such a device works well, it will be tempting for government to put it on everyone."
Although I share your mistrust of the dynamics of government surveillance, let me nonetheless adduce another reason why a tracking device might be a preferable substitute for incarceration, in some cases.
Incarceration greatly harms also the subset of innocent persons -- typically, family members -- who depend on the convict and want him free.
I have in mind cases in which the dependents were not (direct) victims of the crime. I have in mind, say, grand theft auto (currently punishable by several years incarceration) rather than spousal battery.
A key empirical issue is whether a surveillance device would sufficiently reduce recidivism. For example, alcohol consumption, which causes disinhibition, might override the deterrent effect of the surveillance device. The person is 'at large' in society, free to interact with the innocent.
By contrast, incarceration purports to achieve *incapacitation.* In prison, predation and crime occur mainly among offenders. Some gangs, however, straddle prison and society, thereby enabling some gang members in prison to continue to direct crimes beyond prison.
A surveillance device is not an ironclad deterrence mechanism. Incarceration is not an ironclad incapacitation institution. I suppose the least-bad remedy will vary case by case.
Arnold writes: "... if someone is convicted of a crime, instead of giving him a prison term or letting him go free, you make him wear a device that enables him to be tracked and restrained from committing another crime." This seems naive. Why would this work? There was recently in the news a story of a culprit who committed a carjacking while wearing a device that had been imposed for his previous crime of...carjacking.
Joe Lonsdale is a wealthy tech guy who wants more people to be into tech. Wokeness is not a side show. We live in a culture and it matters much more if children are indoctrinated into thinking that they are born in the wrong bodies and must mutilate themselves than if we go to space. It matters much more if I am fired for having orthodox Christian values than if GDP growth exceeds 2%. Culture matters much more than these guys who can afford to live outside of it want to believe.
Off-topic, but you've talked a lot about "government restricting supply but subsidizing demand". Here's a comment you might find interesting on the third step government then takes, allowing perfect price discrimination:
https://www.themotte.org/comment/89814?context=3#context
I've been thinking the same thing about electronic tracking for repeat offenders. Of course another relevant number is what percentage of repeat offenders do stop offending. I don't know the answer, but if it's high then obviously we should be more reluctant to put bracelets on them or whatever.
Seems like it is worth experimenting more with. Obviously the trackers are just one tech component of a larger system. House arrest trackers instead of prison for some offenses/offenders. Trackers and drug tests instead of prison for other offenders.
I’m surprised I didn’t see Noah Smith on your list. Even though he’s more to the left than me, he’s probably my favorite pundit for being so prolific, interesting and informative.