@Doubletree1's banner p

Doubletree1


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 March 11 14:41:37 UTC

				

User ID: 2252

Doubletree1


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2023 March 11 14:41:37 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2252

A long time ago if you wanted to build a house you needed land and the knowledge of practical house building skills: brickwork, carpentry, plaster, etc. Today, the practical skills associated with house building are more complicated: electricity, plumbing, gas lines, scoping for major appliances, carpeting, the physical systemization of everything, a higher expected level of finish and polish on everything.

It's harder now to build a house just based on practical matters- it is less likely that a regular person will have all the skills to do it himself. He might be forced to hire a specialist or three. He may feel like he is no longer a master of his fate in this regard.

Navigating regulation is a skill of its own, which must be learned. It is not an intuitive skill. Some people aren't good at it, but I don't think it represents a phase change in personal ownership- only a change in degree.

That being said, the value/cost ratio of regulation like this is probably low in a lot of cases.

Dealing with your life being ruined because of an indistinct rule created by a bureaucrat you've never met and will never meet is much more emotionally difficult than having your life ruined by Steve down the street.

I disagree, or at least I would warn against generalizing on this point

And power drills and nails are designed and fabricated at locations very far from you, and are useful to you or not (supply, packaging, standardization, spare parts, etc) based on the decisions made by far away people, often times leaving you no recompensed if those decisions impact you negatively.

A society that regained those skills would be much stronger, more self-actualized, and more operationally democratic than the one we have now.

Agreed. Maybe I was taking issue with the framing, as if these skills were "just lost" like a penny in a gutter, or via some nebulous "force of bureaucracy". They were abandoned for the same reason that you cannot build a power drill yourself (or probably even a hammer).

(Though I also believe we'd be a better society if everyone knew how to make a power drill)

Nothing worse than what gets posted on the regular here. Except it might be targeted toward the right vs left

Nah, fuck ads.

Ads are tools that aid problem-solving by matching people to tools that solve their problems.

The purpose of ads, the reason for their existence, is definitely not to help me get what I want, nor are they tools that primarily serve my interests. If they were, then an advertising agency would be something that I sought out and paid for to help me solve a problem or find a solution. Instead, they're the other thing.

I deny it.

Why is it that when people try to engage their local democratic system to influence the education of their children, they get branded as "hate groups" and "domestic extremists"?

Unfortunately, it is the religious conservative crowd (and their sympathizers) who were the public face of anti-lgbt for some time--and this group has zero credibility when it comes to arguments rooted in principled liberalism.

While there are many kinds of diversity that can be tolerated in a liberal environment, one that rejects the principle of liberalism itself is obviously logically incompatible with that environment. In that case, the best that can be offered is an enclave-type arrangement.

You could say that all this applies to the illiberal left as well. I agree. Without condoning it, I think the left, bring borne from the same tradition as classical liberalism, is simply better than the right in couching their position in liberal terms; they have the credibility. I try to tell any liberal who will listen that the left is not liberal but old habits and all.

Lots of Muslims in the USA probably do celebrate Christmas, to one degree or another.

I'm curious what you would consider American "homeland" food. Nearly all of the distinctly American food I can think of is either hyper-local dishes or the result of a fusion of various European, black, and native cuisine.

Make it make sense, please

It's quite clear, I don't know what it is youre not understanding. I'm not attacking average conservatives, they can believe what they want, as long as they're not trying to force their way of life on me. I'm pointing out the that it is illogical to appeal to liberal sensibilities of inclusion to paint liberals as the bad people for rejecting the illiberal tendencies of conservatives.

As I said, I think there are many things about the conservative viewpoint that can coexist with object-level liberals in a liberal meta-system. Of course if conservatives reject liberalism itself, that can't be tolerated for game theoretical reasons.

In that case the best that can be offered is an enclave -- which is far more tolerant and accomodating and than conservatives would be, if the shoe were on the other foot.

It's not incoherent. Amish etc seem content to form their enclaves and practice their values as they see fit without forcing it on others. "Mainstream" social conservatives are not like this and do actively try to pass illiberal policies that would apply to everyone. Even as the Amish are more conservative on the objective level they are more consistent with the liberal meta system.

Do you think liberals who are in favor of age of consent laws are rejecting liberalism itself? Or are liberals who are in favor of state-recognized marriage being exclusively monogamous rejecting liberalism itself?

Depends on how they go about it I think. There are both ethical and secular arguments that can be made for or against both of these. Liberal principles dictate that we should bias ourselves towards a solution that maximizes both personal liberty and liberty of prospective subgroups without causing other on others to be harmed. In practice, if two groups disagree on policy, the more permissive policy has an advantage in that it allows the permissive party and the restrictive party to both coexist (in that the restrictive party and self-apply the more restrictive policy). That's not to say that the more permissive policy is always the right one. In the case of (lowering) the age of consent then the very obvious counter-argument is that children would be harmed by sexual predators.

My original point was that mainstream social conservatives couched their arguments against gay marriage in specifically religious terms which is definitely illiberal: not everyone follows their (interpretation of a specific) religion, so it is illiberal to impose that policy on non-believers on that basis. And so lost the credibility (with mainstream liberals) when they made similar arguments about trans people.

If you want to have an object level discussion about age of consent, or polyamory then state your case.

Any technology that improves the pace or efficiency (reduces transaction costs) of the movement of goods or ideas would be at play here: cars, airplanes, television, Internet, (and before that the printing press, trains and the ur-example, the horse). But also certain economic innovations, like standardized weights and measures and private property.

"[A]dvances in HIV treatment have surely raised that number in the last few decades, but the fact remains that practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle with health consequences similar to those we associate with smoking, sedentary lifestyles, bad foods, etc."

The argument is basically centered the definition of unhealthy. It is not precise to label actions that are merely correlative with worse outcomes as "unhealthy" per se. Driving a pickup truck vs a Prius is likely correlated with worse life expectency (i.e., being a male living in a rural area). But it would be absurd to say "driving a pickup truck is more unhealthy than driving a Prius (for the driver)" without extra caveats.

Furthermore the original use of "unhealthy " in the thread in cake's post used a different definition altogether (likely ideologically based) -- making naraburns' reply somewhat of a non sequitur.

I read your post. You clearly say.

but the fact remains that practicing homosexuality is a lifestyle with health consequences similar to those we associate with smoking, sedentary lifestyles, bad foods, etc. Which we typically do not ban, but do often seek to regulate, or at least socially disapprove.

Without presenting evidence that the association is any more than correlative.

Later you say

But you said you "don't see anything unhealthy about homosexuality," which statement would seem to me to require a very constrained definition of "unhealthy," much more constrained than we apply in basically any other context.

I disagree. I think way we use "unhealthy" in normal contexts is far more often causative "smoking is unhealthy" rather than correlative "driving a pickup is unhealthy".

It will help on the margins, which is all that I person hope for these days. But, does your municipality enforce parking minimums and what are they? An frequent new urbanist complaint is that in many places parking mimums regs are significantly higher than they need to be.

Removal of parking minimums doesnt necessarily mean no parking. The urbanist thesis is that code-enforced parking minimums are often higher than would be supported by the market

Subdivision is not always trivial. I would not say that the there is only a single fixed cost, there are also variable costs associated with land surveys, environmental surveys, administration, utilities, etc.

Then there are selection effects. Areas with large blocks of land are usually more rural which have lower land prices.

I have a feeling that the complete picture here has to do with the marginal utility of developed vs undeveloped land, economies of scale, and maybe commercial vs residential markets.

It seems intuitive to me that the utility value of developed land does not scale linearly with size, unless you're a farmer or something.

If I'm a large developer that can afford to buy a large parcel, subdivide, AND develop those parcels, I will likely (up to a point) get a better ROI from a larger number of smaller plots. In SFH residential markets this happens often because there is a consumer desire to "own" their plot. In commercial markets, this demand matters less, so the ROI maximizing strategy is to buy a large plot, build X storefronts, and rent to tenants. The size and distribution of those storefronts should reflect the market for commercial renters, and I think that is what you do see (a decent mix of large home-depot style tenants and smaller independent businesses).

Yet on the other hand, selling a small plot of undeveloped land is challenging since you need to develop it, and you will almost always be outcompeted by large developers who can afford to buy the larger plot in one go.

So you have a market dynamic where both things are true: the utility (and marginal market) value of the developed land is proportionally greater for small plots (or small storefronts), yet it is not always useful to simply buy a large plot, subdivide, and resell.

All this is to say, holders of large plots of undeveloped land are usually incentivized to sell in one go. Whereas developers are incentivised to buy large plots and then extract maximum utility via subdivision or multiple storefronts, which is what I think we do see in practice.

The Left -- that is, the mass of men and women who are in control of nearly every relevant channel of Western power and influence

To the extent that this is not just a tautological redefinition of "the left", this strikes me as factually inaccurate. The right of center has significant support among the the police, military, non traditional media, and a large minority of traditional media. Republicans routinely win ~50% of elections at all levels, a supreme court in their favor. A majority of high-wealth individuals are Republican.

The good advice in this post is for Hanania to be honest with himself and his beliefs. It is a virtue to courageously stand up and truthfully say "yes I believed this, but here is why I changed my mind" or "I used to believe this; I still do but I used to, too". It is obviously cowardly and expedient to apologize if he does actually hold those convictions.

On the other hand, large swaths of this post are deeply uncharitable and indistinguishable from a self-fulling siege-mentality worldview (which may or may not be in accordance with reality). Many leftists have an exactly symmetric but opposite narrative, just as passionately and deeply held. I suppose you can both be right, but you both can't have the moral high ground.

Thank you-- but with one further clarification/nitpick. My "pickup truck" analogy was intended to describe a situation that is closer to the (b) kind of association. The (a) kind of association seems to me to be causative since there is a clear mechanistic cause and effect relationship.

An alternate explanation is that these kinds of extreme pro-ethnic-cleansing arguments are genuinely unpopular among large swaths of the center right.

So? The police in smaller municipalities aren't.

The military is controlled by the commander in chief, the sec-def and the combatant commanders which are political appointees.

No. The left could be filled with 100% terrorists. That doesn't affect whether extreme HBD policies are or are not popular on the center right.

Bari Weiss is running a university to attract customers. those customers may include the center right, woke-skeptic, and also find extreme HBD policies distasteful.

There are others in this thread who are claiming that negative outcomes in children of single parents are primarily due to genetics.

In other words, genetics can tell you to leave your partner but not how much to eat.

These kinds of claims require evidence.

they are just disputed zones fought over by countries that do have nukes.

This is why it's bad for the USA for Iran to have nukes.

Charitably, playing an M player game of thrones is easier than an M+1 player game. The USA doesn't even give nukes to it's non-nuclrar allies, and neither do the other nuclear powers.

Where do I find the volunteer link from the main page? The previous posts says to "click the banner" but the only banner I see is an image of some spiky objects. Clicking it brings me to the main page.

I'm on a mobile browser if that makes a difference.