On 12/13/21 1:13 PM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
It's interesting that you went to guns in response to court packing. It's been
in the news a lot with Newsom's response to SB8 and the SCOTUS ruling:
https://www.vox.com/2021/12/12/22830625/newsom-california-guns-texas-abortion-law-supreme-court
I *thought* I was going from Amendment I to Amendment II, the fact of
using guns (and other practical leverage) to assert one's
opinions/preferences and/or suppress those of another. I am acutely
conflicted because I *do* experience the attraction of blunt persuasion
and the threat of it (by others) at the same time.
The whole category of adversarial policy-making evokes tit-for-tat, maybe no
longer the absolute optimum strategy, but still a good candidate inside the
fast, good, cheap triangle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
I find the adversarial model of just about anything tired. It *might*
be the only common ground we can find when other strategies fail, but it
falls short not only of optimal, but desirable for the most part.
Discussing this in parallel to the (not just Popper's) idea that *criticism* is
necessary for the modulation of metaphysical frames seems telling. On the surface,
tit-for-tat seems like a terrible way to run the government ... gerrymander for
your party because they'll damn well gerrymander for their party ... appoint
partisan hacks to SCOTUS because you know they'll appoint partisan hacks to SCOTUS
... etc. But, really, maybe tit-for-tat is the BEST strategy for governing? Take
that you consistency hobgoblins, overly committed to your Modernist [ptouie]
paradigms. >8^D
Certainly *most* simple examples of feedback governance (population
dynamics, steam engine speed controls, etc) ARE pretty simple
tit-for-tat in their stylization. If the "guilds" of subsystems
interacting are more complex than say rabbits-coyotes or right/left
politics then I think there *must* be more sophisticated governance
systems. The Constitutional (US) formulation of separation of powers,
checks and balances, separation of church and state, etc. seemed to
start out just a tad more sophisticated but a little gaming over a
couple of centuries has collapsed it back to (nearly) a simple push and
pull on singular axes.
On 12/13/21 10:36 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
Thanks for the link to this specific treatment of intolerance. In my youth, I was known
to claim: "I am tolerant of everything except intolerance" which of course was
at best aspirational and more likely just plain delusional.
While it applies well and obviously to the "culture wars" somewhat unevenly but not without exemplary exceptions, it
also seems to apply by extension to the elaborated context of the 2nd Amendment. As a "western man" raised on guns,
guts and glory, I am comfortable around guns and know that they can in fact be "useful tools" though less and less so
in modern society and most especially for a vegetarian like myself. What I am *intolerant* of is their use as tools for
bullying. Among my gun loving acquaintances (some to be called proper friends) there is a habit of brandishing the fact of
their guns (and ammo and ability and willingness to use both) in the face of those they disagree with or disapprove of. The
ones I call friends probably don't even realize that their "gun talk" has a bullying undertone they don't recognize it
is so "under".
I have a plethora of anecdotes (really, me?) on this topic but the general theme seems to
be to alert and remind others that they have the willingness and ability to assert their
will through deadly force *at-a-distance*. These are not (just) varmint guns (e.g. .22
single-shot rifles suitable for exterminating nuisance rats, squirrels, gophers, skunks,
bunnies, raccoons, and even coyotes and bobcats from a dozen yards away) or even
"deer rifles" (small capacity, medium caliber, bolt action, possibly scoped,
suitable for killing a medium sized animal from up to 100 yards away), but instead most
often weapons designed for *modern* warfare variously with the potential for *very* high
capacity magazines, rapid-fire shooting (even without a low-tech bump-stock), specialized
ammunition (variously for piercing armor and/or causing extreme hydrostatic shock) and
precision targeting at a great distance (high-velocity rounds, extreme optical
magnification and even night-vision).
When noted that such are not useful for any obvious *legal* or *sane* application, they stakes get raised to
implying the need to "throw off government tyranny". My "local" police department
(Pojoaque Pueblo) has all of these weapons as well, and more, including armored personnel carriers handed
down from the military (yay?). They had them on prominent display for years but recently seem to have found
a garage somewhere to keep them in, I doubt they have relinquished these "toys", I think I see them
out for maintenance now and then.
I don't talk much with my gun-nut friends about their arsenals, I'm prone to end up saying things
like "Come the Apocalypse, while I don't own any guns, I know lots of people who do, and where
they keep them and whether they actually properly secure them". This really raises hackles,
so I don't even start down that path. It all (including my implied threats) seems to be a
(re)assertion/corollary to "Might makes Right" which is obviously compelling to the logic
that builds and maintains bullies.
The paradox of intolerance applies acutely to the reality of bullies...
- Steve
On 12/13/21 10:07 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
Pack the Court
https://electoral-vote.com/#item-3
Don't pack the court:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3982144
This evokes the paradox of tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
As Trump et al have shown us, that sect of the right *will* pack the court
when/if it suits them. Biden will probably decide *not* to make the attempt.
But there will be no political will to pass a law *preventing* court packing.
So the moderate Dems won't pack the court. But they'll happily leave the option
open to the next Republican administration. It's an excellent example of how
tolerance eliminates tolerance by tolerating intolerance.
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
