your test (which i don't think so many people would fail as you might expect) isn't very discerning. there are lots of scenarios where beliefs about the state of the world determine the reality of the situation.
e.g., in a simple model of bank runs, if everyone believes the bank is financially solvent, then it factually is. if somebody then tells you the bank is insolvent and you reply "that's the mentality that's going to lead to the destruction of our beloved bank" then your reply is not only factually correct but also captures the essential truth of the situation better than evidence for the bank's financial solvency would
People who strongly strongly strongly oppose Trump are full of crap. Not because Trump is a good President or a good leader. But simply because the system is full of inertia and resistant to any extreme changes. It doesn't matter ****THAT**** much who is the President. Those people who care that much about opposing Trump, they are probably nuts and problematic people.
A question a counter skeptic would ask, "While democracy is not wonderful, what do YOU suggest should replace it (if anything) and what would be the specific plan for change that would get us there?" The mainline responses we have seen are either monarchy or some other authoritarian system or anarchy. Authoritarian systems are decidedly worse and the movement to anarchy is a risk that few are willing to take.
I think this is right, Pavel. We tend to think in terms of "wonderful" or "crap", but binary descriptions don't fit with political systems. Everything is on a spectrum.
Authoritarian system suit some places. Democracy didn't do wonders in the Arab world.
Anarchy is impossible. It may be very remotely conceivable in a place with a homogeneous population and strong framework of customs and traditions but such places do not exist now.
He seems to like Singapore even more. EDIT: Over-confident me. Caplan praises both, and sees flaws in both. Google AI-mode does better than us: Ultimately, Caplan's assessment of both the UAE and Singapore is mixed. He uses aspects of their governance to critique Western, and specifically American, policies, but does not endorse either as a model for "best governance." He appreciates specific policies, such as the UAE's immigration approach and Singapore's efficient bureaucracy, while recognizing that their restrictive or state-controlled elements are far from his libertarian ideal. - end of quote -
While 'real Capitalism' was never tried. UAE? Without the Sheiks, I guess. Caplan disliked their waste on prestige-'education". Reminder: Until recently, unmarried women giving birth in the Emirates went to prison.
Bryan seems to dislike Singapore's strict moral legislation.
Their immigration policy is also a lot more restrictive then the UAE (the punishment for employing or harboring an illegal immigrant is a combination of fines, jail time, and caning).
Singapore's economy my have more central planning? I don't know as I don't know the UAE as well.
I have no doubt he likes Singapore, all sensible people do, but whether he likes it more then the UAE, which is much more open borders, I can't say.
Either way, both are unique city state situations with governance models I'm not sure are exportable.
Your article clarified the feeling of unreality I get as I watch/read the news. I see SO many people determined to force events into their pre-existing moral frame. Trump MUST be doing terrible abusive things (and so pedestrian acts by federal law enforcement become horrific) and progressives must be benevolent and moderate (so violence and extremism is explained away, ignored, or minimized). They are filtering their thoughts and words through a 'noble lie' filter, and this leads to them reflexively lying in dozens of different ways. Eventually they can't understand their own distortions, and nor can they communicate with opponents or skeptics or independents.
It's hard to understand how you could think these things.
It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to send the National Guard into American cities.
It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to randomly stop brown people and demand they prove their citizenship. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to deport people who have not even been convicted of a crime to a torture prison in a foreign country. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to round up and detain people who are awaiting hearings to determine their status. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to ignore rights to due process, determine those matters without any hearing, and deport people without letting them have any ability to challenge that decision. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to coerce mothers into accepting the illegal deportation of their American citizen children, including a 4 year old cancer patient, by forbidding that parent from securing assurance that child won't be denied their medical treatments. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to deliberate deport people, not just to the wrong country, but to the wrong continent, across an ocean, without any concern for their welfare of their ability to ever get home. If you think what is happening is routine, then you are either wildly misinformed about history, or about current events. People who just deny reality are, you are correct, people it's impossible to have genuine conversations with.
There are a large number of things I would have thought had pretty close to a 0% chance of happening by now in 2010 that have already happened.
-the election of someone who was a convicted felon
-the presence of soldiers on the streets of multiple major cities
-a political party actively seeking to cover up documents that quite probably show the president raped teenagers
-the casual and open murder of foreigners suspected of having drugs by the president
-the deportation of vast numbers of immigrants without even the appearance of due process
-sending supposed criminals to a foreign prison known for abuse and intended for terrorists without a trial or any prescribed length of sentence
-the Supreme Court ruling that a president is exempt from prosecution for almost anything they do as president
-multiple, credible investigations into things like criminal theft of confidential documents and seeking to engage in insurrection by an American president
-that very president winning a future election after this came to light
I could easily go on for a long time. The stability of American democracy made each of these seem like things with less than a 1% chance of happening. The fact that so many of them have happened, and that a rapidly growing number of shocking events are happening in the first year of the second term of a president openly advocating for basically unlimited power is not only unprecedented, it was absolutely laughable not long ago. This pretty clearly makes your attitude the unjustified one at the moment.
Conditional on Trump living, there are any number of bets I would gladly make about several more horrible events happening in the remainder of his life.
Rather than betting on killing protestors, you could bet on elections (more relevant to determine whether one is in some sort of democracy). Your old co-blogger bet against you that Republicans would never regain control of a branch of government between 2009 and 2017 https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/bet_accepted.html People panicking in the opposite direction could make a similar bet.
I have tried to get “Trump is a Threat to Democracy” types to make specific, non-trivial, falsifiable and time-bound predictions for the year 2029 or 2030.
If Trump is still alive, and has not been removed from office prior to the end of his current term, Trump will declare that he is still the president on January 21, 2029.
I might be interested in that if the odds are right. I think lots of others would be as well. If that happens, I think it would be undeniable the he not only threatened, but destroyed, American democracy.
I don't bet money out of principle, but I will take you up on a gentlemen's bet. Notice that my original comment stated "prediction," not bet.
But to show you that I will follow through, the odds I give are 1:1, which if Trump really is a threat to democracy is being very generous. A true believer in “Trump is a Threat to Democracy” would not ask for odds because it is a guaranteed win.
But the bet cannot be about what Trump says. He says lots of bullshit.
How about Trump is President in 2030, yes or no? If he dies before then or does not complete his current term, the bet is voided.
That cuts through all the ambiguity.
And given that FDR was four-term president, it is not clear that even if you win, this is actually a threat to democracy. It is breaking the the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But for the purposes of this bet, I will ignore that fact.
A gentleman's agreement doesn't cost anything if you're wrong. The whole point is to test whether or not you actually believe what you're saying.
1:1 odds aren't a good indication of a threat. A threat is something that poses a serious risk. Lions are a threat to lots of animals. That doesn't mean they are successful half the time. A serious threat to democracy wouldn't have to have a 50% chance of success. "There's a lion charging at us" is an important warning, even if they don't succeed most of the time. Sadly, I think the time for that warning has passed. He's already actively destroying American democracy by undermining the entire system of checks and balances, and openly and deliberately engaging in crimes, including numerous murders, with no remorse and no shame.
For that reason, if he's alive, and if he hasn't been removed before this term ends, I think the odds are at least 50%, so I don't have a large issue with the odds on my stated bet.
I do have a problem with the condition that he's actually still president, though. If he tries to stay as president, there will almost certainly be a divided government, and serious attempts to undermine what is happening. I would think that if at least 10-20% of congress refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a president in office, that is an indication that the process is no longer working. If he not only claims to be president, but has a decently sized percentage of the government recognizing that claim and acting accordingly, then American democracy isn't really working any more. If he's just accepted as president despite it being unconstitutional, then it's the least ambiguous statement that the entire system is a joke. I don't see how anyone could seriously think, at the very least, that serious damage has been done to American democracy that that point. Of course, I have trouble understanding how anyone could honestly say that important, and perhaps unfixable damage has already been done to it because of him. For the purposes of this best, I will ignore that fact, though.
That is just a long-winded way of saying that you do not actually think that Trump is really a Threat to Democracy, either.
You say that "He's already actively destroying American democracy" that is "important and unfixable damage" but you are not willing to take a gentleman's bet that it will be apparent in 2030 when Trump has the time to do far more damage.
Yes, I do "actually believe what I am saying." That is why I am offering a bet with both our statuses on the line.
And you immediately bale, anyway.... (followed by a long line of hyperbole.
Get back to me when you are willing to specific, non-trivial, falsifiable and time-bound prediction for 2029 or 2030.
If that's what you got from what I said, then you obviously are choosing not to understand what I said. I made a specific, falsifiable, and time-bound statement, and I was actually willing to bet on it. You are supposedly risking your "reputation" by making a fake bet on a comments thread that you probably won't even remember in a few years, and that almost no one will read. Gentlemen's bets are beyond worthless, especially between strangers. Accepting one would simply enhance your feelings of justification in your willfully blind views. Put money on it, or admit you are the one whose beliefs are unjustified. That's the whole point of betting in this context.
What is exactly is your specific, non-trivial, falsifiable and time-bound prediction for 2029 or 2030?
I could not find it anywhere above...
I will make my own:
In 2026 there will be a midterm election where both parties will win a significant number of seats (40%+) in the US House and US Senate. They will take their seats in 2027.
In 2028 there will be Congressional elections where both parties will win a significant number of seats in the US House and US Senate. They will take their seats in 2029.
In 2028 there will be a Presidential election where both parties will win a significant number of electoral college votes. A new President not named Trump will take office.
In 2029, the federal and state judiciary and media will be operating more or less the same as now.
In 2029 and 2030 the Democratic party will control the Governorship and state legislatures in at least 12 states.
In 2029 and 2030 the Democratic party will control the mayorship and city councils of the vast majority of large cities.
In 2029 and 2030 the US Constitution will still be in place.
In 2029 and 2030 the vast majority of federal civilian bureaucrats will identify as Democrat or Lean Democrat.
In 2029 and 2030 independent online media will have a greater audience on both Left and Right than today.
SUMMARY: All the key factors in American democracy will be largely the same in 2030 as it was in 2012 only with the Republicans winning more elections. The Democrats will likely be a minority non-competitive party on the federal level, but they will have dominant control over Blue states and Blue cities.
It's not that the two parties are so fantastic, but in practice democracy seems like the best way of supporting a country with individual freedoms like the First Amendment rights which I really, really do think are fantastic.
We just don't have that much evidence of what happens that can cause the culture that leads Western civilization to decline and fall. The Roman Empire? I don't know, I mean I'm not an expert. But it seems pretty reasonable to think that a long-term risk to America is a Julius Caesar type who takes advantage of some short term situation to gain himself more personal power at the cost of destroying some of the institutions that led to our long-term success.
I mean, it probably won't happen. I'm not saying you should freak out. But nevertheless, it's good to vote for leaders that respect democracy, respect civil liberties, respect the rule of law, and to remember that the greatest American political heroes are people like George Washington who put the success of the nation over their own political power.
The thing is we don't have First Amendment rights, that ship sailed the very first SCOTUS case on them and have been consistently further eroded and narrowed since.
The current court has been granting a lot of First Amendment claims. Schenk v. United States was a low point more than a century ago, but has been largely overturned.
Not when I comes to actual speech though. US v Hanson, US v Williams, etc all recent cases carving out yet more strict liability speech only crime exceptions. Don't forget the case in the early oughts upholding free speech zones too. The war on sex is destroying the 1st in the same way the war in drugs destroyed the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th. Even things like the right to assembly and petition the government have been curtailed. About the only "1st" that is expanding is religious freedom and I think that is only around abortion.
Double Twice=4? My connection was/is bad today, first try ended with "something went wrong", so I tried again.
"Noble" implies (to me) principles. The comic says principles spell 'doom'. Panel 9 (the wide one) reads to me as fine description of Trumpism. Disclosure: I used to be anti-anti-Trump. I still doubt he is Satan or even a US-version of Putin.
Americans are starting to lose democracy, rights, freedom, and nature. They took everything for granted and forgot to protect and cultivate them, and now they are slowly and surely on the path to an authoritarian regime.
your test (which i don't think so many people would fail as you might expect) isn't very discerning. there are lots of scenarios where beliefs about the state of the world determine the reality of the situation.
e.g., in a simple model of bank runs, if everyone believes the bank is financially solvent, then it factually is. if somebody then tells you the bank is insolvent and you reply "that's the mentality that's going to lead to the destruction of our beloved bank" then your reply is not only factually correct but also captures the essential truth of the situation better than evidence for the bank's financial solvency would
very few bank collapses came about ex nihilio from completely irrational panic.
this is irrelevant
"The will of the people" is the same as "divine right". No difference whatsoever.
People who strongly strongly strongly oppose Trump are full of crap. Not because Trump is a good President or a good leader. But simply because the system is full of inertia and resistant to any extreme changes. It doesn't matter ****THAT**** much who is the President. Those people who care that much about opposing Trump, they are probably nuts and problematic people.
A question a counter skeptic would ask, "While democracy is not wonderful, what do YOU suggest should replace it (if anything) and what would be the specific plan for change that would get us there?" The mainline responses we have seen are either monarchy or some other authoritarian system or anarchy. Authoritarian systems are decidedly worse and the movement to anarchy is a risk that few are willing to take.
Democracy is the worst thing a person has, but there is nothing better.
I think this is right, Pavel. We tend to think in terms of "wonderful" or "crap", but binary descriptions don't fit with political systems. Everything is on a spectrum.
Let's not judge, let's not evaluate, let's not criticize...and we will be better off.
Authoritarian system suit some places. Democracy didn't do wonders in the Arab world.
Anarchy is impossible. It may be very remotely conceivable in a place with a homogeneous population and strong framework of customs and traditions but such places do not exist now.
Caplan is an anarcho-capitalist.
You are correct, hence the end of my initial comment.
Bryan seems to like the idea of having a UAE type system, but doesn't propose any concrete ways to get there.
Other then their immigration stance though, I don't think he's discussed the UAE too in depth, or how it would be applicable to other places.
He can correct me if he thinks I'm wrong. But I can think of no other actually existing country I've seen him praise.
He seems to like Singapore even more. EDIT: Over-confident me. Caplan praises both, and sees flaws in both. Google AI-mode does better than us: Ultimately, Caplan's assessment of both the UAE and Singapore is mixed. He uses aspects of their governance to critique Western, and specifically American, policies, but does not endorse either as a model for "best governance." He appreciates specific policies, such as the UAE's immigration approach and Singapore's efficient bureaucracy, while recognizing that their restrictive or state-controlled elements are far from his libertarian ideal. - end of quote -
While 'real Capitalism' was never tried. UAE? Without the Sheiks, I guess. Caplan disliked their waste on prestige-'education". Reminder: Until recently, unmarried women giving birth in the Emirates went to prison.
https://civilweddingabudhabi.com/pregnancy/unmarried-pregnancy-laws-in-abu-dhabi-2025 Also recommeded: the comment by 'Peter' https://www.econlib.org/bryan-caplan-on-the-uae/
Bryan seems to dislike Singapore's strict moral legislation.
Their immigration policy is also a lot more restrictive then the UAE (the punishment for employing or harboring an illegal immigrant is a combination of fines, jail time, and caning).
Singapore's economy my have more central planning? I don't know as I don't know the UAE as well.
I have no doubt he likes Singapore, all sensible people do, but whether he likes it more then the UAE, which is much more open borders, I can't say.
Either way, both are unique city state situations with governance models I'm not sure are exportable.
"UAE? Without the Sheiks, I guess. "
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play.
I feel like you are "Assuming a Unicorn" (to borrow a Mike Munger-ism) when you describe democracy and how we should feel about it.
Your article clarified the feeling of unreality I get as I watch/read the news. I see SO many people determined to force events into their pre-existing moral frame. Trump MUST be doing terrible abusive things (and so pedestrian acts by federal law enforcement become horrific) and progressives must be benevolent and moderate (so violence and extremism is explained away, ignored, or minimized). They are filtering their thoughts and words through a 'noble lie' filter, and this leads to them reflexively lying in dozens of different ways. Eventually they can't understand their own distortions, and nor can they communicate with opponents or skeptics or independents.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/read-the-room
It's hard to understand how you could think these things.
It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to send the National Guard into American cities.
It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to randomly stop brown people and demand they prove their citizenship. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to deport people who have not even been convicted of a crime to a torture prison in a foreign country. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to round up and detain people who are awaiting hearings to determine their status. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to ignore rights to due process, determine those matters without any hearing, and deport people without letting them have any ability to challenge that decision. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to coerce mothers into accepting the illegal deportation of their American citizen children, including a 4 year old cancer patient, by forbidding that parent from securing assurance that child won't be denied their medical treatments. It is not pedestrian federal law enforcement to deliberate deport people, not just to the wrong country, but to the wrong continent, across an ocean, without any concern for their welfare of their ability to ever get home. If you think what is happening is routine, then you are either wildly misinformed about history, or about current events. People who just deny reality are, you are correct, people it's impossible to have genuine conversations with.
There are a large number of things I would have thought had pretty close to a 0% chance of happening by now in 2010 that have already happened.
-the election of someone who was a convicted felon
-the presence of soldiers on the streets of multiple major cities
-a political party actively seeking to cover up documents that quite probably show the president raped teenagers
-the casual and open murder of foreigners suspected of having drugs by the president
-the deportation of vast numbers of immigrants without even the appearance of due process
-sending supposed criminals to a foreign prison known for abuse and intended for terrorists without a trial or any prescribed length of sentence
-the Supreme Court ruling that a president is exempt from prosecution for almost anything they do as president
-multiple, credible investigations into things like criminal theft of confidential documents and seeking to engage in insurrection by an American president
-that very president winning a future election after this came to light
I could easily go on for a long time. The stability of American democracy made each of these seem like things with less than a 1% chance of happening. The fact that so many of them have happened, and that a rapidly growing number of shocking events are happening in the first year of the second term of a president openly advocating for basically unlimited power is not only unprecedented, it was absolutely laughable not long ago. This pretty clearly makes your attitude the unjustified one at the moment.
Conditional on Trump living, there are any number of bets I would gladly make about several more horrible events happening in the remainder of his life.
Rather than betting on killing protestors, you could bet on elections (more relevant to determine whether one is in some sort of democracy). Your old co-blogger bet against you that Republicans would never regain control of a branch of government between 2009 and 2017 https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/05/bet_accepted.html People panicking in the opposite direction could make a similar bet.
I have tried to get “Trump is a Threat to Democracy” types to make specific, non-trivial, falsifiable and time-bound predictions for the year 2029 or 2030.
So far, no success…
What odds will you give me on the following?
If Trump is still alive, and has not been removed from office prior to the end of his current term, Trump will declare that he is still the president on January 21, 2029.
I might be interested in that if the odds are right. I think lots of others would be as well. If that happens, I think it would be undeniable the he not only threatened, but destroyed, American democracy.
I don't bet money out of principle, but I will take you up on a gentlemen's bet. Notice that my original comment stated "prediction," not bet.
But to show you that I will follow through, the odds I give are 1:1, which if Trump really is a threat to democracy is being very generous. A true believer in “Trump is a Threat to Democracy” would not ask for odds because it is a guaranteed win.
But the bet cannot be about what Trump says. He says lots of bullshit.
How about Trump is President in 2030, yes or no? If he dies before then or does not complete his current term, the bet is voided.
That cuts through all the ambiguity.
And given that FDR was four-term president, it is not clear that even if you win, this is actually a threat to democracy. It is breaking the the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But for the purposes of this bet, I will ignore that fact.
A gentleman's agreement doesn't cost anything if you're wrong. The whole point is to test whether or not you actually believe what you're saying.
1:1 odds aren't a good indication of a threat. A threat is something that poses a serious risk. Lions are a threat to lots of animals. That doesn't mean they are successful half the time. A serious threat to democracy wouldn't have to have a 50% chance of success. "There's a lion charging at us" is an important warning, even if they don't succeed most of the time. Sadly, I think the time for that warning has passed. He's already actively destroying American democracy by undermining the entire system of checks and balances, and openly and deliberately engaging in crimes, including numerous murders, with no remorse and no shame.
For that reason, if he's alive, and if he hasn't been removed before this term ends, I think the odds are at least 50%, so I don't have a large issue with the odds on my stated bet.
I do have a problem with the condition that he's actually still president, though. If he tries to stay as president, there will almost certainly be a divided government, and serious attempts to undermine what is happening. I would think that if at least 10-20% of congress refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a president in office, that is an indication that the process is no longer working. If he not only claims to be president, but has a decently sized percentage of the government recognizing that claim and acting accordingly, then American democracy isn't really working any more. If he's just accepted as president despite it being unconstitutional, then it's the least ambiguous statement that the entire system is a joke. I don't see how anyone could seriously think, at the very least, that serious damage has been done to American democracy that that point. Of course, I have trouble understanding how anyone could honestly say that important, and perhaps unfixable damage has already been done to it because of him. For the purposes of this best, I will ignore that fact, though.
LOL
That is just a long-winded way of saying that you do not actually think that Trump is really a Threat to Democracy, either.
You say that "He's already actively destroying American democracy" that is "important and unfixable damage" but you are not willing to take a gentleman's bet that it will be apparent in 2030 when Trump has the time to do far more damage.
Yes, I do "actually believe what I am saying." That is why I am offering a bet with both our statuses on the line.
And you immediately bale, anyway.... (followed by a long line of hyperbole.
Get back to me when you are willing to specific, non-trivial, falsifiable and time-bound prediction for 2029 or 2030.
LOL
If that's what you got from what I said, then you obviously are choosing not to understand what I said. I made a specific, falsifiable, and time-bound statement, and I was actually willing to bet on it. You are supposedly risking your "reputation" by making a fake bet on a comments thread that you probably won't even remember in a few years, and that almost no one will read. Gentlemen's bets are beyond worthless, especially between strangers. Accepting one would simply enhance your feelings of justification in your willfully blind views. Put money on it, or admit you are the one whose beliefs are unjustified. That's the whole point of betting in this context.
What is exactly is your specific, non-trivial, falsifiable and time-bound prediction for 2029 or 2030?
I could not find it anywhere above...
I will make my own:
In 2026 there will be a midterm election where both parties will win a significant number of seats (40%+) in the US House and US Senate. They will take their seats in 2027.
In 2028 there will be Congressional elections where both parties will win a significant number of seats in the US House and US Senate. They will take their seats in 2029.
In 2028 there will be a Presidential election where both parties will win a significant number of electoral college votes. A new President not named Trump will take office.
In 2029, the federal and state judiciary and media will be operating more or less the same as now.
In 2029 and 2030 the Democratic party will control the Governorship and state legislatures in at least 12 states.
In 2029 and 2030 the Democratic party will control the mayorship and city councils of the vast majority of large cities.
In 2029 and 2030 the US Constitution will still be in place.
In 2029 and 2030 the vast majority of federal civilian bureaucrats will identify as Democrat or Lean Democrat.
In 2029 and 2030 independent online media will have a greater audience on both Left and Right than today.
SUMMARY: All the key factors in American democracy will be largely the same in 2030 as it was in 2012 only with the Republicans winning more elections. The Democrats will likely be a minority non-competitive party on the federal level, but they will have dominant control over Blue states and Blue cities.
It's not that the two parties are so fantastic, but in practice democracy seems like the best way of supporting a country with individual freedoms like the First Amendment rights which I really, really do think are fantastic.
We just don't have that much evidence of what happens that can cause the culture that leads Western civilization to decline and fall. The Roman Empire? I don't know, I mean I'm not an expert. But it seems pretty reasonable to think that a long-term risk to America is a Julius Caesar type who takes advantage of some short term situation to gain himself more personal power at the cost of destroying some of the institutions that led to our long-term success.
I mean, it probably won't happen. I'm not saying you should freak out. But nevertheless, it's good to vote for leaders that respect democracy, respect civil liberties, respect the rule of law, and to remember that the greatest American political heroes are people like George Washington who put the success of the nation over their own political power.
The thing is we don't have First Amendment rights, that ship sailed the very first SCOTUS case on them and have been consistently further eroded and narrowed since.
The current court has been granting a lot of First Amendment claims. Schenk v. United States was a low point more than a century ago, but has been largely overturned.
Not when I comes to actual speech though. US v Hanson, US v Williams, etc all recent cases carving out yet more strict liability speech only crime exceptions. Don't forget the case in the early oughts upholding free speech zones too. The war on sex is destroying the 1st in the same way the war in drugs destroyed the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th. Even things like the right to assembly and petition the government have been curtailed. About the only "1st" that is expanding is religious freedom and I think that is only around abortion.
Zach Weinersmith (Caplan is a fan) had the best anti-noble / pro-Trump comic today: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ethics-8
just mho, ofc
I'm more curious about why that is pro-Trump.
(and why you've double posted twice)
Double Twice=4? My connection was/is bad today, first try ended with "something went wrong", so I tried again.
"Noble" implies (to me) principles. The comic says principles spell 'doom'. Panel 9 (the wide one) reads to me as fine description of Trumpism. Disclosure: I used to be anti-anti-Trump. I still doubt he is Satan or even a US-version of Putin.
What do you mean by “noble?”
not the award by the inventor of dynamite - for other questions, I referred to the link.
Which panel was incomprehensible?
The panels blocked by ads.
SMBC is recommended to be read with adblocker on. One can support the artist via patreon (as I do). "The only strategy that works is inconsistency"
Americans are starting to lose democracy, rights, freedom, and nature. They took everything for granted and forgot to protect and cultivate them, and now they are slowly and surely on the path to an authoritarian regime.
That ship sailed long ago and has been constant erosion since founding + 1 day. The only thing really changing is the Overton window.