3 ms·

Playing to win is dead. Current climate is play to kill yourself, so long as your opponent also does but suffers more.

toomuchtodo 1y ago
I'm somewhat hopeful with Gavin Newsom's posture making an example, I wouldn't vote for him, but I like the aggressive PR position he's taken, his willingness to gerrymander just as the other side has been doing forever. That's what I mean by bipartisanship is dead. You can't negotiate with the other side, they do not want to negotiate, they want to win at all costs for ideology, so you can only do your best to disempower them. If you try to play fair with a counterparty who does not believe in acting in good faith or playing fair, you have default lost. You can't have a functional democracy when one side rejects democracy (massive efforts to disenfranchise voters, gerrymandering, etc) because they can't win democratically. There is no reason you can't have empathy while punching down at bullies, because if the tables were turned, the bullies would put their boot on your neck ("paradox of tolerance"). So, start punching down. Edit: In the context of this topic and the near term, this looks like blue states implementing universal healthcare, and letting red states figure it out themselves (considering how dependent red states are on the federal government [1] [2]); Oregon is up first [3]. You can increase state taxes to fund this, reducing tax dollars sent to the federal government, if properly engineered. [1]. https://time.com/7222411/blue-states-are-bailing-out-red-states/ https://time.com/7222411/blue-states-are-bailing-out-red-sta... [2] https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo... [3] https://www.hcfawa.org/oregon_s_path_to_universal_health_carerecap https://www.hcfawa.org/oregon_s_path_to_universal_health_car...
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > In the context of this topic and the near term, this looks like blue states implementing universal healthcare, and letting red states figure it out themselves… The risk here will be sick people (and their high costs) moving. As with how Chicago's illegal gun problems mostly come from Indiana.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    We already deal with this problem in higher education by having out-of-state tuition and in-state tuition priced at different levels. A period of residency is required to access in-state tuition. Does residency fraud exist? I'm sure of it. Despite the UC and CSU systems not publishing residency fraud statistics, such fraud is universally described as being extremely difficult to execute. I cannot overstate this point. Students routinely depict residency fraud as being more difficult to do than simply paying out of state tuition. The high cost of committing residency fraud makes cancels out any expected payoff. Furthermore, most instances of detected fraud appear to be technical and clerical errors, not intentional deception. What are in-state residency requirements, and how difficult is the requirement? Evidence for residency includes: - Obtaining a California driver’s license or ID card - California vehicle registration - California voter registration - California state tax returns - California bank accounts - Employment in California - Lease, mortgage, or property ownership in California - Severing residential ties to your former state (e.g., closing out-of-state bank accounts, surrendering non-CA licenses) Additionally, one year and one day of residency is commonly the required threshold to qualify for in-state tuition. The question becomes, is this effective enough at reducing fraud rather than can fraud be eliminated. I'm sure, like with any system, fraud detection and remediation are part of the operating costs and measured in terms of recovery rate/rate of return - the KPI we're discussing.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      I'm not talking about fraud, though. I'm talking about genuinely moving.
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        It is fraud to move to California for the sole purpose of education[1]. Likewise, genuinely moving to California for the sole purpose of benefiting from universal healthcare is also, in my opinion, fraud. People genuinely moving to California would presumably pay out of state healthcare fees until their residency was established. Don't you agree that these fees could be set in a way that served as a barrier to doing what you suggest? Is there a case that isn't covered by this that you're thinking about? 1. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 54022 - Physical Presence. "Physical presence within the state solely for educational purposes does not constitute establishing California residence regardless of the length of that presence." https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/5-CCR-54022 https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/5-CCR-540...
- philistine 1y ago
  Can I give my perspective as a Canadian? In our political system, we rarely talk about bipartisanship. First, because we don’t only have two political movements. Second, because we do nonpartisan politics. Examples include judges and district boundaries. Those two things are qualified as nonpartisan in Canadian politics. Another very telling example: parliamentary tour guides. The US Congress hires tour guides that are meant to reflect the political party that is responsible for their hiring. The Canadian Parliament insures their guides are nonpartisan. Of course if you dig you will find problems, it’s far from perfect. However, the fact that what is collectively outside the realm of partisan politics is not decided by two partners who need to agree is what’s important here. There is a collective tradition. With our judicial system able to give binding decisions on unwritten parliamentary traditions, you even have legal protection for nonpartisan politics. The US system counted way too much on the kindness of political adversaries. You need to find a new way to do politics, because American conservatives have decided that they will abandon democracy rather than give up power.

I'm somewhat hopeful with Gavin Newsom's posture making an example, I wouldn't vote for him, but I like the aggressive PR position he's taken, his willingness to gerrymander just as the other side has been doing forever. That's what I mean by bipartisanship is dead. You can't negotiate with the other side, they do not want to negotiate, they want to win at all costs for ideology, so you can only do your best to disempower them. If you try to play fair with a counterparty who does not believe in acting in good faith or playing fair, you have default lost. You can't have a functional democracy when one side rejects democracy (massive efforts to disenfranchise voters, gerrymandering, etc) because they can't win democratically. There is no reason you can't have empathy while punching down at bullies, because if the tables were turned, the bullies would put their boot on your neck ("paradox of tolerance"). So, start punching down. Edit: In the context of this topic and the near term, this looks like blue states implementing universal healthcare, and letting red states figure it out themselves (considering how dependent red states are on the federal government [1] [2]); Oregon is up first [3]. You can increase state taxes to fund this, reducing tax dollars sent to the federal government, if properly engineered. [1]. https://time.com/7222411/blue-states-are-bailing-out-red-states/ https://time.com/7222411/blue-states-are-bailing-out-red-sta... [2] https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-most-and-least-to-federal-revenue/ https://usafacts.org/articles/which-states-contribute-the-mo... [3] https://www.hcfawa.org/oregon_s_path_to_universal_health_carerecap https://www.hcfawa.org/oregon_s_path_to_universal_health_car...

ceejayoz 1y ago
> In the context of this topic and the near term, this looks like blue states implementing universal healthcare, and letting red states figure it out themselves… The risk here will be sick people (and their high costs) moving. As with how Chicago's illegal gun problems mostly come from Indiana.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  We already deal with this problem in higher education by having out-of-state tuition and in-state tuition priced at different levels. A period of residency is required to access in-state tuition. Does residency fraud exist? I'm sure of it. Despite the UC and CSU systems not publishing residency fraud statistics, such fraud is universally described as being extremely difficult to execute. I cannot overstate this point. Students routinely depict residency fraud as being more difficult to do than simply paying out of state tuition. The high cost of committing residency fraud makes cancels out any expected payoff. Furthermore, most instances of detected fraud appear to be technical and clerical errors, not intentional deception. What are in-state residency requirements, and how difficult is the requirement? Evidence for residency includes: - Obtaining a California driver’s license or ID card - California vehicle registration - California voter registration - California state tax returns - California bank accounts - Employment in California - Lease, mortgage, or property ownership in California - Severing residential ties to your former state (e.g., closing out-of-state bank accounts, surrendering non-CA licenses) Additionally, one year and one day of residency is commonly the required threshold to qualify for in-state tuition. The question becomes, is this effective enough at reducing fraud rather than can fraud be eliminated. I'm sure, like with any system, fraud detection and remediation are part of the operating costs and measured in terms of recovery rate/rate of return - the KPI we're discussing.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    I'm not talking about fraud, though. I'm talking about genuinely moving.
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      It is fraud to move to California for the sole purpose of education[1]. Likewise, genuinely moving to California for the sole purpose of benefiting from universal healthcare is also, in my opinion, fraud. People genuinely moving to California would presumably pay out of state healthcare fees until their residency was established. Don't you agree that these fees could be set in a way that served as a barrier to doing what you suggest? Is there a case that isn't covered by this that you're thinking about? 1. Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 54022 - Physical Presence. "Physical presence within the state solely for educational purposes does not constitute establishing California residence regardless of the length of that presence." https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/5-CCR-54022 https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/california/5-CCR-540...
philistine 1y ago
Can I give my perspective as a Canadian? In our political system, we rarely talk about bipartisanship. First, because we don’t only have two political movements. Second, because we do nonpartisan politics. Examples include judges and district boundaries. Those two things are qualified as nonpartisan in Canadian politics. Another very telling example: parliamentary tour guides. The US Congress hires tour guides that are meant to reflect the political party that is responsible for their hiring. The Canadian Parliament insures their guides are nonpartisan. Of course if you dig you will find problems, it’s far from perfect. However, the fact that what is collectively outside the realm of partisan politics is not decided by two partners who need to agree is what’s important here. There is a collective tradition. With our judicial system able to give binding decisions on unwritten parliamentary traditions, you even have legal protection for nonpartisan politics. The US system counted way too much on the kindness of political adversaries. You need to find a new way to do politics, because American conservatives have decided that they will abandon democracy rather than give up power.