Table of contents

Child pages

Do people really have rights? Like a right to an education? Or even a right to free speech?

• It seems to me at the moment that the word "right" properly refers to certain contractual guarantees provided to people by a nation. I haven't been able to make sense of talk of rights outside such a contract, e.g. I haven't been able to make sense of the idea of human rights. I also don't think that having such a right means that you have some special aura of protection against violations of that contract by the other party (e.g. the US government); you still need to worry about making sure the other party feels an incentive to follow the contract or you might end up in an internment camp. It seems to me that nations tend to be pretty political about how they treat rights: the right to bear arms is just as much in the constitution as the right to free speech, but people are more OK curbing the right to bear arms than they are the right to free speech for pragmatic reasons (preventing violence), so that's the way it goes. but if the political winds changed for some reason you could see things go the opposite way. it's like marriage: people treat it like it's a permanent thing when it isn't if the incentives dictate otherwise. if you want a marriage to work (or if you want a government to honor a certain right) you can't just put something in writing and declare victory; you need to constantly work at it to make sure that the other side continues to feel an incentive to keep their side of the deal.

How important is it to follow politics?

• At the moment it seems like most people have an incentive to spend as little time as possible thinking about or participating in minor political issues unless they're in some social group where it's is a frequent topic of discussion or socially expected. I've stopped spending time following politics beyond what I'm confronted with in newspaper stands and other people's TVs. It seems like it might be more efficient if people gathered into groups of similar social interests and then assigned somebody within that group to do research into who to vote for; for example a lot of people will just vote for their political party w/o doing research into the candidates, in PG County MD a lot of people will follow the endorsement of their pastor, a lot of union members will follow the endorsement of their union, and a lot of other citizens will follow the endorsements of a trusted elected official (e.g. voting for their congressman's ticket).
  .....The big exception to this is when a political decision is likely to have a big effect on your life, e.g. being Jewish in 1930s Germany, or having a lot of money in a particular asset (house, business) which is at risk of losing value because of government intervention.

How should I think about politics?

I hate being wrong, so I've spent a lot of time over the years thinking about political ideologies: How can so many smart people disagree about something? Who is right? Now I'm under the impression that the basis for a person's political views is largely tribal and instinctual; people naturally band together in groups to gain more power for themselves at the expense of the "other". I get the impression that a lot of people do this naturally without thinking about it.

Life in the US does seem to have gotten better over time, but it seems like that's the result of the pressure that all of the different interest groups have been exerting on each other. In other words, people still have an incentive to gain more for themselves at the expense of others; it's just that we have a more sophisticated system now that prevents people from being as open about it, and people are generally wealthier, so that they may feel less motivation to take at others' expense. But the incentive is still there.

Below is a quote in which the knowledgeable hedge fund manager Michael Burry says something along the same lines; the quote is taken from an interview in which he was asked how his gigantic bet against the subprime market has affected his life:

What's the most effective way to get things done as a politician?

"Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."

- J. K. Galbraith, Letter to Kennedy, 1962

• I'm not sure I agree with that, although I'm sure it's sometimes (perhaps often) true.

• Politics is a lot about compromise and coming to an agreement. One of the big issues when you're a politician and want to get something done is how to present it in such a way that the other party's voter-base won't be too offended by it, or will support it.
  • One example that came to me is Africa. My memory is that Democrats want to fund birth control in Africa, but Republicans are against it for religious reasons. The Democrats might be able to convince the Republican base to agree to it if the Dems scare-monger the Repubs about how an even-bigger national security issue than terrorism is the growing number of people in the rest of the world.
  • Another thing is that the Democrats should be trying to educate republican states; they should be funding engineering schooling for all those people. B/c my understanding is that as people get more educated, they're less likely to be Bible-thumpers who refuse to negotiate.

2013.09 - New York (Magazine) - In Conversation: Michael Bloomberg

Interviewer: You endorsed President Obama this time around. How’s he doing? Give him a grade.
Bloomberg: I think some things he’s done well; some things I’ve encouraged him to do more of. He’s a very smart guy. He’s very thoughtful. He is honest, and he is earnest. He’s got a tough row to hoe with Congress, but if I’ve been critical at all, it’s because I think he could do more reaching out to more sides of the aisle. He gave a speech on immigration and said that we have to have bipartisan support, but the Republicans were the problem. I wouldn’t do it that way. In business, I would kiss you and then ask for something. In government, they tend to take a swing and then ask for something.

Interviewer: The failure of the Olympics, the West Side stadium, and congestion pricing—what did you learn about the politics of how Albany works, how government works, from those episodes? 
Bloomberg: It is very difficult to explain complex things in sound bites. And government talks to its constituents generally through the press, whereas private-sector organizations talk directly to their customers. If you have something that is complex and long-term before you see results, and there’s one or two people who are willing to go on the record and say the reverse, it is very difficult. Particularly in the days of social media, when there’s an instant referendum on everything—I think it’s going to make governing more difficult.

Bloomberg: So I took pictures with these carpenters and each comes through, “Great job, love working for you, thanks.” They don’t have to say that. One guy glared at me. He really glared. He wasn’t sure he was going to shake my hand and have a picture. He did. And he walked away and I looked at the back of his T-shirt: UNION TIL I DIE. Maybe he thinks I’m not pro-union.

Interviewer: Is that a fair charge?

Bloomberg: I’m the only one who’s defended the unions in the city. I think without them, it’d be very hard to govern.

Interviewer: Many New Yorkers who agree with the results of your policies don’t like the way the changes got done. They feel like it was forced on them.
Bloomberg: Yes!

Interviewer: Is it naïve to think big changes could have been done differently, with more consensus?
Bloomberg: It’s called leadership! We did not take a vote on smoking first. You never would have gotten it passed. But everybody agrees that ban was one of the best things we ever did—saves 10,000 lives a year. Everybody loves it. I think history shows that strong leaders are the ones who make progress.

Interviewer: When you’re criticized for imposing a “nanny state”—
Bloomberg: Oh, come on! Everybody loves it! Graydon Carter wrote the nastiest editor’s letter—now he will tell you I saved his life. Literally. His wife thinks I saved his life. Fran Lebowitz is probably the only person whose life I haven’t saved.