April 3. My subject today is music, magic, and fit. When a person says a thing is too hard, it means that thing is a bad fit for that person. That's totally normal in modern life, which is why we're all preoccupied with ease and convenience. But if you really enjoy something, you don't mind if it's hard, because that makes it a fun challenge.
I enjoy making playlists so much that I add rules to make them harder. They have to be between one and two hours, and every song has to fit, if not by sounding similar to the other songs, at least by having good transitions with the songs right before and after. I end up cutting a lot of good songs, and when I do, I move them to an "Orphans" folder.
That folder finally got big enough that I divided it into categories and started making playlists. Making songs fit, that were selected by not fitting, is so challenging that I developed a new system. I listen to the songs on shuffle, and when I notice a good transition, especially if it's surprising, I make a note of it.
Here's where the magic comes in. On my laptop, I use VLC, and its shuffle is hit and miss. But when I walk around on headphones, I use my old Sansa Clip mp3 player, and its shuffle is hit hit hit. This is neither objectively testable nor mechanically explainable, but to me it's obvious that the Sansa is luckier, and my explanation is that it's a rare item that I've used and appreciated for many years. I even soldered in a new battery. I've put enough energy into it that it's now a minor magic item, with the power of picking the perfect song.
April 7. There's an early Philip Dick novel called Eye in the Sky, in which eight people fall through a particle beam and pass through different dystopian dream worlds, each one constructed out of the ideologies and prejudices of one of the eight. That feels like what's happening now, where a few people have enough power to impose their boneheaded utopian visions on the actual world.
It's easy to believe that tariffs are a beautiful way to take money from other countries and give an advantage to domestic manufacturing. Every hundred years, America gets dumb enough to actually try it. In 1828, the Tariff of Abominations destroyed the southern economy, and in 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act tried to stop the Great Depression and made it worse.
Another belief, which makes sense on an emotional level and no other level, is that the state should be run the way a strong father runs a household. Two articles from the Atlantic explain it. One Word Describes Trump, and it's a strange word that will never catch on: patrimonialism.
It is not defined by institutions or rules; rather, it can infect all forms of government by replacing impersonal, formal lines of authority with personalized, informal ones. Based on individual loyalty and connections, and on rewarding friends and punishing enemies (real or perceived), it can be found not just in states but also among tribes, street gangs, and criminal organizations.
And America's Future Is Hungary, explaining how Viktor Orbán has ruined his country, and the American right is in love with him because if you have power, or just fantasize about having power, that's the most exciting way to fantasize about using it.
I'm still somewhat optimistic about America. We're finished as a global empire, and we will never return to the prosperity of the late 20th century. But we have a long tradition of being relatively democratic and respectful of the rule of law. Supposedly things go in cycles, and I'm pretty old and have not yet seen America move to the left on economic issues. It has to happen some time.
April 9. Continuing from Monday, Donald Trump will probably go down in history as a buffoonish tyrant. But he could yet go down as a flawed man who actually made America great again. America has been great twice, in 1789 for our constitution, and in the 1940s when we defeated some badly run countries and helped their people rebuild. Now we have a shot at leading the world into post-capitalism, if Trump gives us an unconditional basic income.
Here's how it could go down. First, he cuts every kind of government help for us parasites and losers. Then he says wow, that's a lot of parasites and losers, and they're pretty mad. I'd better give them something. What would be easier than doing what he already did during Covid, and sending a check with his name on it to every citizen? Then all he has to do is make it permanent: the Trump Dividend. It could be small to start, a few thousand, but when the Democrats get back in power they'll surely raise it.
This is what I mean by post-capitalism. Capitalism is a set of rules and values optimized for concentrations of money to suck more money in. The bigger the pile of money, the more inevitably it grows. This is unnatural. Resources outside of human synthetic systems don't work this way. To justify this strange mechanic, we have the trickle down doctrine, in which the concentrations of money spread wealth to everyone. What really happens, just look around, is that people who already have everything spend money to lock in their advantage and ruin the world with their cluelessness.
In the better system that we will eventually figure out, concentrations of money tend to get smaller, and the economy is trickle-up, so money is pumped in at the bottom and is spent directly on human needs. The UBI will not make us lazy. Humans love to be busy, and it will enable us to finally be busy on our own terms. Instead of workers competing for barely tolerable jobs, workplaces will have to compete on the level of life satisfaction. And if some people still want to be useless all day, then there's your subsidy for the arts.
April 11. What If We Made Advertising Illegal? It seems unrealistic, but I see it as a set of obstacles that can be overcome, and there's some serious discussion in the Hacker News thread.
April 14. Continuing on the UBI, Chad sends a Hacker News thread discussing the Calibrated Basic Income, and comments, "For my part, as a socialist I'm much more a fan of universal basic services rather than universal basic income."
I agree. The best thing would be to have all basic needs be free at point of use, so that money itself becomes optional. I just think that's less realistic right now than the UBI. Jeff Bezos might be thinking: If everyone gets free basic needs, they won't work in my warehouses; but if everyone gets free money, they'll spend it on my stuff.
My goal, as a social thinker, is the conventional modern goal of individual freedom that does not constrain the freedom of others. I'm just sensitive to the constraint of having to do someone else's shit all day, instead of your own shit. That's a pretty big constraint, compared to the freedom of money to play us like pawns. I think libertarians are economic authoritarians, and if "economic freedom" means anything, it means freedom from money. I think anything less than a 100% volunteer workforce is immoral, and even if we never get there, we can do lot better than the low single digits where we are now.
By the way, I've just noticed that most people fill in the U in UBI with "universal". I use the word unconditional because I think it makes the UBI more resistant to its greatest weakness: adding conditions as a means of social control. The worst thing about humans is our drive to leverage power over others into more power over others. Some people say the worst thing about humans is tribalism, but tribalism without power-over is sports rivalries. Tribalism with power-over is genocide.