The Electoral College and Popular Vote

EDIT: Whoops. Forgot to proofread my work and left in the notes to myself to add the links to support my words.

rxl2yIt seems like the proctologist business is booming because there seems to be a lot of butts that are hurt over the recent United States 2016 Presidential Election. Namely, over its results. The God-Emperor Donald J. Trump, the madman himself, has won the presidential election. That’s right, despite almost every news station, newspaper, news website, celebrities, hell, despite what several popular YouTubers said about Trump being ‘deplorable’, he won. I guess it just goes to show that attempting to no-platform ideas you disagree with doesn’t work forever.

So being the tolerant leftists that they are they stood down and accepted… oh wait. They didn’t. Which is fairly odd because Clinton herself said that Trump was undermining democracy by saying he wouldn’t accept the outcome if he lost. She said this on national television during the third (and I believe the second) presidential debate. Now those of you that watch the full clip will know that Clinton called Trump out on it because he’s a Presidential candidate, but if we are to believe the idea of citizen representatives we have to extend it to all citizens of the United States. So these (presumably) Clinton supporters (or at least a large chunk of them are) are protesting, undermining democracy in the same way their candidate said that which they hate was undermining democracy! Irony and hypocrisy make such a delicious combo. So now they’re protesting, blocking streets, beating up 74-year old men, and damaging property. Now the point of this post isn’t to point out the hypocrisy in people or even the left, I’d be here all day. However, I believe there is something of value to come out of these… protests.

There’s a kink in this victory, the Honorable President-Elect Donald J. Trump may have won the electoral college votes (barring any shenanigans in December), but he LOST the popular vote by about half a million votes (illegal immigrant vote came out this time). So now we run into the fifth case of the person that won the popular vote losing the electoral college vote (again, assuming no elector shenanigans). We’ve had this happen five times in the history of our United States. George Washington was our first president in 1789 and Donald Trump will be our president in 2017. 2017-1789 = 228. But we only have an election every 4 years, so 228/4 = 57. So we’ve had 5 out of 57 elections or 8.7% of elections in which the president did not become the president with the popular vote.

So where are we at today? Well, those same leftists I mentioned earlier are proposing that Clinton should be the president despite losing the Electoral College system vote because she won the popular vote. I cannot agree to this and I’ll tell you why. It’s a simple matter of cities holding the most power.

First, CGP Grey (fantastic YouTuber, highly recommend just watching a playlist of his content) argues against the Electoral College because of a mathematical quirk. In this, he counters the ‘Presidential candidates will only visit densely populated states in a popular vote system’ argument with the swing state condition that we’re in right now. I don’t like his argument here. Right now and for the past several elections, candidates have focused on the swing states. While true, the argue is entirely based on the situation now. That situation can change, and his argument only holds while those swing states remain those swing states. Theoretically any state can become a swing state and I would not be surprised if with some population distribution we could make ALL of them swing states. So I don’t like the ‘swing states exist and presidents ignore all other states’ argument.

Second, CGP Grey (same video above) lists the more pressing problem with Electoral College in that 75% of the country can vote against a candidate and that candidate can still win. This would be a problem if we Americans lived in a true democracy, but we don’t. I think the question here is whether or not we want to accept such a possibility if it were to occur. Is it really fair that 25% of people in the country can decide who leads our nation for the next four years?

Third, CGP Grey has made (another?) follow-up video in which he addresses the concerns that I might have with the Electoral College – trust. Do we really trust the electors to vote as the states requested? It’s illegal in some states to not do so, but are the consequences of not doing so steep enough? The answers to these questions are up to you but I do believe they’re worth talking about.

Now onto my contribution. The reason I brought this up is because all of a sudden people care whether or not the United States President is selected democratically by popular vote or continues to be selected by the Electoral College. More specifically, I wanted to take a look at this:

15036676_10154270392883422_3538333482266454776_n

So this is a list of the most highly populated areas in the United States. The implication being that such a small area of the United States would have great power over the United States. Should the president be elected solely by people that live in what looks like an impossibly tiny faction of the United States? I disagreed, but I wanted to see how far this rabbit hole goes so I went digging.

First, I found the average number of electoral votes per state. We have 538 electoral votes, 50 states and 1 Washington D.C. That’s an average of over 10 electoral votes per state. A state cannot have a fraction of a vote, so let’s round down to 10 electoral votes per person. If you look at every state worth 10 or more electoral votes, it looks like this:

rxl2y

(Don’t focus too much on them being marked for Trump, it’s for visualization purposes only)

10 is the average number of electoral votes, therefore there should be about 25 states here, right? Half of the states should be above the average, half of the states should be below it. There are 21 states here. That’s not too far off, but it’s still only 80% the number of states that it should be. What’s the problem? As you can see, 42% of states control 70% of the electoral college votes. Is this fair? It might be. Let’s look at this list of cities with the most population in the United States.

Of the 50 cities, only 4 are not listed within the states I’ve marked red on the map above. Which means if, assuming you win the most populous cities in the United States under a popular vote system, you control the presidency. But I wonder, how many cities do you need to control to control the presidency? For the 2016 election, there were 146,311,000 registered voters. You only need 50% + 1 vote to win, so you need 73,155,501 votes to win. So how do the cities stack up? Well, if every person in every one of those 50 cities voted for you, you’d have 50,102,395 votes. You wouldn’t have the presidency outright, but you’d be 67% of the way there. The odds of this happening are probably negligible but visiting these areas can still give you impact on surrounding cities, so hopefully that balances things out. Assuming you won every state that had one of these major cities in them, you’d have an electoral map that looked like this:

zkmdk

So this is better in that it includes more of the country, but it’s still 29 states (well, 28 states and D.C.). Most of those states would probably be ignored because they had little to no population. I suspect the midwest as a group would probably be mostly ignored under a popular vote system. So there’s no reason for someone in the Dakotas to bother getting excited about any president because they can disregard the Dakotas completely.

I think the main reason people are opposed to the electoral college is because of the influence a republican vote has in California. Why bother voting republican if you’re in California? It’s loaded with democrats and there’s no way you can topple that might. Because you vote for the votes of your state, you may as well not bother getting out of bed that day. But if you’re in a popular vote system, aha! Now your vote matters even if you’re a republican in California. I don’t like this line of logic. Surely if the republicans made themselves distinguishable in California, they might attract more campaign time for those sweet 55 electoral votes. Maybe after a few cycles of this, republicans can make a swing state of California. But you’ll never be heard if you do not vote.

I think the main press for popular vote by the left is because of their base demographic. Democrats are known for their love of social programs. Where are the people that are on these social programs? They’re in the cities! So the left is confident that in a popular vote system that they’ll have more power. Of those 50 cities, how many were in California? 8. There were 8 cities that account for 9,066,724 votes. These 8 cities in California account for over 10% of the votes needed to win the presidency. And they’re all in one small area. The electoral college allows the states with fewer people to be competitive with the larger states… in theory (swing states are still a thing whether we like it or not).

To be clear, I’m not saying that the current system is perfect, but I do believe that it is better than one based on pure popular vote. I’m not suggesting any alternative method. I’m just asking you to reconsider your outrage when it comes to popular vote and the electoral college. That’ll be it from me, thanks for reading.

Artemis Hunt

Advertisements
The Electoral College and Popular Vote

Voter ID Laws (Part 1)

Can we talk about Voter ID laws? Well, it’s my blog so there isn’t much choice on your end. Either read or close the page.

So with the election coming up, we once again run into the issue of voter ID laws. Especially since North Carolina got shut down when it came to implementing their ID laws. Whether or not you agree with the ruling, or you agree with the idea that the intent of North Carolinean legislators was racist won’t have too much bearing on this post. This post is designed with the intent to evaluate the idea of requiring identification to vote. To be clear: the intent of this post is to evaluate the claims made by both sides of the aisle in this issue.

The first question we must ask ourselves is ‘Why would you want to require identification to vote?’ The answer often stated is ‘To prevent voter fraud’. A typical response to this answer will normally be something along the lines of ‘In-person voter fraud happens so infrequently that it does not change anything’. So the argument would then be that it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist yet. Another argument is that it unfairly punishes impoverished (and by extension, minority) communities since members of these communities are the least likely to have a driver’s license (because they don’t have a car). Going one step further, supposing that they are willing to obtain a driver’s license, that the DMV in their area is either closed or open so few hours during that week that even if they did have the money to drop on a license that they would have to take time off of work to do so. So this second argument is mostly about availability of ID on a person. The argument is whether or not the barrier to entry of ID is too high.

In-person Voter Fraud:

I don’t want to spend too much time on the in-person voter fraud (claiming to be someone that you aren’t) because I truly do believe that it happens so infrequently. Going in line to vote twice and pretending to be someone you aren’t the first or the second time seems like such a hassle for one extra vote (I’ll explain the significance shortly). Especially when it’s incredibly easy to verify that you are in fact not the person you are claiming to be. However, it’s a tricky issue to track. The United States has been around for about 200 years, over which we’ve had 100 elections or so. Electronic voting has been around for about 50 years (or about 25% of total elections).

As a computer science person, I find the idea of anonymous, electronic voting very scary for the integrity of my voting system. I find that super-double-extra scary when many voting machines are being run on proprietary code. Only the companies that run the machines really know the ins and outs of the code that runs the machines. A worker can easily rig the election within minutes. We also run into the issue of the ‘voter card’ (an electronic card you insert into the machine while you vote). It has been shown that you can vote 400 times (or more, I would imagine) with  knowledge of the card being used. I assume that the same voting machines are used each year by the state, so with the knowledge of the machinery involved, I don’t think it’s unlikely that a person could tip the scales electronically. One thing that I’d like to note though, is that voter ID laws would only impact this second option. So instead of getting to cast 800 votes or more, you’d only get to cast 400. Of course, such a method is incredibly dangerous not only because the user can get found out easily, but because its usage is inherently its counter. Consider the following situation:

Goldville has 100 citizens. The Red party and the Blue party compete every year for the title of ‘Best Party’ decided by popular vote. Red party has a few members that find a way to cast more votes so they can bump the Red Party votes up a bit. Election day comes, the people vote, and the Red Party wins. But something’s amiss… only 69 people were recorded to have shown up at the polls but 81 votes were cast. Obviously there can be some human error in counting the people that have voted (we see this in caucuses all the time) but that’s a giant margin of error. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to think that maybe foul play is at work here.

The moral of the story is: if you want to cheat, cheat smart. Tip the scales in your favor, but not so much as to reveal your hand.

‘Okay, so people aren’t voting twice, but what about dead people. I keep hearing this suspicion of dead people voting’. On Ballotpedia that (paraphrased) “as many as 2600 out of 77000 dead people have cast votes from the grave”. This would mean about 3.3% of dead people are casting votes. 2600 people, depending on dispersion should lie well within the margin of error. Of course, I am skeptical of the claim, and since the citation they use is dead, I have no idea what to make of the claim. However, there were a few other articles which claimed that hundreds of people are voting from the grave in California (as discovered by CBS), and that they do it consistently. However, like the 2600 out of 77000, this should lie within the margin of error. Am I saying that we should accept voter fraud if it lies within the margin of error? No, I am not. However, I am saying that if it lies within the margin of error and victories are beyond the margin of error, then they’re probably not swinging the state from red to blue (or vice-versa).

So I find the issue almost negligible, however that’s not to say that sensationalist sites haven’t muddied the waters. Remember, voter fraud is rather difficult to track, and writers for The Washington Post will often phrase things in such a way as to skirt the issues. They may use prosecution statistics to attempt to prove a point. This runs into the same issue that I ran into with my ‘Racist Cops’ post in which not all arrests lead to prosecutions and not all prosecutions lead to convictions. It’s a better place to start with crime statistics than prison populations because you can be in prison for years but an arrest is one and done. Inmate A may have committed the same crime as Inmate B but since Inmate B had a criminal record they received a longer sentence. Both inmates got arrested for the same crime though, so even though the prison population will fluctuate, the arrest numbers are more steady. Getting back to the statistics cited, a prosecution is the final phase of the process, so I personally find it a misleading statistic to use but it’s probably the second best that you could use (short of arrests). How can you definitively say ‘there were 100 fake votes’ short of there being 100 more votes cast than there were people that live in the area?

In short, I don’t think that voter ID laws would solve this problem of someone pretending to be someone that they aren’t. However, as we will see as we move into the next section, they would prevent certain individuals who shouldn’t be voting from voting.

Voting Requirements: ID

So I wanted an example of required ID to vote. I have selected Texas as my example. What identification is required to vote in Texas? I use Vote Texas as my source for obtaining these requirements.

Acceptable ID:

  • Texas driver license issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS)
  • Texas Election Identification Certificate issued by DPS
  • Texas personal identification card issued by DPS
  • Texas license to carry a handgun issued by DPS
  • United States military identification card containing the person’s photograph
  • United States citizenship certificate containing the person’s photograph
  • United States passport

Supplementary ID:

If you cannot provide any of the ID stated above, you would be required to sign a form stating why you were unable to bring the ID, and then you would be permitted to vote as long as you had one of these forms of ID:

  • Valid voter registration certificate
  • Certified birth certificate (must be an original)
  • Copy of or original current utility bill
  • Copy of or original bank statement
  • Copy of or original government check
  • Copy of or original paycheck
  • Copy of or original government document with your name and an address (original required if it contains a photograph)

First, let’s look at the Acceptable ID list. One thing you’ll find in common with most everything in the list is that they are all issued by state entities. The Department of Public Safety covers pretty much everything except the last three items which are awarded to you by the Federal government. This consistency is important because there’s an implied state/federal regulatory process which (in theory) would be consistent. This is why I would personally find school ID unacceptable (by itself). Because the requirement to attend a school is not necessarily consistent across the state, nor are you assured to be a United States citizen if you attend a school. The supplementary ID also seems to be rather fair, but may hurt younger, unemployed individuals if they don’t have a voter registration certificate or a birth certificate.

The left will often consider the requirement of ID to be a kind of ‘Poll Tax’. Poll taxes are illegal (by the 24th Amendment). I don’t really like this argument from the left, mainly because I don’t know of any taxes that are optional. So you have the choice to get a driver’s license. You have the choice to get a carry license or a passport. If you fail to get any of these things and you don’t break the law by driving without license and so on, Uncle Sam will not come knocking on your door. Failing to pay taxes doesn’t come with those same outcomes. When I was working in Fairbanks, I was still considered a Pennsylvania resident. So the automation that took taxes out of my paycheck did not apply properly and when tax season came, I owed the state some $500 for taxes that I never paid. If I had failed to pay those, I would likely have received some unpleasant phone calls and some unfriendly visitors (putting it mildly). So in short, I don’t think the requirement to ID and the fact that some forms of ID cost money can in any way be called a ‘Poll Tax’. However, what I think doesn’t really matter, as I believe that some circuit in NC, Texas, or Kansas(?) ruled that it was.

In response to the ‘Poll Tax’ argument, I’ve often heard conservatives refer to some state ID that you can get for free. Surely if the ID is free it is no longer a tax! Well, I did some searching, and it looks like you can obtain some state identification card To receive it in Pennsylvania you need some forms of identification which for the same reasons I take issue with the supplementary ID for Texas (but I’m sure that can be smoothed out) but it also costs $30. Not even close to free. A Google search for a free state photo ID card often brought up Wisconsin sites. I assume Wisconsin has some form of voter ID law and with November fast approaching, the Winsconsinites want to make sure that they can participate in the process. As far as I can see on the page, it is free. I had suspected that it was because of voter ID laws, but since we also seem to have a requirement of state-issued ID in Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania ID was not free, that is not the case. So this “free state ID” argument fails in at least 2% of states, but I would hazard a guess that it fails in a few more. And I refuse to accept this premise of a “free” ID if it isn’t actually free. The ID may be free but the paperwork might not be seems like a poor excuse and a shift of the goalposts. If the entire process isn’t free, then it’s not a free ID.

This post has gotten quite long, so I’m going to split it here. What we’ve seen so far is that it may be unlikely that “free IDs” exist, and that supplementary voter ID may harm younger voters (Perhaps the 18-28 bracket) because they may not necessarily have their name on bills, or they may be unemployed. However, we also make the assertion that requirement to ID is not a tax (despite what the courts have said) because the government does not come knocking on your door if you fail to own a license. We see that if dead people were to vote, their votes are falling well within the margin of error. We see that if someone were to cheat by voting multiple times, it would likely not be by someone pretending to be someone that they’re not. Rather, they would probably take advantage of electronic voting. As such, the requirement to have ID to vote would not prevent voter fraud. However, it may be effective in preventing undocumented individuals from voting, which I think all of us can agree would be a pretty good thing. But is it worth requiring ID? In the next post, we’ll talk about the argument that focuses on DMV availability. 

Artemis Hunt

Voter ID Laws (Part 1)

#BernieMustDisavow

Oooh boy. I want to ride the clickbait train because you know all 3 of WordPress readers are going to be paying attention to the Democratic Convention that begins on July 25th, 2016. However, I often take about a day to write blog posts (more precisely, it takes me about 3-4 hours) and I want to to get a quickie in for Philadelphia Predictions! So here it is.

First, DWS has to resign. She’s confirmed her resignation already so there isn’t much more to it. This likely hands her post over to her opponent, Tim Canova. An individual that Sanders himself has endorsed. Can we talk about endorsements while we’re here? Sure. Let’s talk about endorsements. Sanders has officially endorsed Democratic Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (let me just pad my word count by using her full name and this aside). He has justified such a decision with a promise he made at the start of this entire cycle, in which he said that he will pretty much give up being an independent. Perhaps it’s better to say politically unaffiliated despite Sanders describing himself as a socialist… hmm. Anyway, he’s typically sided with the democrats in Congress, he’s caucused democrat, and probably voted democrat. Granted, democrats don’t own the right to ideals like gay marriage, as libertarians tend to have a similar view on it but with a different implementation. Sanders has promised to remain a democrat after this cycle which is pretty huge considering he switched his party to democratic so he could run for office under the democratic banner. Which to me smacks of using the party to suit his own needs but whatever, it’s not important and I’ve lost track of the original point.

So let me begin anew. Sanders endorsed Clinton saying (paraphrased) “Clinton on her worst day will be better than any republican candidate on their best day”. Which to me sounds like a pretty extreme claim. There’s a ton of dirt on Clinton throughout her political history. I find it difficult to believe that at her worst of times that she will always be better than any republican candidate. Of course, that depends on the candidate the republicans put forth but the blanket statement is what I take issue with. I really only see two viable ways of interpreting the statement. Either Clinton’s worst days aren’t that bad or the republicans are just universally worse. I’d like to believe Sanders meant the former but I truly believe that he actually meant the latter. He seems to take special interest against republicans. It’s like Sanders imagines republicans as British folk with a top hat and a french moustache wearing fingerless gloves. Let’s make the British bad guy eat an apple so he looks like even more of an asshole. Oy vey.

So now we get to the title of this post: #BernieMustDisavow. It’s a trending tag on Twitter (or at least until Twitter takes it down again and makes it no longer autofill again). The premise is that in light of the recent DNC email link showing that the DNC was somewhat conspiring against Sanders, that Sanders must take back his endorsement of Clinton. And it’s here that I make my predictions. The way I see it, there are X outcomes that seem likely.

The first and what I think is the most probable outcome is that Sanders does not disavow. He’ll take the emails like a man and just continue to smile and wave, smile and wave. If anything, he’ll do his damndest to avoid talking to anyone about the emails. Ironically one of his iconic quotes from this cycle is “Everyone’s tired of hearing about your damn emails!” and now it has come back to emails once again. It’s the circle of strife! Why do I believe this. I believe Sanders at this point will do everything in his power to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected. That’s right, it’s not about getting Clinton elected, but making sure Trump doesn’t get elected. Sanders has voiced his concerns about Trump many times, even taking time to ask whether or not Trump is running for president or dictator during Trump’s speech at RNC Cleveland. Sanders has made it clear that he believes that the Trump campaign has been built on hate and fearmongering. Sanders has made it clear that he believes Trump would be devastating to the country. So disavowing Clinton would probably make Trump more likely to win. I saw an article suggesting that 50% of Sanders voters will not vote Clinton and that’s a sizeable chunk of Sanders voters. That’s around 6 million voters, which is the margin by which Obama won in 2012. (Of course, this is the United States where the parties run everything and the popular vote doesn’t matter).

And I actually find it really sad, because there is no winning situation for Sanders in this case. If he doesn’t disavow, he will be seen as cooperating with a corrupt system. If he does disavow, he makes that which he desires least that much more of a reality. He’s already receiving some backlash about endorsing Clinton in the first place, but if he remains relatively silent on this issue, it will only feed into the minds of the voters that much more. But realistically? This is probably his best move. Sanders has crafted his image quite well and even with the stains that he’ll pick up, he did manage to get some of his agenda put onto the Democratic party platform. So he can take the moral victory (if we’re going to call it that) of helping Clinton win and push the country towards his ideals.

What I see as the second most likely outcome is Sanders doesn’t disavow, for all of the reason stated earlier, but does take the opportunity to talk about a corrupt system within the Democratic party. But he has to word it very carefully. He cannot risk losing voters to third parties, or worse… Trump.

What I see as a third outcome but unlikely is that Sanders does disavow and tries to move towards the protesters that are already congregating in Philly for this convention. He has shut up about it for a while but he has been notorious for using national polls to say that he can beat Trump. He does this to gather the support of superdelegates (despite initially criticizing their involvement in the process). If he could gather enough superdelegates, he could override the pledged delegate totals (and as an extension, the popular vote totals) to get the nomination.

However, this is likely another lose-lose situation. In doing so, he will be overriding ‘the will of the people’ which he seemed rather keen on. Remember, he lost popular vote totals. He lost the pledged delegate totals. On top of that, he criticized superdelegates because he felt that they overrode the will of the people. If he were to convince these superdelegates to his side, he would be complicit in such an action. It would make him a very easy target for the republican party. Granted, Trump is also a bit of an “easy target” so that may not matter much. Still, Sanders would have the nomination and if those polls he cited came to fruition, it would give the Democrats another four years in the white house. With the upsurge of “progressive” candidates, Sanders and his “progressive” party would be off to a good footing to changing the nation.

Fourth, and this is the outcome that I personally want: my perfect storm – the superdelegates actually do it. The party does nominate Bernie Sanders. I honestly think that this is the DNC’s best move. I think that the party can hide behind all of the Clinton scandals and claim that she’s unelectable. Claim that for the interest of the party, that they had no choice but to override the will of the people and select Sanders. The party gets away with washing their hands of Clinton, Sanders doesn’t have to take too much of the fall from the decision, and the party gets the candidate that polls have predicted to win. I think that this is the best move for the party (and the best move to keep H. A. Goodman off suicide watch) because it may reinforce an idea that they’re willing to throw away corrupt candidates in the electorate. On top of that, we wind up getting that fabled Sanders vs. Trump debate that was all the rage earlier (I really wanted to see that). In fact, if you go through my posts, I actually wanted that debate long before it may have been a possibility.

Whatever happens, I’m sure there will be a great shitstorm inside and outside of the convention for me to laugh at. My main concern about the convention is whether or not violence occurs. I’ve criticized the Sanders supporters for this before but they’ve made Sanders out to be a christ figure. There is a cult of personality about Sanders. Whether he dies on the cross or is reborn in three days at this convention, the Sanders supporters outside need to remain calm and not hurt anyone. A violent outbreak at this convention will only hurt your cause no matter which candidate you support. The police in Philly are already requesting backup and taking preventative measures. Please, if you attend this convention, don’t hurt anyone and keep yourself safe. Perhaps buy a gun. Protect yourselves. That’ll be it from me though, thanks for reading.

Artemis Hunt

#BernieMustDisavow

Your ‘Right’ to (Government Funded) Healthcare

EDIT: I had to rename the title to more accurately reflect the argument. I’m not saying that you have no right to seek health care as much as I am saying you are not entitled to services provided by another (beyond the government).

So there’s this idea that’s been spreading about for a while and it has really picked up steam since Senator Sanders started pushing for it in their “progressive” platform. That idea is the ‘right’ to healthcare and the ‘right’ to education. Today, I’d like to rain on some parades and explain to you why these are not rights. I’ll focus on healthcare but the same argument will apply to education as well.

Before we explain why something is not a ‘right’, let’s figure out what a ‘right’ is to begin with. The definition of right is this:

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory – Wikipedia

I actually find this definition quite acceptable. Rights are important because they act as a guiding principle to the way you want your society to be run.

But where do we get our rights? I’d like to say we get our rights from the government because in one sense we do,but I don’t feel that’s entirely proper. Saying you get your rights from the government sort of distances you from how you obtained your rights in the first place. You could replace government with God and essentially have the same sentence. Are you familiar with the idea of the “Social Contract“? The philosophy is that people define their government, voluntarily giving up their power in exchange for protection of their rights. So put simply: we define our rights. Our rights are defined when we create this contract in which we give the government its legitimacy. In the United States, this contract is the Constitution.

What are some rights that we in the United States have that you may be familiar with. We have the right to assembly, the right to petition the government, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of the press. At present, we have the right to bear arms but I’m skeptical of how much longer that will remain as Clinton moves towards the office and the ‘progressive party’ starts to get more involved with government. But that’s a complaint for another day. We have the right to an attorney. In fact, I’ll just list the Bill of Rights here because that’s really what it is. I’ll try to limit each right to a sentence if possible.

  1. The right to assemble, petition the government, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.
  2. The right to bear arms.
  3. A fairly antiquated amendment, I’d describe it as the right to your own home. Specifically, this amendment prevents the government from forcing you to put up soldiers in your home.
  4. Unreasonable search and seizure, you can’t be searched without a warrant.
  5. The right to a fair trial, and the right to not be forced to testify against oneself.
  6. Right to a speedy trial (you can’t have your trial delayed arbitrarily).
  7. Right to a trial by jury.
  8. Right to fair punishment (no ‘cruel or unusual sentences’).
  9. You have rights not listed in the Constitution.
  10. Powers not given to the government belong to the states or the people.

So if you live in the United States, you are guaranteed all of these rights. The 9th amendment is a ‘catch-all’ which is pretty much the founding fathers saying “We can’t list all of your rights, use common sense for the rest” or at least, that’s my interpretation. Do note that I am not a law in constitutional law, so my opinion is just that, my opinion. But do you notice any special about the amendments? They all seem to be focused on an individual. The main trend among these rights is that they don’t require unwilling parties (with the exception of the seventh). All of these rights focus on an individual’s place in the government.

The most important thing about rights is that they don’t trample one another. You have the right to be offended, and I have the right to offend you. However, you do not have the right to silence others from offending you, because such a ‘right’ would trample another right. Then you run into an issue of ‘which right is right’? Law seems to be a tricky business that I’m quite glad that I stayed out of. So every right is distinct.Do you pay for your rights? Through jury duty, draft (if you’re male), and taxes, essentially yes.

Now let’s talk about what a ‘right to healthcare’ would entail. A right to healthcare suggests that doctors would be required to operate on you regardless of how much you are willing to pay. A right to healthcare suggests that pharmacies would be required to provide you with drugs regardless of what you are willing to pay. You would be entitled to this service because of your place within the country. This, I don’t like. It infringes on the rights of the individuals providing that service. I have the right to charge what I want to charge for my product or service. You have the right to purchase my product or service, or to refuse to purchase my product or service. I have the right to my body and everything that entails. I own my lungs, my heart, my liver, my spleen, my everything. I also own my labor. I cannot be forced to provide labor if I am unwilling to. You can’t force Wal-Mart to hire me any more than you can force me to work for Wal-Mart.

If healthcare were a right, you would be infringing on the rights of the doctors to provide their labour in the manner that they see fit for the price that they see fit. You would be infringing on the right of the pharmaceutical company to charge the prices that they want for their drugs. Essentially, what I’m saying is if you want to make healthcare a right, you’d either have to trample the rights of doctors, or find a way to provide healthcare through the government through volunteers.

See, it’s a weird issue because it’s always framed in the way of costs. Do I mind taking a healthcare tax to provide healthcare to everyone? Personally? Not in the least. But do I mind requiring that healthcare providers provide healthcare regardless of their whether or not they want to for the prices stated? Absolutely.

The problem we are running into this election cycle, and by extension this generation, is the idea of entitlement. The millennial generation is a bunch of entitled children. Am I saying that they’re dumb? Absolutely not. I know several very hardworking millennials that I respect very highly. Do I think that millennials want free stuff or think that the Sanders plan would’ve given them free stuff? Absolutely not. I believe most millennials recognize that the money had to come from somewhere, and it would have likely come from them. However, what I do think is that millennials have a problem discerning their freedoms and whether or not they are necessary. Each year, as more and more students go through the college system which brainwashes the liberal bias into them, they become a little more authoritarian. When students are attempting to sign away free speech (I believe most Americans agree that the first amendment is the most important one) citing that they have the right to not be offended by others. They’ve also been a major push-back against the second amendment. Honestly I wish they’d care as much about the fourth amendment as they do about revoking the first because the fourth one is the one in trouble. Sure, the Supreme Court made the correct ruling that time, but the fact that police are breaking it is a sign of bad times to come.

The worst part is that I can see the good intentions behind the movement, right? Why would you oppose universal health care? Are you so greedy as to not want to help other people pay for their doctor visits and medication? It’s this idea of altruism that guides this hand. If you oppose this altruism, you get branded a bigot. “What? You don’t care that people are dying because they can’t afford healthcare? You must hate poor people”. Then you become a social outcast and who wants to become an outcast? But the problem comes in the way of ‘forced altruism’. If I want to give to charity, it should be on my terms, not someone else’s. Because it’s my money, my services, my property going into this act of charity. I recognize that it very may well be for ‘the greater good’ but that doesn’t mean that I give up my rights to satisfy it.

Wouldn’t a universal living wage be for the greater good? Like getting paid just to live (which I foresee as an inevitable outcome as automation becomes more and more widespread). How about homes? We have a ton of unused homes and a ton of space in the used homes. Wouldn’t it be for the greater good if every home in the United States took on a homeless person (or people, proportional to the size of the home) and gave them a place to stay? We would reduce homelessness! Unfortunately in doing so, you’ve forfeited the right to your property. And the worst part is – once rights are gone, once rights are surrendered to the government, they aren’t easily reclaimed. That’s why we must hold out against these oppressive movements as long as we can, and educate their proponents on the consequences that would arise if they were successful.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I recognize the goodwill, but reject the premise on the grounds that I enjoy my freedoms and rights. Thanks for reading.

Artemis Hunt

Your ‘Right’ to (Government Funded) Healthcare

Abortion

I promised that I would do this topic soon, I may as well do it now. Especially since I’m in the mood after my raging debate on Facebook about it. Allow me to set the stage. My friend posted this image:
815086

 

After which her friends chat about their side of the issue. And I’m reading this Tumblrism and I notice something… the Tumblr post, the “Fun fact” never addresses the original question. It never addresses whether or not it’s one body or two. In fact, it skips that step altogether, and calls it one body on an assumption that the fetus, embryo, child, whatever you want to call it (I shall henceforth call it ‘the entity’) isn’t a human life. So because I’m an instigator, I have to get my hooks in and make some people mad. Over the course of some 20 or so messages, I could not get a straight answer out of the other individual as to why the being inside was not human and was not alive. So here’s my take on the issue. And before I start I’m just going to point out that I’m not a doctor, I have no medical background, I’m just a random blogger here.

Human:

First – is it human? Don’t be ridiculous, of course it’s human. On what grounds? It’s the offspring of two humans, it can only BE a human. If you mate a horse and a donkey you get a mule. A mule isn’t a horse, and it isn’t a donkey, and it can’t mate with either one. Or other mules for that matter, it’s completely sterile. If two horses generate offspring, that offspring will reliably grow up to a horse that could (in theory) mate with one of its parents. Chickens mate with their species, generate another chicken. So what you’re telling me when you say that this fetus isn’t a human is either that one of its parents isn’t human (unlikely) or what I think you’re really saying is that it’s not a human yet.

If you want to say that the entity isn’t a human yet, then that means you have the define a point in the development cycle in which the entity does become a human. How do you set that point? Obviously when the big bulge is on the mother, the entity is about to make its exit, it’s probably ‘human’ by that point. In fact, I think ‘abortion’ at that point may take the name ‘birth’ (sarcasm). But what about… say 2nd trimester? Hmmm… Maybe not then. The child’s hair has developed and we come from apes so… probably a bit too far in the cycle. The sex of the child can be determined. Probably safe to call it a human at that point. So how about we go further back. How about middle of the first trimester? The second month, the neural tube is distinguishable from the rest of the body. The fingers and toes are forming, the bones are forming. Is that human yet? Why?

I’ve asked this question several times and the discussion suddenly shifts from what makes the entity a human and turns into the rights of the mother. But we’re not worried about the rights of the mother just yet. We’re worried about whether or not the entity is a human and whether or not it should be afforded human rights. So how far back can we go?

I would argue that the entity becomes human at fertilization, or perhaps shortly after. The reason being eggs and sperm separately aren’t necessarily human. Why? Well, if they are, it presents a great problem because if eggs by themselves are humans, killing a woman is like a forty-thousand homocide or something. Women would be, by natural design, killing one human a month or so. Sounds like a dangerous path to go down for philosophy and law. On the flip-side if sperm were humans, we’d have to take a lot of guys downtown for killing humans regularly. Really, the main reason I argue that egg and sperm aren’t human by themselves because what happens if the host abstains? (Let’s just ignore Mary) In the female host, she will continue to have her period until menopause and no life will spring forth from her. In the male host, sperm will get reabsorbed by the body and the male will continue to produce sperm until he dies. No new life will spring forth from the male host either. Nothing you could count in the United States Census would be brought into this world. Let’s take the case of the newly pregnant female. If she maintains her healthy lifestyle, the entity will be born in 9 months-ish. The entity will be human assuming human parents.

I’m sure someone has noticed the problem with my definition of human. Evolution. If a human is the offspring of human parents, and I’m a human then my parents have to be human, and so on, until we get to our great ape ancestors which were not human by any definition of the word. So how do we resolve this issue? We run into the same issue of when is the entity a human versus when it is not a human. Hmm… How about this. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. We stop there. So we can pick me, and go up through my parents and their parents and so on. When we meet a parent that can mate with me and chimps, we’ve gone too far.

Life:

So there’s my human definition and since the entity has two human parents, it’s a human. Now how about whether or not it’s alive? Well now we need to define life. There’s no good way to answer the question “what is life?” According to wikipedia, this is life:

“the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” – Wikipedia

I tend to use an input-output definition of life. If an autonomous being requires sustenance from outside its being to survive, grow, and reproduce, it’s alive. If it can die, it was alive. This might get me into trouble when it comes to the robot revolution, and the question as to whether or not true AI self-replicating robots are alive, but that’s a problem for another day. And I’m not entirely sure I could argue that these robots wouldn’t be alive. I mean, think about it. If your issue with robots is that they can just chop-shop fix themselves, WE ARE GETTING TO THAT POINT TOO. How long before you can just go into the store and pick up a new arm? Holy smokes.

By my definition, the entity has to be alive, because it’s a parasite on its host. It eats the host’s resources to grow.You can’t use an autonomous self-providing definition because let’s be real here – babies are really useless for like two years. They can’t feed themselves, they can’t walk, they can’t do jack. So if you require mobility and the ability to provide for oneself for something to be alive, newborn babes are just as alive as the entity within. Which, if abortion is legal, would make the… neutralization of newborns also legal. It’s a natural extension.

Doctors have several types of life and death. When your heart stops being, you’re not really dead. We could bring you back through CPR, or the use of defibrillation. I guess most people go by brain death, where you can still have blood pumping through you, but you cannot be brought back… yet. If you go by the beating of the heart, you have 3 weeks to discover that you’re pregnant and then get your abortion. If you wait for the brain to partially develop, same deal, the beginning of the nervous system forms in the timespan it takes to form a heart. End of the first trimester the entity will have a functioning circulatory system. If you’re waiting for the brain to form, that would be in the second trimester. So if you require a fully developed brain, to call something alive, the entity is alive in the second trimester. But I don’t like the requirement of a brain for life. Single-celled organisms don’t have a brain, but they’re ‘alive’.

When are most abortions performed? CDC stats say about two-thirds in the first 8 weeks (first two months) and let’s just round about the last third done between 8 and 13 weeks (the third month). Because I was given a range of time, I’ll assume a Gaussian distribution of when the abortion was performed (though strictly speaking, I should probably assume a Laplacian distribution). That means most of the abortions were performed in the 3 week to 5 week range. But wait, that’s when the baby’s heart was formed. That’s when the neural tube, what would become the nervous system was formed. That’s when bones are forming. If we accept my definition of life and human, the entity will be a human and it will be alive. the removal of it would then be murder.

How about this, how do you determine what is the host’s body compared to the entity’s body? You can’t, if you accept the entire system as the host’s body. So how do you know how much host to remove? You have to accept that there is knowledge of the entity and its scope, so you remove the entity alone and not the host. But that assumption itself implies that the entity has a body, in which case, it is no longer just the host’s body.

Now understand, my issue with abortion is pretty much entirely the murder part. And not because I have some preconceived notion of the value of human life. My problem is with the consistency of law. A legal abortion would be legal murder by the logic presented. What you’re proposing is a condition under which murder would be legal. Which makes it a target for setting precedent. Precedence is a very dangerous thing when applied to topics which you might find rather invasive. I’m not entirely sure that I would argue that slippery slope doesn’t apply. I can just imagine the future in which doctors shrink themselves to operate inside a patient. A patient could, while the doctor is inside have the doctor removed and killed on the premise that it was the patient’s body. How much of the entity must the host contain for the removal of the entity to be fair. I hate to get gross here, but what if a couple is having sex and the female suddenly decides to chop of the male’s penis. It was inside her, was it ‘her body’? Bear in mind this example is arguing from the ‘is is not alive and it is inside my body’ point of view.

Conclusion:

 So you see, I’m at a bit of a pinch. Because I don’t think the government should pass two contradicting laws. And I don’t very much like the idea of setting a precedence like this on something which in its best case is mutilation and in its worst case is murder. The safest option is to outlaw it altogether and file it under murder. And it’s not like non-human things don’t get rights. You can’t up and kill your dog, that’s animal cruelty. The murder of threatened species like Bald Eagles will net you fines and jail-time. And I wonder if this does anything to the rights of people in vegetative states. I don’t know. Legal abortion could open up it’s own can of worms. Until we agree on what’s human and what’s alive, we should avoid permitting abortions. That’s just my take on it.

Artemis Hunt

Abortion

When is it Over?

Heads up – my views are perhaps a little more extreme than most and they don’t scale too well with some morality definitions.

For a change of pace, let’s not talk about United States politics. Mostly because Sanders is likely toast. Though it’d be hilarious if Clinton got indicted and Sanders would’ve won all along. Anyway, let’s talk about the ways competitions end.

Team sports like basketball have a time limit. When the time expires, the team with more points wins. Easy peasy. What if the teams are tied? Well there are some special rules for that but ultimately it’s a timed game. You have one hour to get as many BUCKETS as possible.

Board games usually end when particular criterion are met. Snakes and Ladders ends when a person gets to the other side of the board. That person wins. In card games, say… Magic, you win if you reduce your opponent’s life to zero. If your opponent has no remaining cards to draw (a result of milling decks) then they also lose. There are also some variations for sports. I think there are some mercy rules in sports in which if a team wins too hard too fast the game ends before the other team can embarrass themselves in trying to overcome such a disadvantage.

There’s also the option of surrender and winning by default which is where this post is going to focus. You can lose games (like card games – fucking Hearthstone) by surrendering. And you can lose by simply not being there to compete. You can’t win if you’re not there to play the game, so you lose by default. Now let’s make the (gruesome) extension to war. Wars are not subject to absolute timescales, like basketball. There aren’t any rules (strictly speaking) in war. I mean, sure, we have Geneva Convention. We, as nations, have agreed to follow these rules. But there’s no requirement that the rules be followed. And to be honest, this is why I believe the GOP is in favor of torturing ISIS. ISIS isn’t playing by our rules. They never agreed to the rules. Why should you play by the rules if your opponent won’t? Personal integrity, I suppose. Is that personal integrity worth it? Is it worth the lives of citizens, is it worth the lives of enemies? I’ll leave that question to the reader.

So how do wars end? Surrender, I suppose. Default would be an when there is no one to oppose you but that can get dangerous really fast. But there’s an important thing to note about surrender. That is, the would be victor must accept the surrender. There’s a GREAT scene in Game of Thrones which emphasizes this point (I’d say spoiler alert, but let’s be real here, you’ve seen it). For those of you unwilling to watch the clip, it’s of Ramsay Bolton. He comes across an injured knight from ‘the other side’ on the ground. Ramsay steps forward to deal a killing blow. The knight cries out, ‘Surrender! I surrender!’ What is Ramsay’s response? He says, “I accept your surrender,” and deals a killing blow. The thing about surrender is that the victor sets the terms. This effectively caused World War II, or at least it acted as a contributing factor.

So in that sense, since the victor must accept the terms of surrender, the entity surrendering doesn’t really have much of a say in the matter. The victor decides when the war is over, not the loser. The victor decides that the fighting ends and then the victor decides what is to be done with the loser. Sun Tzu said it best in The Art of War when they said be gracious to the defeated. Because if you don’t, and you let them live, as the allies did in World War I, you get Nazi Germany.

Before I go further, I would highly recommend reading The Art of War; I’ve linked it above. It has a lot of conventional wisdom which can be applied to more aspects of life than war. I want to note that Sun Tzu advises war as a last resort, when no peaceful resolution can be met.

Okay, so it’s amazing what economic depression can do to people. It’s amazing how the people will rally around… “hope”? It’s amazing how treatment after defeat in a war can be used as a rallying cry. People want to blame someone, they want a scapegoat. It’s great, and the Dark Knight explores this theme in the boat experiment. Maybe not primarily, but I’d say it’s there! It would seem many people do not want another World War II. Some people (like Germany) would like to forget it ever happened. Don’t mention it, no swastikas allowed, history must be buried so the world can remember we brought them dirndles instead  and Oktoberfest. I don’t blame them and I feel some of the fault does lie with the allies. But see, here’s the problem: the allies forgot the only real rule in war. Win by total annihilation.

Sun Tzu makes a great point to treat the defeated fairly. Why? You do not want an embittered, defeated opponent to fester in times of peace. To gather allies, to gather power, and eventually strike again. Does such treatment truly prevent another war? Of this, I’m skeptical. People don’t easily forget the family members that they had to bury or could not bury. People don’t forget the burned buildings, the destroyed cities, the hunger, and they don’t forget the flag of the person that did it. But sure, it’s more humanitarian, probably.

I’m going to be the one to propose the alternative solution to war: total destruction of the enemy. The soldiers, the family, the children, everybody dies. No one can rise against you if there’s no one to rise. It conveniently gets rid of the future uprising issue. The alternative is a militia state but that can also cause an uprising. Just can’t win eh? In an ideal world, there are no wars, and I’m not suggesting that nations go out of their way to destroy other nations. My philosophy is that if you are attacked by an unprovoked nation, leave nothing behind. Leave no one to grieve for the fallen. Person A attacks Person B on the street? Person A should kill Person B with their first strike, or Person B will respond with lethal force. Because leaving a survivor will make you a target for future attacks. Person A? They have friends. They could come back with friends. At least in the case of dead Person A, that’s one less person to worry about if the friends decide to enact vengeance. Leaving people to grieve only fosters resentment, and future attacks.

The question one needs to ask themselves when they employ such tactics is whether or not they can live with themselves having done so. I don’t think this is an easy question. I also think that my position is radical in today’s world. If the United States decided to nuke the Middle East, retaliatory action from the United Nations (which would likely just be ‘pressure’, not force) would follow. Is this the opening Russia wants? Mutually assured destruction might suggest not. So now I wonder, is it all a farce? Is our ‘peace’ just a better alternative to the deaths of many more, possibly all people? What size of an attack on a superpower is necessary to ‘wake the beast’? Will such an attack ever happen? Have we seen the last World War? These are all thoughtful questions.

Artemis Hunt

When is it Over?

The Feminist Conspiracy

Obligatory Kenji picture

Kenji_NoGlasses

Plot Twist: The feminists control the world. Only Kenji can see this.

Okay, I’ll just take a moment to express that I love Kenji. I maintain that Katawa Shoujo has only one true ending and that ending is the bathroom scene with Kenji. You give him $20 for… some reason or another… ; ) Everything after that scene is just imagination on how bad life could’ve turned out.

Okay, to the main topic. I happen to be in the unfortunate situation of having many young female friends on Facebook. Many of which (if not all) are liberals. Now this isn’t a bad thing in it of itself. I myself have my own set of social policies that I would like to enact “for the good of us all” despite technically being closer to libertarian on most other issues. For example, I would like to see public transportation expanded drastically and the use of cars for daily commute cut drastically. The hope is that this will reduce emissions and clear the roads up, getting everyone to where they want to be or need to be a little faster. With (hopefully) fewer drunk drivers on the road, there should be less accidents and what few accidents there are should be less lethal because private cars hitting a bus doesn’t end well for the car due to Newton’s Third Law. I think it would be an improvement, feel free to comment or ask questions about it.

So why did I bring up my young liberal female friends? Well, I had posted an article that I had found stating that the wage gap is a myth. I thought that it made things quite clear and simple and I like to spread the word. A fiery one (female friend, that is) commented that it is real, and they have experienced it. Skeptical of the claim, I suggested that she take the company to court. She said that she would not because money? But surely she realizes that she’s sitting on a GOLD MINE for kickstarter or something? Like, if she could conclusively prove that the company was sexist, and unfairly paying their female employees less per hour for the same work then she could get a lot of money from them. She could get a lot of money from female rights activist organizations. She could also set the standard for women, to have them rise up and ‘fight the power’. She could make the nation better. If women are truly being paid less in the way of wages, I would 100% support taking it to ‘the man’. But fine, cases take time and money and it does nothing for her current situation.Fair enough, I quoted some studies and asked her if two independent studies reach the same conclusion, why would she assume that the results of these studies were false. And her response told me something interesting. It told me that she has accepted a reality and refuses to admit any information that contradicts it.

Her response was (paraphrased) “These studies were probably done by men”. The implication being that these studies are lies, designed to maintain a status quote of pinning women down. And what I think this means, is that in her mind the wage gap is an absolute truth, that men are keeping women down. Of course, the best way to discover whether or not this is true is to ask the question. The big question, the win condition. “What would it take, what could I provide that would convince you that the wage gap is a myth?” If the answer to that question is ‘nothing’ then I would be wasting my time. It’s no longer a rational discussion. It’s a religious discussion, and nobody wins those.

It’s a real shame too, because religious mentalities are often detrimental to society. Ludwig Boltzmann, slightly ahead of his time, had the audacity to suggest that matter were composed by many small particles called atoms or molecules. He was mocked by his contemporaries. Existence can be fragile, and despite being married and having children, it seems being mock out of scientific circles was too much for him. He took his family on a beach vacation and while his family was enjoying themselves, he committed suicide. And think that this is tragic. I think life is precious, and when a person is driven to take their own life, it’s unbearable. It’s a sign of failure as humanity. It should not happen. Christ, just thinking about this, writing it out makes me cry.

I’m a student, that’s obvious by now. Students sometimes attend seminars or presentations and the whatnot. I once attended a presentation in which the speaker contrasted Dark Matter and Modified Newtonian Dynamics. The speaker had a slide in which they quoted a Dark Matter advocate. The quote was something like (again, paraphrased), “let the MOND believers waste their time and money. That just means more research for me!”. There’s A LOT wrong with a statement like that. It’s arrogant for sure, but it’s entirely unscientific. I can’t remember if it were a nobel laureate, but it was certainly a Ph.D holder. To claim that those pursuing an alternative model are flat-out ‘wasting their time’, essentially saying that they are wrong, is beyond science. Science should be about crafting models and if the evidence supports these models. If the evidence doesn’t support these models, discard the models. But if you believe there’s a way the evidence could fit the model or a refined model, go for it. Make predictions and test them against reality.

And I wouldn’t care so much if I didn’t feel like such faith was ultimately destructive to society. There’s a great Family Guy scene in which characters Stewie Griffin and Brian Griffin go to an alternate universe and everything looks quote-unquote “futuristic”. Brian asks what year it is and Stewie responds that it’s the current year. The reason the world looks so futuristic is because the dark ages of Christianity never occurred, so the world is 1000 years more advanced from our current year. And this poses an interesting question, is it plausible? We landed on the moon in 1970, could we have done it then in 970? I’m skeptical. I don’t believe that the dark ages stunted scientific progress that much in terms of ideas. No doubt people were working on their own. The question is interesting because it asks the question of how does blind faith affect society, is this blind faith beneficial? Can it be beneficial? I’ll leave that question to ‘the motivated student’.

So where am I really going with this? I don’t really know. I guess what I really want to get across is how this idea of faith should be removed from arguments. Because how do you properly counter these sorts of arguments? When it comes to assumptions, they have to be justifiable. When I discuss voting, and the idea of democracy, I often argue with the assumption of the rational actor, that all voters vote based on their self-interest. Is that a reasonable assumption? Let’s liken it to survival. A being whose focus is on the individual is more likely to… proliferate when given resources. Compare that to one who is more willing to yield these resources to others. Survival scales with available resources. It also makes sense that people with like interests will band together to increase their collective survival rate. This is why animals form pack structures. So in democracy where the largest pack gets the power, being part of that pack by nature of shared interests in oneself is an advantage.

Tangent over now (sorta). I don’t view this overarching conspiracy of women being oppressed to be reasonable. More women are accepted to higher education. Girls in school are graded easier. They suffer less reprimandation for actions in school. They have more scholarships thrown at them for being women (ESPECIALLY IN STEM FIELDS. FEMALE READERS TAKE NOTE). They suffer less jailtime for the same crime. They can destroy a man’s life with the utterance of a single accusation. They can separate fathers from their children. Women have a boatload of power in this system. I have a difficult time believing women will get paid less for the same work when they have all of this other stuff going for them. And the data supports my views.

Artemis Hunt

The Feminist Conspiracy