Arizona Senate Shenanigans

“Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican, is legally required to fill vacancies in Arizona’s US Senate delegation. Whoever Ducey chooses will stay in office until 2020. The governor has remained silent on who he has in mind out of respect for McCain and his family. By Arizona state law, he must tap someone of the same party as McCain — meaning a Republican — and he’s ruled himself out.”

“If McCain’s seat doesn’t open up soon, there is a possibility that it won’t be Gov. Ducey who appoints his replacement, as he is up for reelection this year. He is expected to win his primary on Tuesday against Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who earlier this year found himself in hot water over declarations that he wouldn’t choose Cindy McCain as the senator’s replacement. Ducey will face the winner of the Democratic primary — former Arizona Department of Education official and professor David Garcia, state Sen. Steve Farley, or Kelly Fryer, the CEO of the YWCA Southern Arizona — in November. They’ve all declined to say who they might appoint to McCain’s seat if elected.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/25/17781526/john-mccain-replacement-arizona-governor-doug-ducey

Okay did you read the above? The situation as I see it is this: Whoever is governor of Arizona when McCain dies has to appoint a Republican to replace him and serve through 2020. Arizona is coming up on a competitive gubernatorial election. So there’s a very real possibility that we could have a Democratic governor in Arizona bound by law to appoint a Republican to the Senate.

If it comes to that, who should they appoint? Who are the best available registered Republicans, ideally Arizona Republicans, for a Democratic governor to pick?

 

Advertisements

Drug Legalization

I find this article pretty outrageous: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/6/17649036/fda-fentanyl-opioid-epidemic-drug-legalization

It’s basically saying that the opioid epidemic demonstrates why we shouldn’t legalize more drugs. To me the evidence it presents lends itself more to an indictment of the current system and thus advocacy for legalization.

High potency synthetic opioids like fentanyl were not “legalized” in the sense that you can now go buy them at the store, they were approved by the FDA to be prescribed in a somewhat wider variety of circumstances than previously. This was all about pharmaceutical companies lobbying doctors to prescribe more of those drugs, and then relying on people’s health insurance to pick up the tab for the insanely high prices ($30,000 per month!).

Needless to say that’s not what a legal but regulated market for recreational drugs looks like. There will not be any doctors trying to tempt you to partake in a bit of heroin, nor will your health insurance be interested in buying it for you. Ideally drug advertisement, whether the drugs are medicinal or recreational, currently illegal or currently legal, could be banned altogether.

The way the legal opioid dealers in big pharma have managed to capture the drug regulation apparatus to push their pills on people looking for medical health is disgusting and we need to do something about it, but banning people from putting what they want in their bodies is not the way to go about it.

The irony of Marxist materialism

The history of Marxism is really weird because it’s an ideology premised on materialism that then had huge idealist effects on the world.

Materialism in this sense means history is explained by material factors – population growth, economic growth, technological advance, etc. This is in contrast to idealism, which says ideas, from religions to philosophies to… Marxism are more in the driver’s seat.

Marx had this spectacular analysis of capitalism in the mid-1800s. He was seeing the infancy of industrialization and was remarkably insightful as to what had happened, and prescient in where it was all leading. He saw that industrial capitalism was going to eat the world, and predicted that after that had happened the situation would become clear to the working class and the revolution would come.

This is where the strangeness comes in – the biggest obstacle to everything playing out as Marx anticipated turned out to be Marxism! Countries that in his materialist understanding were just ready for a liberal revolution to replace feudalism and monarchy with capitalism and democracy started to have communist revolutions instead! A lot of the people in those countries who in an earlier era would have been liberal dissidents instead ended up as socialists, and when the opportunity came to take power they didn’t content themselves with ushering in the same liberal capitalism they saw their socialist comrades fighting in more advanced countries, they tried to build socialism!

So then while capitalism was still in the process of eating the world there emerged this force Marx never anticipated – Leninists. They created a whole different kind of society from any Marx had experienced: the planned economy. Whether you define it as socialist or Marxist or not is immaterial, it was quite different from capitalism. Imagine if the Soviets had won the Cold War! Unlikely but not inconceivable, and it would have put us on a historical track Marx didn’t envision. And of course the very existence of that real threat forced capitalist regimes to accept a level of social democracy they haven’t shown much interested in before or after that threat was around. An external enemy does wonders for submerging the class conflict.

But instead the various Leninist states fell apart or at least gave up on the planned economy, proving to be just a particularly hardy version of all the other unsuccessful efforts by the periphery to resist capitalist domination. The post-WWII social democratic experiment turns out to have just been a longer term version of the benefits workers tend to get from any war mobilization. And we are back on track with Marx’s predictions, with capitalism having made a lot of progress on eating the world and socialism on the rise politically in the core capitalist economies.

So maybe Marx would tell us he was right all along, and that the whole Leninist global movement was just a minor thing on the grand scale of the dialectic. The real irony might be that the strongest argument against Marx would be that the Leninists really could have changed everything.

Free Will

It’s bizarre to me that people act like “do we have free will?” is such a difficult philosophical question. Yes, we live in a deterministic universe and any conception of “free will” in the sense of decision making that isn’t just the inevitable consequence of our nature and our experiences is ridiculous. But also yes we really do think about things, make conclusions, and take action on that basis.

To see how those aren’t contradictory at all, think of a calculator. When I punch in an equation to a calculator and press enter the result it calculates is totally predictable based on how the calculator works and what number I entered. I could do it again a thousand times and get the same result. But the calculator still did do a calculation. It just gives the same response every time because that’s the right answer. It would have given a different response to different inputs. Our brains are the same. They really do consider and calculate and act. Sure those actions were determined based on the inputs you received, but that doesn’t mean you didn’t make a choice. A different person with a different brain, or you with different inputs, would have made a different one.

I think it’s religion that got this all confused. If there’s a god or gods who set the universe in motion then the fact of a deterministic universe means that they really just decided how everything would go. In that context “free will” becomes a big issue because of the weird philosophical implications of god having planned out your every move, including sinful ones, in advance. On the other hand if you start with the assumption that there’s no determiner of our deterministic universe the whole question just dissolves into an uninteresting debate about semantics.

Am I an idiot? Am I missing something here? Anybody want to throw out a defense of free will as a concept that’s more meaningful than I’m giving it credit for?