Tyranny

 

The Declaration of Independence

In every stage of these Oppressions
 We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:
Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.
A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant,
is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

The US declared freedom from every Tyrant, including the tyranny of the minority.

The Founding Fathers took great pains in drafting the Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the majority.  There is a Bill of Rights.  There are check and balances.  There are three branches of government.  Laws must be passed by both branches of Congress.  An act of Congress can be vetoed by the President.  That veto can only be overridden by  2/3 of the members of each house of Congress. Treaties require a 2/3 vote by the Senate.  Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 vote in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states. A 2/3 vote of the Senate is required to find guilt at an impeachment trial.  While not in the Constitution, US Senate rules require that debate on laws or nominations continue unless 60% of the members vote to end that debate.

Yet current Supreme Court decisions are rendered by a simple majority.  It was not always the case.  Until the 1940s, the Supreme Court decided its cases by consensus, that is a unanimous  decision.  Criminal cases still require a unanimous 12 member jury decision, but hung juries can be declared a mistrial.

The protections against tyranny of the majority were arrived at empirically.  When the Founding Father’s drafted the constitution, they did not envision the formation of political parties.  It was not until French sociologist Maurice Duverger articulated it in the 1960s ,that it was shown that single member district with plurality winner-take-all systems, such as those in the United States, would probably lead to two party systems.  Decisions in a two party system can not be a super majority unless one of those two parties is also a super majority.

The size of a super majority has included  provisions for 55%, 60%, 66.7%, 75%, 100% but these are all empirical.  If a unanimous decision is required, only one individual can block any action. A simple majority offers no protections against the tyranny of that majority.  The size of an efficient super majority has been proposed by Caplin and Nalebuff to be 64%.   This is close enough to the 2/3 requirement in the Constitution that changes hardly seem warranted.  However if this is an efficient supermajority, there appear to be two instances where supermajority actions are not followed.

In a Supreme Court with nine justices, 64% would require that super majority decisions be 5.76 to 3.24.  Given that fractional votes by justices are not practical, the size of that court should be 12 justices where an 8 to 4 decision would be a 2/3 supermajority and an integral number of justices. If packing the courts is anathema, then a 6 member court with 66.7% vote for decisions, would serve the same function.

In the Senate, with a two-party system of 100 Senators, any action can be blocked if retaliation is taken on any votes against the party line,. With retaliation,  the system devolves into a two-party game which allows a tyranny of the minority unless it is also  a super minority.  If all votes requiring supermajority actions were by secret ballot, then retaliation might not be possible and actions might be advanced even if one party was not also a super majority.

Supermajorities offer protections from tyrannies of the majority.  However it can not be a two party system or require a unanimous decision because then one party or voter can block any actions.  Simple changes (three additional judges on the Supreme Court and a return to the process before 1940, and secret ballots for supermajority votes in the Senate), might prevent the rights of minorities from being trampled on by the majority while still allowing necessary actions to continue.

Complaining

 

It Takes One to Know One

You oughta know that cheaters never win
Because it takes one to know one who will hurt you
It takes one to know one who'll make you blue
It takes one to know one like I know you

If you know enough to complain, you know more than is good for you. Or us.

A basic rule of the playground is that “He that smelt it, it dealt it”.  In other words, those who complain most loudly about an act are probably the ones guilty of that act. Some examples:

·       Cheating on taxes.  The ones complaining most loudly about cheating on taxes are probably those who actually are not paying their fair share in taxes.  For example, billionaires who pay no taxes and hide their tax forms, while the common folk pay more in taxes as disclosed on their tax forms.

·       Claiming minority heritage.  There are reparations that are paid to minorities because of past actions or penalties placed on minorities simply because they are minorities. There might be advantages to pretending to be what you are not, either to get benefits not due, or to avoid penalties imposed on minorities.  Thus some one who mocks someone for saying they have Native American ancestry even though that person received no benefits for that ancestry, or someone who say had a father who pretended to be Swedish to avoid being associated with Nazi Germany, is probably complaining about the behavior of others to deflect their own complicity.

·       Bemoaning activist judges.  Conservative judges have invented a right for self-defense, stated that corporations are people, or that fetuses are people despite those rights not being listed in legal documents.  And yet the ones bemoaning about activist judges support these actions by these judges.

·       Bemoaning Voter fraud.  Texas Lt. Gov. Daniel Patrick offered a $25,000 bounty to anyone who could show voter fraud, expecting to find fraud by Democrats who voted against Donald Trump.  He had to pay the bounty to a Democrat poll worker in Pennsylvania who had found fraud committed by a Republican Trump voter.

I am sure that there are many more examples but beware of anyone who complains loudly about the behavior of others.  They  are  probably guilty of, or thought strongly about committing, that same behavior themselves.

Game Theory

 

Charlie Brown

Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown
He's a clown, that Charlie Brown
He's gonna get caught
Just you wait and see
(Why's everybody always pickin' on me)

Does Charlie Brown always have to be a loser?

It’s that time of the year when Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown before he can kick it.  He does it every year,  always with the same result.  He ends up on his back with Lucy holding the football that she pulled away at the last second.  This is a two-player game and Lucy always wins. But Charlie Brown keeps playing because he thinks that it is the only game in town.  I don’t think that Linus, or Schroder, or Peppermint Patty, etc. would pull the football away.  Charlie Brown  also obviously does not learn from the past or else he would not play with Lucy again. 

According to game theory, Charlie Brown has the problem of being the losing player in a two-player game.  He does not always have to be a losing player if he was in more than a two-player game (e.g. someone else held the football).  He also has the problem that he places no value on the future and does not learn from the past so he continues to play. Lucy also clearly places no value on the future and expects Charlie Brown to play again.

If Charlie Brown played a multiplayer game, where someone besides Lucy held the ball, he would probably get to kick the football.  If he learned from past games, he might not believe Lucy on the current kick and would walk away and refuse to play with her.

In the US Senate, there is currently a two-player Game: Democrats versus Republicans.  Mitch McConnell clearly has no value for the future, or else he would not have let society’s infrastructure crumble.  As long as the Senate plays a two-player game with someone who has no value for the future, there should be no expectation for a different result.  In December, expect Mitch McConnell to pull the football from Chuck Schumer again. Losers like Charlie Brown might be lovable.  But you can be lovable and not be a loser. Let us hope that Chuck Schumer learns this lesson before it is too late.

Fact Checking

 

Battle Hymn of the Republic

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword
His truth is marching on.

God IS the truth.

There are no Alternate facts. There are only facts.  It is not for you to tell a lie because you think people can’t handle the truth,  or that they will panic if they are told the truth.  If you believe that people are godly, then if God is truth, how can they panic or find any truth inconvenient.

People may believe that WWE wrestling is real.  It is athletic and strenuous, but it is entertainment, which why there is an E in its name.  People can willing suspend belief and be entertained by stories, but still know that they are stories. And yet there are people who believe Soap Operas are real (or that “reality” TV is real ).  People can, and do, believe that the earth is flat because it appears flat to them.  People can believe that aliens constructed the Nazca lines, the Egyptian pyramids, or the Easter Island Moas, because they can not  believe that an “inferior” people could have done these.  People can believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old despite all evidence to the contrary.  As long as those people can respond to facts with “I don’t know about that”, fact checking or saying “yet it moves” may only make those who believe in the truth feel better.  The opposing view to truth is by definition false.  People are entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts. Teaching the opposing view to truth is teaching what is false.  Like in the Song, let us battle for the truth.

Strangers

 

How Have You Been

Though you are strangers
I feel that I know you
By the way that you treat me
and offer to feed me
 and eagerly ask
If I'll stay for a rest

Is it naive not to be afraid of strangers?

Most  religions and cultures have sayings and customs about treating strangers kindly and offering hospitality to strangers.  In the Old testament, Leviticus (19:33-34) says “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”.  In the New Testament ( Matthew 25:34), Jesus described the blessed as  “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me”.  The Quran  (al-Nisaa 4:36) says  “Serve God; and do good – to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (ye meet), and what your right hands possess.” The Dalai Lama has said that “There are no strangers, only friends that you have not met yet”.  In most cultures breaking bread with, or offering wine or water to, strangers and offering them shelter is a common custom.  The reason that these customs and religious teachings are necessary is that humans are tribal and do not trust those who are not in their tribe.  However,  the wisdom of the tribe knows that strangers can share knowledge and other information that is valuable to the tribe.  Hence these strictures and customs that strangers are to be honored.

It is not an accident that Jesus used the Good Samaritan when he looked for a model of being kind to strangers.  Samaritans were viewed by Hebrews as of the lowest Caste.  Hebrews returned from capacity in Babylon.  Samaritans are the tribes who were not captured and taken into captivity in Babylon, and they were reviled by the Hebrews for this.  Thus when Jesus relates the parable of the Good Samaritan, the lesson is that someone on the lowest rung of society can be the example of the best of society by offering kindness to a stranger.  It not naïve to be kind to strangers.  It is naïve to automatically distrust strangers when you don’t know what they have to offer.

Punishment

 

I Wanna Be Around

When somebody breaks your heart like you broke mine
That's when I'll discover that revenge is sweet,
As I sit there applauding from a front row seat,
When somebody breaks your heart like you broke mine

Revenge may be sweet, but prevention is even sweeter.

“An eye for an eye” is not only a Biblical phrase.  It dates back to the Code of Hammurabi. It does say that the guilty should be punished.  But it also says that the punishment should fit the crime.  Revenge might have been “A life for your eye.”  This phrase should be read that vengeance, i.e. punishing the guilty, is NOT the intent.  Protecting the innocent is the intent.  The guilty have to be punished in such  a  way that the innocent are protected.  Punishing  the guilty who have been caught  is a way of changing the consequences of the risk such that the price paid might deter other offenders. This protects the innocent from those who have not yet been caught, or have not even committed a crime.  Exacting vengeance on the guilty who are caught is not the intent of the law.  Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden under the US Constitution.  It honors the principle that the punishment should fit the crime.  What is unstated is that this protects the innocent from the guilty who have not yet been caught or not yet committed a guilty act.  It is not a license to impose a punishment on those guilty who are caught that is commensurate with all of the guilty who were not caught. Those who are caught should not be scapegoats for those who were not caught.

Acts of vengeance inspire ever larger acts of vengeance to response to the initial act.  Acts of justice, not vengeance, are intended to protect the innocent so that future acts of vengeance are averted.

For example, those who steal have no incentive to produce because they could always steal property from those who have produced.  Those from the property is stolen  have no incentive to produce because whatever they produce might be stolen.  Society wants people to produce.  It enacts and enforces laws against stealing because it wants to encourage production, not only because it wants to punish stealing.  This means that the penalty for stealing should encourage production, not merely punish stealing.  Killing those who are guilty of stealing punishes only those who have been caught stealing.  Killing is an act of vengeance, not prevention.

Government

 

And The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway

The Movie-Palace is now undone,
The all-night WATCHMEN have had their fun,
Sleeping cheaply on the midnight show,
It's the same old ending-time to go.

Its an age-old question, “Who Watches the Watchmen?" 

In a System Optimal solution, the question is what, or who, is the system.  Merriam Webster defines system as “a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole”.  While humans are independent, they can act together as a system.  While there is a system of smaller systems, nature, or God’s dominion depending on your beliefs, humans as individuals have to form their own smaller system of other humans.  The problem is that each human acting as an individual, seeks a User Optimal solution.  The system of humans ideally will be composed those other humans who can put aside their own User Optimal solution and seek the System Optimal solution.  

In choosing other humans to represent them as that System, humans have to trust that those individuals  will act for the System. One way to do this is to choose a person of integrity who would be honest about any conflicts between his own User Optimal and the System Optimal, for example, “Honest” Abe Lincoln, or George Washington who could not tell a lie. Failing that, individuals might be chosen who have no incentive to choose their own User Optimal because they already are so rich that their User Optimal can be disregarded, for example the  Rockefellers or Kennedys.  What should never be their choice for the System are people who lie, and who will choose their own User Optimal and lie that it is the System Optimal.