Under-Representation Cannonized

I was reading the Anti-Federalist Papers (a fascinating discussion, in document form, about the strengths and weaknesses of the Constitution), and in Section 23 Brutus 3 they make a number of good points. They note that a fixed number of representatives per state in the Senate is nonsense, especially since the powers of the Senate are so immense; also that the amount of representatives in the Assembly (i.e. House of Representatives) is sorely insufficient (even at that time, when population was MUCH lower) to represent a country as large and diverse as the United States. Furthermore, they mention that this dynamic makes the system likely to produce an elite aristocracy... who will in short order control the whole thing.
Note: They did not even know that later the U.S. would pass the Permanent Apportionment Act which locks the number of representatives at 435.

Think about that, the founders said there should be one representative for each 30,000 citizens (which was only half the representation the English at that time enjoyed)... we are now at over 767,000 citizens per house representative, and the Senate grows ever more powerful. We were warned all the way back BEFORE the Constitution was even made law, that UNDER-REPRESENTATION and CORRUPT ARISTOCRACY would likely be outcomes... nothing was done... in fact laws to WORSEN the problem were enacted.

We now exist in a state where under-representation is codified and worsens every year... and wealthy elites can easily buy the few "representatives" allowed to exist. This cannot be allowed to continue, we MUST AMEND THIS.

"They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service; but it is impossible the people of the United States should have sufficient knowledge of their representatives, when the numbers are so few, to acquire any rational satisfaction on either of these points. The people of this state will have very little acquaintance with those who may be chosen to represent them; a great part of them will, probably, not know the characters of their own members, much less that of a majority of those who will compose the foederal assembly; they will consist of men, whose names they have never heard, and whose talents and regard for the public good, they are total strangers to; and they will have no persons so immediately of their choice so near them, of their neighbours and of their own rank in life, that they can feel themselves secure in trusting their interests in their hands." 

-Brutus IV

A Case Study In Failing Systems (Police)

Let me first preface this with a disclaimer: I'm gonna talk trash about police, but I don't want to imply that all police officers are bad, some are true heroes. Let me also say that society puts FAR TOO MUCH BURDEN ON POLICE, they are tasked with dealing with every problem that slips through the cracks... from poverty and homelessness, to mental illness, to domestic abuse, to drug addiction... it is TOO MUCH for them to handle when the larger system is so fundamentally flawed that these "externalities" are incredibly ubiquitous. That said, it's also not "one bad apple," the INSTITUTION of policing is definitely trash, and the institution is what we are mostly concerned with.

If you're middle-class+, the most likely interaction you've had with the police is reactive... that is a crime took place (ex. a break-in, property theft, etc.) and AFTERWARDS the police came to fill out a report, etc. If you're poor (i.e. you look poor, or are a minority the police don't like), it's likely you were stopped/pulled-over when no crime was taking place and wasn't even likely to. Why does this system never seem to actually CATCH criminals but regularly puts a police presence in positions to harass/fine you?

Let's start with MONEY issues, how are police funded? Some comes from known taxes (i.e. property tax, etc.), but there is an uncounted tax...FINES. Whenever you get a speeding ticket, parking fine, etc., you are being "taxed" again, and sometimes this "revenue stream" is FAR GREATER than the money they get from any other source. There are whole towns/STATES, who desperately rely on these fines just to have functioning budgets... think about that, they MUST FIND people to fine to function... it's not based on the amount of danger presented, or harm to society, or harm to the ecosystem, or "out of control speeding"... it is required for them to exist. So much of the "policing" that is going on is actually fund-raising in the form of fines... so when they say they don't have enough police, what they really mean is they are too busy fining you.

Addendum: Civil Asset Forfeiture

What is that? That is when they police are allowed to steal anything you have when you are in the process of committing a crime. Your kid sells some pot out of your garage, they can steal your house and vehicle; uncle Joe borrows your car and picks up a prostitute, they can take your car; in fact Civil Asset Forfeiture STEALS more money than the value of all the actual reports of theft in some years.

So bottom line, we need to fund police appropriately for what they need to do, and stop with the fining nonsense. We must eliminate the perverse incentives and make sure money goes into activities that FUNCTIONALLY prevent crime.

Let's move on to "danger" issues, that is, how much danger are police willing to put themselves in? As we've seen with cell phone videos of blacks/protesters being shot... it has nothing to do with danger, it is completely up to the officer how they want to apply this term. A huge group of assault-weapon carrying terrorists groups can march down the street (even threaten to kill politicians and storm capitol buildings), and as long as they wear khakis and are fair-skinned, the "danger" seems to be assessed as low... but get "unruly" during a protest for blacks/environment and all of a sudden you are "reaching for their weapon" and eligible for execution. None of this NEED be the case, if there were clear procedures for what level of lethality of equipment should be brought into certain situations, and the APPLICATION of that force was clearly predetermined and ENFORCED, we could hold officers accountable. Officers should be required to put themselves in harms way, but ONLY when it's necessary and within strict protocols. After such protocols are clearly defined, Qualified Immunity needs to either be abolished or have clear limits, so that abuse cannot be institutionalized. As far as regulation, a third party needs to be involved in "policing the police"; they cannot be allowed to self-police (that applies to the prosecutors they work with also).

I'll just add one more point, and that's the problem of Authoritarianism. We have to CLEARLY define how much privacy we want, what are the bounds of police action, and which tools are available to police. If we want police to catch people BEFORE they commit crimes, they need to have the ability... that could mean officers in the field, patrolling the neighborhood; that could mean cameras on streets, that could mean DNA databases, but it is a slippery slope to authoritarianism and we must decide, as a society, how to balance this.

Note: Recently in the news, a rape victim had her RAPE KIT used to identify her DNA so they could arrest her for an unrelated property crime... meanwhile, rape kits are piling up and are going uninvestigated; sometimes we live in a dystopia Lex Luthor would blush at.

We need to carefully meter out powers to the police and there needs to be checks and balances put in place to ensure they use the power given to them and nothing more.

Right now policing is an industry, not a public service... it protects the property of the wealthy, it oppresses minorities for the majority, and it raises funds for the budgets of elites. Only as a side concern does it do we all WANT, that is to ensure public safety and prevent crime. In order for institutions to do what we want, they have to be DESIGNED to do so and the incentives have to reflect those goals.

Comfort With Ambiguity, Conspiracy, And COVID

It is not coincidence that many people have lost their minds over COVID-19, nor that a lot of the unwillingness to comply with certain precautions fall, largely, along party lines... and a lot of this has to do with "comfort with ambiguity." Researchers have found that being comfortable with ambiguity can be tested in young children and is heavily predictive of future beliefs and political inclinations (i.e. those that are usually become "liberal", and those that aren't usually become "conservative").

I'm not here to judge whether having this trait is necessarily "good" or "bad"... but when it comes to having an "accurate" view of reality in a time of chaos, comfort with ambiguity is usually a necessary trait. The reason is, for something like a novel corona virus, and the first pandemic in which we have the technology to sequence the genome of strains, etc., we are necessarily not going to know a lot, both in identifying what is happening and prescribing solutions for societal action.

For a person who is deeply uncomfortable with ambiguity, this is maddening... they want to know where it came from, who is to blame, what is the government doing about it, are masks effective or not, is this all some kind of plot... and you can see how the thinking goes, searching for every conspiracy that might explain what is happening and ease their discomfort. To be fair, this is completely understandable, and is exacerbated by the fact that our mainstream media outlets/government responses are complete garbage. When people are given no, or inconsistent, information, they are going to be anxious and they are going to speculate.

On the other side, people who are comfortable with ambiguity can juggle, sometimes seemingly conflicting views, such as that pharmaceutical companies are both hugely economically predatory AND that they sometimes create life-saving vaccines. Or that vaccines can be incredibly effective on one strain, and pretty ineffective on another. Or that masks slow infections, without being 100% effective, and vary with the transmissibility of the strain and with the type of mask worn. Or that vaccines may not prevent getting covid for some strains, but can greatly reduce hospitalization and death. Or just generally... be able to say "I don't know" and/or "I will reserve judgment until more is known."

I'm sure I've already alienated many people reading this, but it was not my intent, but rather to get people to understand WHY there is so much conspiracy and frustration going around at this time... and hopefully, for people to be able to reflect about which type of person they are, and understand the people on the "other side" of our human condition.