i don't expect that a corbyn government would be much different from a may government.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/john-mcdonnell-shadow-chancellor-is-the-new-voice-of-fiscal-responsibility-a6927926.html

in north america, balanced budget amendments are associated with the extreme right - and portend crushing austerity when floated before or during elections.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2016/03/thinking-behind-john-mcdonnell-s-new-fiscal-credibility-rule

what does it mean to support the "freedom to pass things to your children" when you don't believe in property at all? or in the family, for that matter.

any support for inheritance is a propertarian position, clearly.

so, as an anti-propertarian (a necessary ideological position to hold in order to exist on the left) in a propertarian system, i'm left with a choice to make in which policy i think is less harmful: is it more tyrannical to seize property, or more tyrannical to uphold it?

you might think that's a silly question, but that's because you're a propertarian, and you've probably never read the critiques of property. property is freedom, but only at the expense of others; property is theft, but in being so enriches the individual that has it.....and, property is therefore impossible in a truly free society.

in a truly free society, the issue consequently wouldn't exist. that is, you wouldn't debate inheritance, because we wouldn't own anything to pass down to our children to begin with. it would simply be understood that the property would go to somebody that needs it. we would all recognize the logic in it, and nobody would push back against it.

in the short term, i have to make a pragmatic choice in the presence of the existence of property. which option more closely emulates my actual position on property? clearly, seizing it does. allowing property to pass across family lines is upholding the basis of feudalism, after all, and putting state support behind the concept of class. seizing property and redistributing it is an inevitable step in the abolition of property, anyways.

at least he's consistent in his views about reducing estate taxes....

https://www.ft.com/content/dc8a98fa-64ff-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2

no.

stop.

labour is fighting an election over reducing estate taxes.

and, they say this guy is on the left?

this 'dementia tax' strikes me as a good idea, actually - and is similar to things i've suggested here. the answer to "who should pay for the boomer?" is the boomers, themselves.

i would broadly support taxes on inheritance. i would support any and all death and estate taxes. if the concern is that the tax will reduce inheritance, not only does that not concern me, but i'm actually in favour of that.

it's certainly strange that the conservatives are supporting a tax on inheritance, while the various parties that claim they are on the left are opposing it. conservatives are always strange creatures, in that they can come around from time to time. but, what leftist can stand in front of you with a straight face and oppose a tax on inheritance?

due diligence is one of those terms in english - another example is 'gold standard' - that has come to mean the opposite of what it actually means.

people think that 'due diligence' refers to some kind of broad concept of upholding responsibility. so, they may use it to refer to a property owner upkeeping their property, or perhaps an employee following best practices. but, this is completely wrong.

due diligence refers to the responsibility of a lender to ensure that the person they're lending money to can pay it back. it's a 'reasonable person' abstraction: would a reasonable person foresee that an individual may be unable to pay back a loan?

and, here's the twist nobody knows: the law says that if a lender lends to somebody without doing this research, that is without performing their due diligence, then it's their own stupid fault when they get defaulted on. what the law actually says is that if you give a loan to a crack addict and that crack addict never pays you back then it's your own stupid fault for being dumb enough to give a loan to a crack addict - and, further, that it's your own responsibility to make sure you're not lending to crack addicts.

there is only one exception to this rule: student loans.

is this madness?

yes.

it's a farce. it's been two years of farce, and it will remain a farce as long as we let it continue for.

but, at the core, it's madness.

to the rest of the world, beware: avoid elevating your dauphins.

"what happened?"
"the senate blocked the legalization bill."
"a bunch of harper stooges, right?"
"actually..."
"...when will we get a majority in the senate?"
"we already do."
"i don't understand."

when an understanding of the situation is achieved, it's going to be devastating.

but, people that wanted to save the liberal party as an institution are too late. it's been thoroughly taken over by progressives, fleeing the reform-pc merger. abandonment is the right approach.

what trudeau is doing is setting up a conservative-dominated senate to block the left-leaning parliament. he has consistently placed conservatives in places of power, while rejecting liberals. then, he claims it's about being "non-partisan".

this is how marijuana legalization will be blocked, and how trudeau will more broadly sabotage the interests of his own party, and his own voters. but, it will also allow him to campaign further left, fully aware that he can introduce liberal legislation, only to have it blocked by the progressive/conservative body he's set up.

thankfully, this charade can be easily dismantled when this party is removed from power. in the mean time, prepare yourself for immense disappointment until the country finally clues in to the nature of this charlatan and sends him home to his trust fund.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-rules-caucus-change-1.4112744

i'm not the first person that's pointed out that it's pathetic that you have to read uk papers for us news, because the news media in the united states is focused on distracting you from the news with nonsense, rather than reporting it.

you'd think the fucking budget would get some coverage, regardless of what's in it. now, look what's fucking in it.

but, it's not some accident that you're being distracted with conspiracy theories and scandals, when they aren't actually even the same thing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/23/republicans-opposition-trump-budget-medicaid-spending

i'm almost expecting theresa may to suggest that elections are no time to discuss serious issues.

the united kingdom is going to remove the conservatives from power, eventually. she's kind of making it seem like the time is right. but, that's kind of scary, because there appears to be a lot of cynicism around the labour party. it's scenarios like this that you get weird results in.

corbyn should have attended the debates, as he needs to win an election against these smaller parties - especially ukip - more than he does against the tories. and, it should be a bit of a red flag that they think they're more likely to sway tories than greens or lib dems.

see, this is the scenario where the lib dems should actually be taking advantage of the situation to try and sneak up the middle. the prime minister appears to be hopeless. labour is trying to leap frog them, again. they're the only ones that showed up to the debate. i don't know how seriously they can be taken right now, but they should be a serious wild card.

...because it is inevitable that the country will just tire of the ruling party and seek a replacement, and this looks like as good a time as any.

try #2 left me with an amazing $0.25.

i skipped out on the stragglers. i mean, there weren't any, anyways. but, i kind of came to the realization around 12:30 or so that what i was doing was unrelatable to anybody walking by and if the point was to gather change then the chances of anybody walking by and stopping to appreciate what i was doing was negligible, because it was legitimately impossible to do so. i had most of autechre's discography (ripped from cds i bought, as it may be) on random in my mp3 player, which is just about the most abstract rhythm track that you could possibly imagine. i mean, autechre in sequence is wacky enough. but i had stuff from oversteps sequenced to stuff from confield, sequenced to stuff from amber, sequenced to stuff from tri repetae...yes, ++. and, when the suite from ep7 came in mixed with pieces of lp5, netlon sentinel and drane, that was just sublime. i was completely trapped in my own head. there was one person earlier in the evening that seemed to at least be able to empathize with what i was expressing, but his reaction was distant, if vaguely appreciative.

i mean, if you want to busk you need to play songs people know, so they can stop and sing along for a few minutes. that's supposed to be the ploy. i get it. i wasn't going to do that, though. i was reasoning that what i was doing was interesting enough that it would...i'd be throwing away a lot of the market, but i reasoned i'd hit a niche, if i sat there long enough. the realization i came to was that even that was incomprehensible, because the entire thing was just too abstract - you couldn't hear the music in my headphones, so you couldn't put what i was doing into context.

maybe i should phrase it like this: if anybody did come by and was able to understand what the fuck i was playing, that would be a person i'd want to jam with. that would be my collaborative unicorn, which i know does not exist.

that said, i greatly enjoyed both sets, despite only making $0.25 in total. it had been a while since i had really played my guitar at all, let alone played it in public. i kind of wish i was able to record the totality of the sound that existed in my mind, which was not just the autechre and the guitars but also the direction. it's actually something i've been wanting to do for a really long time. it will be a part of closing the discography.

for now, i just want to take a shower and get to bed.

but, does that mean i'm in for the weekend? as i was walking home, i thought maybe i was overhyping it, anyways. the weather is going to be unpleasant for most of the weekend. i'm going to make a decision about selling cds on thursday, but i'm leaning towards staying in. and, i'll have to make the same decision on friday, which is maybe a bit more open.

the reality is that i planned on not going anywhere this weekend. a part of the reason i'm backtracking is that the last two weeks were....last week wasn't bad but it felt too short, but what i really feel an urge to do is to make up for the week previous. that said, it was kind of silly from the start to think i could do all four nights. even if i had stayed in all month, that would have been a stretch. i should have settled on one night in the first place.

if the weather guides me towards friday, so be it. and, it means there's a few things i can wait on, too.

i'm not going to bother going back out in the morning, even if it stays dry. this was a reasonable idea, but it has demonstrated itself unfruitful, admittedly partly due to my own idiosyncrasies.