Sunday, February 23, 2020

Things shared on Feb. 23rds

Capitalism isn't inherently racist and sexist; it's historically racist and sexist. Neoliberals want identity-blind capitalism, which is possible in theory. But in reality, capitalism's limited class mobility will keep its racist and sexist past with us until wealth is shared.


The people who say Bernie Sanders is "too white" don't care that he's most popular with black people. Identitarians care more about presentation than policy.


Dear #NRA

FYI, "Well regulated" is the opposite of "unregulated".

You're welcome.



There are more things everyone should know than anyone can know.


From 2014:

the Dogness Monster?

Between the sidewalk and the street, there're a long mound in most parts of Minneapolis that's three feet high or more. When I looked out the window yesterday morning, I saw the upper body of a man walking with one arm slightly extended. About eight feet ahead of him, moving at exactly the same speed, was three inches of an upright, slightly wagging tail.


  1. Wrong on "well regulated". At the time the 2nd amendment was written that phrase meant properly functioning, not subject to proper regulations.

    1. You made me check the OED. The use you're referring to still existed in 1776, but the use I'm citing was common. For example, Milton in 1644: "If we think to regulat Printing,..we must regulat all recreations and pastimes."

      We know there were regulations in the modern sense of the word in place at the time: The militia were expected to have certain kinds of gun kept in good shape, and they were expected to well-trained in their use. (A common complaint of soldiers about militia was that they often didn't meet the regulations.)

      Here's an example of your link oversimplifying one use of the phrase:

      "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

      The writer knew an effective court of justice is heavily regulated in the modern sense. He didn't mean that effective courts let judges do as they please.

    2. In fact, your link appears to be an example of cherry-picking. I had only looked at regulate, but now I've looked at well-regulated too, and I find this. Note in particular the 1648 contrast with anarchy:

      Properly governed or directed; (now) esp. strictly controlled by rules or regulations. Also: accurately calibrated or adjusted.
      1579 G. Fenton tr. F. Guicciardini Hist. Guicciardin ii. 82 Vpon which foundacions, might perhapps haue bene constituted a gouernment well regulated and established [Fr. vn bien reglé & arresté gouuernement].
      1615 T. Tuke Christians Looking Glasse 70 Hee that loues God truely, and with a well regulated loue, will loue God, chiefly for God himselfe.
      1648 Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer No. 290. 1186 The preposterous conversion of the well regulated Monarchy of this Kingdome into a monstrous conception of a Military Anarchy.
      1709 Ld. Shaftesbury Moralists ii. iv. 108 If a liberal Education has form'd in us..well-regulated Appetites, and worthy Inclinations.
      1714 R. Fiddes Pract. Disc. (ed. 2) II. 250 The practice of all well regulated courts of justice in the world.
      1812 J. Joyce Astron. in Sci. Dialogues II. xii. 126 The equation of the adjustment of the difference of time, as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun-dial.

  2. All of those examples fit the 'properly functioning' meaning. The only cases where 'subject to good regulations' is even a plausible reading are the 1579, 1648 and 1714 cites. Beyond that, the 'subject to good regulations' interpretation makes no sense in the context of the second amendment. The preferatory clause ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") is presenting a justification for the operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). Under the 'good regulations' reading that become an assertion that the need for good regulation of the militia requires a ban on Congress imposing certain regulations. I see no way to make that a reasonable or plausible reading of the amendment.

    The interesting question in 2nd amendment interpretation is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. What weapons are protected by that right? In what locations is the right to carry those arms protected?

    1. Do you think the OED's definition that precedes those examples is wrong?

      And why do you think the 2nd has a justification while the others do not? It is more plausible to assume that clause is a limitation, not a justification.

      I do not believe in banning weapons. I do believe in regulating them, and so do most Americans.

    2. The OED definition is a list of all current or historical uses. The presence of a particular usage there doesn't establish that it was used in the late 18th century. To establish such usage at that time you need an in period cite where the 'subject to good regulation' meaning makes sense in context and the 'properly functioning' meaning does not. None of the cites you list meets that condition (some work with either meaning, some work only with the proper function meaning, but none of them makes sense only with the subject to regulation meaning).

      I note that you haven't addressed the fact that the 'subject to good regulations' meaning does not make sense in the context of the 2nd amendment.

      While the second amendment is the only amendment in the Federal Constitution with a preferatory justification clause there are numerous examples of such clauses in contemporaneous state constitutions. In some cases the operative clause is under-inclusive in respect to the justification, in others it is over-inclusive. See the law review article linked below for a list and analysis.

      I support reasonable regulation of gun ownership and usage and believe there are a few areas where such regulation could be expanded without violating the second amendment, but the 'well regulated' clause of the amendment has little or no bearing on the range of permitted regulation.