Riggs
@bigrigg47.bsky.social
Bad at video games, but I play too many of them anyway (I do not play league! the banner is a lie!)
occasionally work on stuff on riggsmarkham.com
occasionally work on stuff on riggsmarkham.com
It’s stupid deontology. They think that refusing to express a preference on which of two people should win (when one of them definitely will win) means they can be morally absolved of the sins of America - they are mistaken; absolution is impossible. As long as the sin exists, we are all complicit.
December 20, 2025 at 1:21 AM
It’s stupid deontology. They think that refusing to express a preference on which of two people should win (when one of them definitely will win) means they can be morally absolved of the sins of America - they are mistaken; absolution is impossible. As long as the sin exists, we are all complicit.
Lower turnout doesn’t hurt an election winner’s legitimacy.
December 20, 2025 at 1:14 AM
Lower turnout doesn’t hurt an election winner’s legitimacy.
Those costs (at least for common people) were **extremely** high; you are celebrating a lot of death here: acoup.blog/2022/02/11/c...
Collections: Rome: Decline and Fall? Part III: Things
This is the third and final part (I, II, III) of our series tackling the complicated and still debated question of ‘how bad was the fall of Rome (in the West)?’ In our first part, we lo…
acoup.blog
December 16, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Those costs (at least for common people) were **extremely** high; you are celebrating a lot of death here: acoup.blog/2022/02/11/c...
My favorite series of yours (of the ones that I’ve read). Certainly the most impactful to me; I suddenly got why “just save up enough liquid capital to escape subsistence agriculture” was an absurd proposition for most.
December 11, 2025 at 4:21 PM
My favorite series of yours (of the ones that I’ve read). Certainly the most impactful to me; I suddenly got why “just save up enough liquid capital to escape subsistence agriculture” was an absurd proposition for most.
So the proper response is "i think i hauve Covid"?
December 10, 2025 at 4:03 AM
So the proper response is "i think i hauve Covid"?
It's 65% in that study and there's nothing indicating it's higher now.
Even with additional cost savings from government workers' plans and additional revenue from private tax-exempt benefits becoming taxable wages, you still need like $1.3T annually ... which still requires broad-based taxes.
Even with additional cost savings from government workers' plans and additional revenue from private tax-exempt benefits becoming taxable wages, you still need like $1.3T annually ... which still requires broad-based taxes.
December 8, 2025 at 8:42 PM
It's 65% in that study and there's nothing indicating it's higher now.
Even with additional cost savings from government workers' plans and additional revenue from private tax-exempt benefits becoming taxable wages, you still need like $1.3T annually ... which still requires broad-based taxes.
Even with additional cost savings from government workers' plans and additional revenue from private tax-exempt benefits becoming taxable wages, you still need like $1.3T annually ... which still requires broad-based taxes.
Looks like about 5 weeks via my calculations (still obviously insufficient). Not sure what numbers you're using.
December 8, 2025 at 8:18 PM
Looks like about 5 weeks via my calculations (still obviously insufficient). Not sure what numbers you're using.
Currently, all levels of government combined are funding just under half. Even if you projected some optimistic cost-savings (e.g., $500B annually), we'd still need an additional $2T in government revenue; that kind of sum can only realistically come from broad-based tax increases.
December 8, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Currently, all levels of government combined are funding just under half. Even if you projected some optimistic cost-savings (e.g., $500B annually), we'd still need an additional $2T in government revenue; that kind of sum can only realistically come from broad-based tax increases.
And that's why you shouldn't use wealth taxes to fund welfare programs (you should use them to fill up the coffers of a SWF)
December 8, 2025 at 8:08 PM
And that's why you shouldn't use wealth taxes to fund welfare programs (you should use them to fill up the coffers of a SWF)
Old-school radicalism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic...
Classical radicalism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
December 8, 2025 at 8:02 PM
Old-school radicalism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic...
If you add up the populations of Europe and its offshoots (US, Canada, Australia, NZ) you get around 30% in 1925 and around 15% in 2025. It’s way less stark than Musk says.
December 2, 2025 at 10:53 PM
If you add up the populations of Europe and its offshoots (US, Canada, Australia, NZ) you get around 30% in 1925 and around 15% in 2025. It’s way less stark than Musk says.
Should be a Harberger tax where you have to pay a set proportion of what you think it’s worth, put if anyone actually puts up that amount, you have to take the money and it automatically goes into the public domain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harberg...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harberg...
Harberger Tax - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
December 2, 2025 at 5:38 AM
Should be a Harberger tax where you have to pay a set proportion of what you think it’s worth, put if anyone actually puts up that amount, you have to take the money and it automatically goes into the public domain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harberg...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harberg...
USian is an English word.
November 27, 2025 at 7:19 AM
USian is an English word.
USian is an English word.
November 27, 2025 at 7:02 AM
USian is an English word.
But it wasn't really co-opted by people from the US, "American" (used as the demonym for those living in the modern US) is like 350 years old.
I get that it's (occasionally) inconvenient, but ... language just is that way sometimes.
I get that it's (occasionally) inconvenient, but ... language just is that way sometimes.
November 27, 2025 at 6:55 AM
But it wasn't really co-opted by people from the US, "American" (used as the demonym for those living in the modern US) is like 350 years old.
I get that it's (occasionally) inconvenient, but ... language just is that way sometimes.
I get that it's (occasionally) inconvenient, but ... language just is that way sometimes.
Just as the smallholder would be very incentivized to jealously defend the rights of landownership (e.g., lowering property taxes, restricting squatter's rights), the independent artist is incentivized to do the same to IP rights (e.g., restricting fair use, extending IP length).
November 26, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Just as the smallholder would be very incentivized to jealously defend the rights of landownership (e.g., lowering property taxes, restricting squatter's rights), the independent artist is incentivized to do the same to IP rights (e.g., restricting fair use, extending IP length).
Smallholder farmers - definitely the most common form of petit bourgeoisie is Marx's time - were certainly not all doing well back then!
Petit bourgeoisie doesn't imply that they're well-off, but it does imply a relationship to property rights that modern independent artists certainly share.
Petit bourgeoisie doesn't imply that they're well-off, but it does imply a relationship to property rights that modern independent artists certainly share.
November 26, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Smallholder farmers - definitely the most common form of petit bourgeoisie is Marx's time - were certainly not all doing well back then!
Petit bourgeoisie doesn't imply that they're well-off, but it does imply a relationship to property rights that modern independent artists certainly share.
Petit bourgeoisie doesn't imply that they're well-off, but it does imply a relationship to property rights that modern independent artists certainly share.
Sorry, I was referring to smallholder farmers. Farm workers are definitely not bourgeois in any way.
smallholder farmers : landownership :: independent artists : IP rights
they're incentivized to protect and expand their property rights because those rights are how they make their money
smallholder farmers : landownership :: independent artists : IP rights
they're incentivized to protect and expand their property rights because those rights are how they make their money
November 26, 2025 at 6:44 PM
Sorry, I was referring to smallholder farmers. Farm workers are definitely not bourgeois in any way.
smallholder farmers : landownership :: independent artists : IP rights
they're incentivized to protect and expand their property rights because those rights are how they make their money
smallholder farmers : landownership :: independent artists : IP rights
they're incentivized to protect and expand their property rights because those rights are how they make their money
Why would they need to own the means of distribution?
Is a smallholder farmer not petit bourgeois because they don't own the grocery store?
Is a smallholder farmer not petit bourgeois because they don't own the grocery store?
November 26, 2025 at 6:38 PM
Why would they need to own the means of distribution?
Is a smallholder farmer not petit bourgeois because they don't own the grocery store?
Is a smallholder farmer not petit bourgeois because they don't own the grocery store?
independent artist : IP rights :: smallholder farmer : landownership rights
doesn't mean they're doing well, but it does describe their relationship with property
doesn't mean they're doing well, but it does describe their relationship with property
November 26, 2025 at 6:37 PM
independent artist : IP rights :: smallholder farmer : landownership rights
doesn't mean they're doing well, but it does describe their relationship with property
doesn't mean they're doing well, but it does describe their relationship with property
Is a farmer not petit bourgeois because they don't own the grocery store that sells their produce?
If they own the IP rights to your works and they're making money by selling those works, they're definitionally petit bourgeois. Doesn't mean that they're rich or exploitive.
If they own the IP rights to your works and they're making money by selling those works, they're definitionally petit bourgeois. Doesn't mean that they're rich or exploitive.
November 26, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Is a farmer not petit bourgeois because they don't own the grocery store that sells their produce?
If they own the IP rights to your works and they're making money by selling those works, they're definitionally petit bourgeois. Doesn't mean that they're rich or exploitive.
If they own the IP rights to your works and they're making money by selling those works, they're definitionally petit bourgeois. Doesn't mean that they're rich or exploitive.
And its incentives are actually pretty analogous to those of a farmer. The independent artist is heavily incentivized to defend/expand IP rights (e.g. restricting fair use), just as the smallholder farmer is incentivized to defend/expand the rights of landownership (e.g. fighting squatters' rights).
November 26, 2025 at 6:31 PM
And its incentives are actually pretty analogous to those of a farmer. The independent artist is heavily incentivized to defend/expand IP rights (e.g. restricting fair use), just as the smallholder farmer is incentivized to defend/expand the rights of landownership (e.g. fighting squatters' rights).