1: It's arbitrary because market value has nothing to do with the health of society. — Kenshi

You're saying smoking does not lead to ill health for both smokers and anyone inhaling second-hand smoke?

If it did, it ought to just be banned. — Kenshi

You are really ready to ban everything that is bad for society's health? For instance, if it was shown that car exhaust was bad for society's health, you'd support just banning cars outright, and certainly any elective use of cars?

2: I do NOT condone every way that people gain capital. No Capitalist does. Using the state to get rich is socialist if anything. — Kenshi

Capitalists that use the state corruption to gain more capital condemn themselves?

I don't follow; there actually socialists?

Some capitalists (people who have and control large sums of capital) only believe in gaining more power and wealth for themselves; in other words, they believe in "might is right". They not capitalists in your view? Or do they not exist? Or are they actually socialists? What version of socialism do they follow?

If and when a capitalist corrupts the organs of the state to increase their capital and influence, this is not socialism.

The expression of "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor" when capitalists get bailouts and subsidies; it is pointing out the capitalists that argue for people "competing fairly" without a social safety net, and no government intervention in markets and certainly no subsidies for competing industries or the poor, suddenly want a safety net for their company and industries and state intervention to "maintain market stability" when their own interests are threatened and of course to keep the subsidies their own industries have been receiving for decades. The point that is being driven at, is these capitalists who fund propaganda (via think tanks, owning media, etc.) against safety nets, government intervention and subsidies, only bring out these arguments when they serve their interests. When it doesn't serve their interests, they suddenly have a different set of arguments supporting government intervention, subsidies and bailouts.

In other words, they are hypocrites. "Socialism for the rich" is supposed to be ironic, not that they are actually socialists.

However, for certain forms of libertarian and conservative ideology, this creates a problem, as if it is claimed that the rich produce value and social good for everyone by pursuing their own interests, then it follows from this that if you can gain by corrupting the government and court systems and get away with it, then you have followed your own interest and gained handsomely, so what is the problem?

So, is there are moral problem of corrupting the state for one's own benefit? Why isn't this "being good at competing" within society? If it's not good, is there a problem with the idea of competition as the basis for value creation? If so where? Likewise, if there is a problem, who should try to fix it, what arguments should they make to justify fixing it, and what steps should be taken?

4: Who are you even talking about? How do you even know that these people exist? Even if we knew, at least some of them would be black. Thomas Jefferson had 6 black children. Also, most wealthy people are self-made, not heirs, so it seems to me that this issue is a non-sequitur. — Kenshi

This does not address the question. The question I raise are in principle. If in principle, the slave trade was capitalism doing good by creating wealth through people competing to capture slaves and extract value from them, as with any resource, then there's nothing more to discuss.

However, if you want to deflect, let's deal with your deflection. "Most wealthy people are self-made" is simply untrue. Most wealthy people are born in the upper class and remain in the upper class; it's called social mobility and there are statistics available for the present and the past.

5: Black teenagers generally live in big cities with bloated minimum wages and terrible government-funded schools. This combination has made it far worse for them economically. — Kenshi

You clearly do not understand my argument. You have made another argument where the only variable tying black teenagers to their conditions is that they are black. Therefore, from your argument we must conclude the conditions are because of their blackness.

6: R&D is not the same thing as automation. They accomplish entirely different tasks. People DO benefit from automation. If not for factories or GMOs, we'd lose immeasurable resources and many would starve, not to mention the number of technological advances that few people would be able to afford anymore. In terms of whether or not the government should be handling such things, why? 75% of all FDA approved drugs come from the U.S., nearly entirely privately funded. If not for the FDA (a Government Program), even MORE medicine would be available to people. So no, I don't think that the state is particularly well equipped to deal with R&D. — Kenshi

Did I say R&D is the same as automation?

I'm sorry but I will not be able to continue the discussion if there's no good faith read my words; if you say I say something, quote me.

I said "workers through their taxes fund a large part of the R&D that results ultimately in new automation that replaces their jobs".

I am clearly referring to the "R&D that results ultimately in new automation". That statement does not exclude other forms of R&D, so that quibble is not available. As for substance, what's the alternative to automation resulting from R&D? That it is spontaneously invented?

I also clearly state that the issue is not about automation itself.

I literally say "I don't view automation as bad. I was simply pointing out that the "socialist" issue around automation is who gets all the benefits, who owns capital (the means of producing things); socialism has no problem with automation."

The question is who benefits. In our system as it is today, governments fund, especially the early speculative and high risk components, the R&D which later industry employs to automate; that funding is through taxes that the workers contribute to, who then lose their job. My question is that is this a fair setup? If the workers contribute to the automation, shouldn't they also benefit? For instance, through a social safety net being available to deal with job loss that is disproportionately contributed to by the taxes on the wealthy that have the direct benefit of automation (i.e. through a progressive tax that pays for social systems that benefit directly the worker being automated; as the rich do not need public transport or subsidized education or healthcare, as they can afford it).

7: Where do you think these countries got the money and resources to do these things? Capitalism and Free Trade. Doctors and teachers don't work for free, In your case, they're tax funded. Taxes come from income which is created by the market. Under Communism/Socialism/Marxism, no new capital is created and everything becomes horrible. To quote Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Don't twist my words into saying that free healthcare and education are good things. My issue with them is that they're unsustainable. The market would be better at handling these things because competition drives quality up and costs down. — Kenshi

It's you that implied Scandinavia are examples of capitalism working, even quoting the Danish King, which, as a Finn, isn't much of an authority on anything (Finland has no king, Finland needs no king).

Scandinavia has universal health care and free education at all levels, so if you use Scandinavia to support your arguments as successful "market economies", my question was how do you explain these social systems they employ. How are they able to compete as high-tech, high-innovation countries with an inefficient public health and education system? If they've succeeded despite these inefficient systems, what's the mechanism?

You proposed these arguments, how is it twisting your words to ask you to explain how your arguments work?

Private/Charter schools in the U.S. are objectively better than public schools. There is also the issue of morality: What if I don't want to go to college? It's still my financial concern that other people get to go? On what grounds do you or anyone else claim the fruits of MY labor? Why should anyone be forced to pay for something that doesn't benefit them? Also, a voucher system is NOT the same as free schooling. It just means that you get to decide where your money goes. — Kenshi

This is just more bad faith debate without reading what I say.

I say a publicly funded voucher system is a public system, not an example of a private system. A private education system is one where you only get the education you can afford.

If you pay taxes that fund a public education system, either through vouchers or public school boards, you are funding things that don't benefit you.

A voucher system is free schooling if your parents would not otherwise afford any school. Going to university for free is free schooling for the students that do not pay. Now, is there a cost that is paid by not-the-student, yes. I think I have been pretty clear that taxes pay for these systems.

Now, the grounds that the government, and society insofar as the government represents society, can use to tax you is simply that it can. Nearly all societies have taxes, and nearly all societies have tax systems where the rich pay more taxes than the poor. There are different reasons society's have had to justify taxes.

But, before going into those reasons, isn't it just winning at competition to be able to tax? Agreed, it's not winning if those taxes are counter-productive, but assuming they are productive and benefit most people, isn't this most people getting together as a team and "winning" against individuals that would rather not be taxed? Why should the winning side need to justify their actions to the losing side? Seems like sour grapes.

8: Vouchers are SELF funded. It's YOUR money. — Kenshi

There are two voucher systems. I clearly state publicly funded vouchers. For tax-rebate based vouchers, this is simply the ability to take the money in one's taxes that would otherwise represent contribution to one's children's schooling, and use it to pay or partly pay for private schooling. However, one is still paying taxes (especially if one has kids) that cover the schooling of any child of poor parents who is going to school (whether that system is vouchers or public school board). It's another debate which of these public systems is better and under what policies. Neither are a free market system where people can only buy what they can afford. Both are public, and I state ahead of time I am referring to both systems as public funded schooling precisely to avoid obfuscation with "market principles" in a public system: if you are supporting market principles in a public system, you are still supporting a public system created due to collectivist concerns (the difference is only on the technical implementation of the system; there is no ideological difference). A free market education system is one where parents buy the education services they can afford; just like if you can't afford a fancy car in a free market system society does not buy you that car, if you can't afford education for your children society does not buy you that education.

9: China is a good example of how Capitalism produces wealth. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S OK TO HAVE AN OPPRESSIVE STATE. With more freedom, China would be great. Why isn't it free? Communism. Why is it rich? Capitalism. Capitalism>Communism — Kenshi

Do you have any arguments to back this view up? Did China use a free market capitalism to train their workforce? Did they use unregulated markets with little state intervention?

Your argument seems to be backwards, that anything you consider good you attribute to capitalism, anything you consider bad you attribute to socialism and / or communism. If capitalists are corrupting the state, that's "bad" capitalists. If China has industrialized, that must be capitalism (nothing to do with the "great leap forward", or Western nations and firms agreeing to "open china up" and use wage and environmental arbitrage to produce cheaper, not because of a free market where people are free, but because China has a tyrannical oppressive state that crushes any movement that wants freedom, better working conditions, better environmental laws). Who has benefited? We agree it's not really the poor as they are not more free. So who has gotten all this wealth? Is it through honest, nose to the grind stone competition? Or is it mostly through state corruption?

13: ANY European country would be absolutely CRUSHED by the U.S., Russia, China or Iran. Exactly ONE of those countries is interested in protecting Western Europe.

Because of that, Western European countries don't need to spend too much on defense, so they have more money in the budget to spend on social programs. — Kenshi

This is simply factually wrong.

Your saying that without the US, Russia, China and Iran would invade the EU?

Now, if you're talking about the cold war with the Soviet Union, where there was a legitimate threat to invasion, it's still a complicated issue between the US overestimating Soviet forces (largely thanks to employing the Nazi in charge of soviet intelligence who wanted more budgets and more Nazi friends hired, and a bigger Soviet threat aided that), and UK and France having a Nuclear deterrent as well.

But it doesn't matter as the cold war is over. China or Iran invading the EU is simply laughable.

In the case of Russia, they have a lot of tanks, missiles and planes, so I would grant there is some sort of contest in a full-scale invasion of the EU by Russia absent the US. I still wouldn't bet on Russia though, the EU has a larger population, far larger military budget, many states have conscription (which is a significant force multiplier). Russia has far more nuclear weapons than the UK or France, but you don't need thousands to maintain a nuclear deterrent; hundreds will do.

However, if you feel Russia, China and/or Iran would invade the EU without the US around, please explain how this is both politically and militarily likely to succeed?

The alternative, is that US military spending is not in the benefit of Europe; it benefits US elite interests. Not only could the US military budget be easily reduced to pay for universal health-care, it's not even economically necessary to do so. The US health-care system costs more as a percentage of GDP than European peers with worse outcomes, and so changing to a European style health care system would simply shift money currently spent today on private insurance (with mandated "no negotiating" prices) to a single payer system that could, with money to spare that could then be used to increase military spending!

But, more importantly, which one is it: The US must sacrifice it's health-care (foregoing a more efficient and beneficial public system) to spend on its military to protect fragile Europeans ability to pay for a public health care system? Or is it that a private free market health care system is more efficient and benefits everyone and makes society better, and so the US is only helping somehow for Europe to harm itself with public health care systems?

There's one more critical problem with your arguments, perhaps the root, which warrants much more time, so I will put it in it's own comment.

I think people simply prefer a single answer to problems. Blaming “Capitalism” for all the woes of the world is kind of silly, yet deeply appealing to those who feel hard done by. — I like sushi

Since you are replying to a Kenshi who's replying to me, it seems implied that you are referring to my "blaming capitalism". However, please correct me if I'm wrong and you are referring to others in the thread or just people out there.

If you bothered reading my post, no where did I blame "all the woes of the world" on capitalism. If you furthermore read carefully, I focused on specific issues such as crony-capitalism, free education at all levels, universal health care, publicly funded poverty reduction programs of any sort. My main purpose was to respond to the idea that "only capitalism" has reduced poverty.

I make clear that capitalism is used in two sense, an hypothetical free market in some contexts, and in other contexts as the essentially Western "system as is" (where if we are talking about technology, it's an example of how "capitalism" of the first time works in practice, and if we're talking about market failures and monopolies this is due to the system not being real capitalism but big government and social programs are preventing getting the benefits of real capitalism; i.e. the system is and is not capitalism depending on context). So, depending on how capitalism is used I may or may not various things to say.

In some contexts, proponents of these first two definitions of capitalism use a third definition of capitalism simply referring to the need of "capital tooling and investment" to make anything. I agree.

So it depends what we're talking about. If we're talking about markets with regulations to internalize the true cost of production into the cost of the product and regulations to prevent working condition and environmental arbitrage, I have no problem with such markets. If this is what someone means by "capitalism" then I do not view this as a problem for society. If someone wants to use this definition of capitalism but not use a reasoned science and precautionary based risk-benefit framework to evaluate "true-costs" but rather a hodgepodge of fanciful reasoning originating with paid propagandists, then I do have a problem.

Likewise, if by capitalism you mean "market based economy" where education at all levels if free (including retraining), healthcare is universal, voting is proportional, there is robust public transportation, public funded news and cultural programs, housing is subsidized for the less wealthy, and taxes are progressive, the budget balanced, parties get money for each vote they get and private campaign financing is limited and strict, a very wide definition of corruption, and there is conscription for the defense of the nation but a constitutional block to invading another country, then I can get behind your definition of capitalism. Do these policies count as capitalism at work for you?

And the motivation behind arbitrarily increasing the cost is irrelevant. — Kenshi

If the motivation is not arbitrary, then the action is not arbitrary. You can just say "increasing the cost decreased motivation to buy". The only reason to add "arbitrary" is to try to avoid saying "for the purpose of internalizing the true cost to society". It is not just semantics.

Do you agree that increasing the cost of cigarettes internalizes the true cost to society in the cost paid for the product? Do you agree that this is a good policy to follow with cigarettes as well as any other product? Why or why not?

Capitalism is about the "free" exchange of goods and services. Capitalists often call for less government control of the market for exactly the things that you mention. There's a reason that the practices you talk about are known as "Crony Capitalism", because everyone knows that those are examples of capitalism being exploited, not implemented. — Kenshi

Yes, I mention in my post that there are two definitions of capitalism used by the proponents of capitalism: hypothetical "free markets" is one definition and "the US / Western system as it is today" is another definition. These definitions are of course not referring to the same thing.

For instance, when you say "Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism" you are clearly referring to systems that actually have and do exist.

If capitalists can use their money to pass laws to make "crony-capitalism" legal; how is this "exploiting capitalism". They've used their capital to make more capital, what's the problem vis-a-vis capitalism. Should constraints be placed on people who control large stores of capital to convert part of their capital into influence that legalizes and promotes "crony capitalism"? What should these constraints be? If there shouldn't be constraints as people should be "free to use their money as they way" and this leads to the crony capitalism being amplified, entrenched and a positive feedback loop of using crony capitalism to get generate more capital to generate more crony capitalism, how then should this problem be solved?

When you say "practices you talk about are known as 'Crony Capitalism', because everyone knows that those are examples of capitalism being exploited, not implemented" does this include the politicians implementing crony-capitalism into law and the lobby groups promoting to the public these crony capitalists laws are actually good or freedom or whatever? If these people know they are exploiting capitalism for their own benefit, how does this contradict the motivation to make as much profit as possible? Is anyone in the wrong? If not, presumably it's up to the people to stop them, but it f there is no economic benefit to engage as a citizen in politics as the effort to vote does not equate with the likelihood of affecting the outcome (free rider problem), then how are people who don't engage in politics in the wrong for likewise following their own interest?

Many, MANY more black people came to this country voluntarily than they ever did as slaves. — Kenshi

What are the numbers here? "Many, MANY" seems to me like orders of magnitude, what do you mean by this in terms of numbers?

Only 2-8% of whites owned slaves when it was legal, and there's no way that anywhere close to the majority of whites are descended from slave owners, nor blacks descended from slaves. — Kenshi

I did not say "all whites" nor a majority of whites, I said the descendants of slave owners that benefit from capital accumulated during the slavery. Is it fair they keep the benefits of slavery? To start, only even in principle. If it's fair, was slavery just and simply capitalism at work (free folk using their labour to kidnap people and use them as slaves)? If it wasn't fair nor capitalism at work, should the stocks of capital that resulted from slavery that still exist today that are used to extract rents, an example of capitalism working? My question here is not whether there is a practical method of separating slave-derived capital from other forms of capital, my question is one of principle of whether such stocks of capital are fair or not? Would such capital come from "'free' exchange of goods and service" which you claim capitalism is and so it seems to follow all stocks of capital are examples of the result of "'free' exchange of goods and services", does this include the capital that resulted from slavery? Or does capitalism not include all forms of capital. If not, please explain.

I say that the system is fair because good life choices are the biggest deciding factor in long term wealth, not race/color. The poverty rate of black married couples is 7%, the poverty rate of white single parents is over 20%. The Brookings Institution (a Liberal think-tank) found that American citizens that graduated high school, didn't have children before marriage and worked full time almost never wound up in poverty, and given the number of ways that one can ruin themselves financially, there's no reason to immediately assume that the remainder were poor because of some kind of bias. Also, "good responses"? I really hope that doesn't mean what I think it means. Also, "racism"? I'm black, so is my grandmother who grew up incredibly poor, and despite being a single mother of 2, she went to college on a loan, got her degree and worked her way up to a 6-figure salary, a 3-bedroom house and 2 cars. Living proof of what I'm talking about. (It's just an example, I'm not claiming that anecdotal evidence is finalizing) — Kenshi

I don't see what your point here is and I don't think you understood my argument.

If there are no structural reasons that "especially black teenagers can't find jobs"; i.e. if there are no processes in society that have disadvantaged black teenagers, that the only variable is that they are black and they can't get a job because they are not willing to work for low wages; then the only variable left is that they are black. If the only variable is that they are black, then they are poor in a fair system because they are black and because the system is fair it must be that black people are less capable.

To remind you of your words, you say "Regardless of how big a company gets, it's never worth it to pay someone say, $12/hour when their productivity earns you something like $10/hour." and you follow from this premise with the conclusion that "That's the reason that teenagers, black teenagers in particular, have so much trouble getting jobs."

The premise is true for all people, but you say it's particularly true for black teenagers. If there isn't some unfair structures within society built up over time to disadvantage black teenagers (that the system isn't fair), then your argument is it's particularly hard for black teenagers to get a job because they are black. You have no other variables in your argument and you seem to be saying the system is fair, so again, how is this not vanilla racism to attribute the cause of black "under performance" to the variable of being black?

What would "good responses" mean in this context other than solid arguments that address my questions? I don't see this or any of your response addresses my questions.

5: No, it's not a recent phenomena, it's just of particular concern to people today. Automation is on the whole, a good thing considering all of the affordable luxuries we now have as opposed to people of the same, or in many cases even greater economic strata, say a century ago. Plus, even with all of the automation and outsourcing that has and does occur, the vast majority of us are still employed. Even if you think that automation is entirely bad, you're only making it worse by arbitrarily raising the cost of labor. — Kenshi

I don't view automation as bad. I was simply pointing out that the "socialist" issue around automation is who gets all the benefits, who owns capital (the means of producing things); socialism has no problem with automation.

To provide food for though, a lot (most) of fundamental R&D is paid by the state because it is too early stage and too high risk for investors to finance. In other words, workers through their taxes fund a large part of the R&D that results ultimately in new automation that replaces their jobs; yet, the worker that is replaced doesn't benefit in this scenario. Should the state not fund R&D with people's taxes? Should part of the value produced by automation be redistributed back to the worker who's taxes helped create it (for instance, through things like re-training, health-care, general safety net while finding a new job)?

6: I wouldn't say that those things don't help the poor. I just think that the market is a more powerful tool to solve the problems associated with those institutions than the state. Also, I think it's disingenuous to say that something is good because it's free. In England, you are far more likely to die during a hospital visit, forcing universal health care on people was deemed a human rights violation by the Canadian Supreme Court, etc. — Kenshi

I'm no sure you understand what your words "Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism" mean. By saying "nearly every instance" is due to X, this implies it's a very small part that is due to not-X.

I am glad you have revised your position, and agree that universal health care and free education help the poor. However, please explain how a free market is a more powerful tool to provide education and healthcare or that going without these things is a counter-intuitive help to the poor. Also, in the case of education, please keep in mind a "voucher system" is still public funded education; I

The Prime Minister of Denmark openly said to stop pointing to them as a beacon of socialist success. "Denmark is FAR from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a MARKET economy", he said. — Kenshi

have zero problem in principle with a voucher system, if it is the same voucher for all students it is public-funded-education and fair (whether vouchers and which kind of voucher system and if and what kind of quality control is needed, is more effective than public school boards, is a different subject). Free-market education is not public funded voucher system, but children only getting education that they or their parents can afford, and someone not being able to pay for something means not getting that something.

I said "nearly". Even so, China is a free trade GIANT. — Kenshi

Yes, I agree China is a free trade giant, is this a good example of capitalism? You seem to equate capitalism with free trade, so is communist China a good example of capitalism and the wealth the communist party has accumulated a good example of capitalism at work?

They also only really lift people up when they display excellence of some kind and greatly impose on the freedoms of such ones. — Kenshi

I'm not sure what this means, but I understand that you admire parts of the Chinese communist party system? Or no?

My support of Capitalism is really more about freedom than anything else. Even though China is rich, it's not free. So no, I don't think the citizens of China are well off, but it has nothing to do with Capitalism. — Kenshi

How does this follow from China being a free trade giant due to integration with the global capital system? Since you agree that the Chinese are not better off because they are not more free (we agree here), how is capitalism not involved if the wealth and power of the communist dictatorship is due to integration with free markets? Is the global free market system not an example of capitalism?

In regards to the Scandinavian countries, Sweden is probably the most successful and they have VERY low tax rates on big businesses and the wealthy, it's the middle and lower classes that are funding their welfare state. — Kenshi

But above you said that a free market system is more effective than universal health care and free education. If Sweden is a success, did they achieve this despite inefficient well fair state policies or because of them?

It's not clear what your position is on universal health care and free education.

The Prime Minister of Denmark openly said to stop pointing to them as a beacon of socialist success. "Denmark is FAR from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a MARKET economy", he said. — Kenshi

Yes, Scandinavia is a market economy, but not anything close to a free market economy. The Scandinavian countries have a social democratic system with a strong well fair state. There are a lot of environmental regulations, there are strong unions, there is free education at all levels, free money for the poor and various poverty programs, there is universal health care, there are tax and tariff systems that seek to internalize the true cost of products.

Do you view all these policies as example of well run free market system? If not, how does this square with your view that these countries are a "success"?

The U.S. has the largest defense budget in the world and spends more than the next 26 highest spending countries combined. This is because the U.S. has a vested interest in keeping as many countries free and trading as possible, because that keeps the country rich. Most of the free world benefits from this, ESPECIALLY the smaller European countries. At the end of the day, all of the Scandinavian countries employ Capitalism just to stay afloat, and in some ways are MORE Capitalist that we are. — Kenshi

I'm not sure how this argument follows. How are the Scandinavian countries "more Capitalist"? Also, keep in mind that Finland has conscription and is not part of NATO, and so has hundreds of thousands of reservists; Sweden too has conscription (we Finn's just don't take them seriously).

They don't even have a minimum wage. Every time I've tried to find it, I'm given graphs of "average earnings", not minimum. They understand that the rich are the ones stimulating their economy and that without them, the whole thing would crash and burn. — Kenshi

I'm not sure about the other Scandinavian countries, but in Finland it is true there is no mandated minimum wage across all industries. However, there is a law that if unions representing 50% of an industry come to an agreement with their counter-party employers on a minimum wage, this minimum becomes law for the whole industry; i.e. smaller unions or non-unionized businesses cannot undercut the large unions. It is basically the extreme opposite of right-to-work laws. Is this Finnish approach to minimum wage a good example of "more capitalism" in the sense of free trade based on personal value? Why or why not?

I'd just like to conclude by saying that you are very well spoken and intellectually challenging, which I greatly appreciate. I get the feeling that neither of us is going to budge on this, but I appreciate you forcing me to try rationalizing my positions. I hope we can both agree that we both want what's best for our poor and just don't see eye-to-eye on the solution to poverty, rather than assuming malicious intent of the other. Cheers! — Kenshi

I have not assumed any malicious intent, so please be at ease. Where I am unsure of your position I have asked for clarification. I appreciate you reading and responding to my post. I think it is premature to assume no one will budge. I have moved a lot on all these issues over the years.

However, when you say that the debate has "helped you rationalize your positions", it is an interesting phrasing. One interpretation is that you already decided your on your conclusions even if you had no good reason to at the time, and now generating reasons backwards from your conclusions. Another interpretation is that you have strong intuitions that require more work to articulate. Perhaps a combination of both. Maybe worth thinking about.

Thanks for this, maybe we need to define (or take as assumption) that the functional definition of time for an entangled state, or indeed that of a waveform, is zero or instantaneous. This could offer insight into quantum phenomena such as observed in the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser - where the choice to measure the interference of an entangled photon is made after its pair has already hit a detector. — Jonmel

Yes, I alluded to in an above comment that functional time does not exclude metaphysical definitions of time. For instance, the time between clock ticks (i.e. the shortest and most accurate clock ticks we can make) has no functional definition, but we are free to presume that there is a non-functional time that does pass between clock ticks. Likewise, the "time" used to progress quantum states between observations is not functional (by definition we are not making any observations, about anything including clocks) and again we are free to employ and use a non-functional definition of time to try to understand better what is going on.

You may have noticed that I, and others with training in the math of relativity and quantum, have a strong tendency to avoid any interpretation at all. And, many professionals would hear "metaphysical time" and react immediately that the conversation is meaningless.

However, by trying to understand "what's going on" from different metaphysical points of view (that, should be noted, cannot be eliminated altogether: functional time depends on meta-physical definition and intuition of time to be formulated), in my view is productive way to clarify ideas as well as generate new ideas.

So these conversations I fully endorse, whether between professionals or amateurs.

However, once one understands the math ... it's very hard to actually come up with interpretations or any candidate for "true time" other than "that time in which clocks tick". Quantum and relativity have a way of making any real change to these theories essentially unthinkable, and the theories themselves have a way of making any access to the underlying reality (the "true substance") completely opaque. For instance, questions like "is 4D space-time a single 'material'?" and "what 'decides' any particular quantum observation?" have no sensible answers. Relatively presents space-time as a 4D "object" that is static (yet we experience time) and quantum theory rules out any "hidden local variables" that determine the results of any given experiment in a "sensible way", and yet any particular experiment has a result (we really do experience only one of the probabilities, and yet quantum theory essentially rules out even the possibility in principle of getting any insight ever into what makes a particular experiment spin up or down, the detector activate here or there).

What's even crazier than perfectly sensible questions being eliminated in principle from our theories (unlike in Newtonian physics where universal time goes forward moment by moment and any process will be wholly determined by probing smaller processes that make it up), is that our two theories are not mathematically compatible.

As for the issue at hand, how "entanglement works" again has no sensible approach to answering in quantum theory as it exists today. It simply is what happens, there's no way to explain how it happens. But it is not actually much more bizarre than other quantum things, it's just we've gotten used to each individual experiment being "purely spontaneous" and the uncertainty principle between momentum and position. What's different with entanglement is only that it took more time to rule out completely every local variable possibility.

However, there remains the possibility of a complete revolution in physics as profound a change as classical to quantum. But within the context of the theories as they are today, everything does make a lot of sense. There's not some trivial or obvious nonsense happening with modern physics theories; this is the basic point I'm trying to make in this thread.

Going beyond our current understand is a profoundly difficult and subtle undertaking. A lot of really smart people created our theories, made them work and many of these same people also tried every way they could think of to make it "sensible". Nevertheless, it is a journey I wholeheartedly encourage anyone to join.

Wages are meant to be based on productivity and merit. When you arbitrarily increase the value of something, fewer people want it. — Kenshi

When you say "meant to be" do you mean "actually are"?

When you arbitrarily increase the value of something, fewer people want it. We did that with cigarettes, for example. — Kenshi

Do you mean arbitrarily increase the cost? How would you arbitrarily increase the value of something? And in the case of cigarettes, if your talking about the increase in cost due to taxes, was it arbitrary or was it based on internalizing the real cost to society (second hand smoke, various social costs for people dying prematurely) into the cost of the product?

Regardless of how big a company gets, it's never worth it to pay someone say, $12/hour when their productivity earns you something like $10/hour. — Kenshi

Neither proponents of capitalism nor socialism (of whatever form) argue about people producing more than their wage. The discussion is, given that producing more than one's wage is a given for an activity to be economic, what is done with the surplus.

In a an "ideal capitalist" system (what proponents of capitalism imagine when they justify capitalism), owners of capital get capital by working harder, being smarter and more innovative, in investing and building businesses and however the surplus is divided up is fair.

In capitalism as it is actually implemented today, owners of capital are able to own land and housing and monopolies on various needs and extract rents from the working class who do not have capital. In our actual reality, a large part of this rent extracting capital originates prior to our modern democracies in feudal rights, profits of wars, appropriating land and minerals from natives etc. and another large part of this rent extracting capital is due to government protected monopolies, through laws a tiny part of this capital is put to work to form through legal forms of propaganda and influence as well as illegal forms of corruption (a self reinforcing loop); an example of this feedback loop is passing laws that expand the domain of "legal influence" into what was previously "corruption" such as reinterpreting a bride to require an explicit recorded agreement and reinterpreting a campaign contribution to require an explicit and recorded plan for how the contribution helps. Another part of this capital is accumulated due to externalizing costs of production to society as well as direct state subsidies; again, with this capital put to work to stop people from trying to fix such distortions in the market. Another part of this capital is due to labour law and environmental law arbitrage where production can be outsourced to countries where worker protection is less or non-existent as well as it being even easier to externalize costs of production, such as pollution, onto both local and global society; and again this capital can also be put to frustrate attempts of workers in nations with better laws to correct this arbitrage. In other words, privately controlled capital is able to change the structure of society to benefit privately held capital.

In this latter case, proponents of capitalism generally say "what's wrong, all these practices are just looking out for number one; if people can't get together to protect their own interest to reverse ill gotten gains, manage monopolies through one way or another, internalize the true cost of production, and make trade rules that prevents labour and environmental law arbitrage to force down wages, then that's their fault! However, notice that the argument that when the "rich win, they're just winners" is not actually an argument in favour of the system; when workers manage to win on one of these issues the same people don't say "look at that, the workers won, good for them", but rather they invent and spread fantastical propaganda that they know to be false: privately owned land is just more efficient regardless of whether it originated in feudalism or colonialism, and colonialism and slavery benefited the collonized and slaves for that matter and taught them manners and civilization and gave them technology so it was a good exchange for them, climate change and pollution doesn't exist and in anycase the burden of proof is on whoever wants to limit a chemical in food or environment to prove beyond a doubt not within science and risk-benefit framework a company would use but a bizarre system of argument where anything goes and nothing needs to be consistent or make sense, and if a country is able to lower production costs by being a communist dictatorship without any labour or environmental laws nor any freedom of speech or right to assembly, well that's just the magic of capitalist competition at work and the whole world is benefiting from a reduction in the cost of commodities.

Marx views these rent extracting capital structures as one of two main mechanisms surplus value is appropriated by the owners of capitalism.

Which brings us to your next point:

That's the reason that teenagers, black teenagers in particular, have so much trouble getting jobs. — Kenshi

If slavery wasn't a benefit to the black community (do you agree with this), then there are negative consequences to the black community that persist through time while positive consequences of the owners of the capital that was created with black labour during slavery. Would you say that slavery was a capitalism at work with wages based on productivity and merit? If not, why is it fair for the for the descendants of black slaves to inherit the negative consequences of the institution of slavery, but descendants of slaver owners inherit the positive consequences (the surplus value the slaves created)?

Likewise, if the black community today has less home ownership (less of an ability to keep a large part of their wage by avoiding rents) because lending policy was structured by the already wealthier class to not only explicitly exclude blacks communities but on-top-of-this make a condition that white recipients of federally subsidized home-loans cannot build close to a black home. If this wasn't a fair structure, again how is the system today completely fair? If education of the next generation is tightly tied to the wealth of previous generations, is this a merit based system if nearly every generation has had unfair appropriation of their labour or structures that ensure a large part of the wages they do earn go to rents?

If you have no good answers for the above questions, how do you explain your view is not just vanilla racism?

It's also why automation is making such strides in replacing human laborers. We've incentivized business owners to invest in automation because they're becoming more cost-effective than people. — Kenshi

"They're becoming more cost-effective than people" as a recent phenomena? One of Marx's main predictions is that capitalism is relentlessly replacing human labour with automation. The question is who should own this form of capital.

It may not seem like it, but allowing business owners to pay someone only what their labor is worth is the only way to lift up the poor. — Kenshi

Subsidized education does not help the poor? Nor universal health-care? If so, how are states in Europe with free education at all levels as well as free retraining when factories shutdown and universal healthcare harming the poor? or at least not benefiting them, if the only way to help the poor is through paying what the labour is worth?

Nearly every instance of the elimination of poverty has been the result of Free-Market Capitalism, the tenets of which require that people make exchanges based on their personal value. — Kenshi

Do you agree that poverty has been reduced in communist China over the last couple of decades? If so, are people really better off with the strengthening of the communist regime due to the West sending large sums of investment and importing large quantities of goods, even if they seem less poor on the surface? I.e. if the poverty reduction is real and truly a benefit to live in a much more powerful totalitarian regime with democracy potentially far less likely and further off. I.e. is the poverty reduction really a true benefit to the Chinese people even if the communist regime is much stronger due to working with Western goverments and corporations to deploy labour law and environmental arbitrage? If so, is this true benefit within the Chinese communist system, due to capitalism working as the only way to benefit the poor (that this poverty reduction was due to people freely exchanging their personal value under capitalism)? Please explain.

Likewise, within states that provide free education and universal health care, voted by democratic processes, and that have low poverty rates, is there no link between these things? How do you argue the poverty reductions were only due to the free market working? For instance, Finland was very poor before and after WWII, now it is considered a rich country; the Fin's believe they have benefited from large investments in education and other social programs since WWII. Do you disagree this is the case; that Finn's would be equally or more rich without such programs and have even less poor?

The poor benefit exponentially under capitalism when compared to socialism or communism. It's obvious. — whollyrolling

Do you consider Scandinavia well-fare state (free education at all levels, universal healthcare, high taxes on the rich) as socialism or capitalism? Are poor people doing better or worse than a system that is more "capitalistic" in your view?

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it". - Marx.

That was essentially my point. You either work from within the system, or you work towards revolution. I assumed the former in my criticism. — S

We've been over all these points before. If the MP's voted for another referendum, that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for May's deal that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for something else, that would be working within the system.

None of these possibilities are "anti-democratic" as democracy is currently understood in the UK system as it is today.

Your argument is that a second referendum is somehow anti-democratic, or for whatever reason should be dismissed prima faci. However "best 2 our of 3", nor any of your other arguments, is not an anti-democratic process; if the MP's voted for a 2 our of 3 contest they could do that and, insofar as first past the post is democratic, then the 2 out of 3 referendum would be democratic too.

All arguments you have presented are not based on the principles of democracy, neither from some philosophical view of what democracy is or should be nor from the practical implementation of what the UK calls their democracy today. All the arguments you have presented, and other "no second referendum" participants to the conversation, are either simply bad arguments (that if a second referendum was held and Brexit lost this would be unfair to the voters of the first Brexit and somehow anti-democratic) or then arguments from practical considerations (that having too many referendums too close together is simply not practical).

Think about it: "elected MP's voting on an issue they decide to vote for" is anti-democratic within the UK system.

Now if your projecting that I believe it would be anti-democratic not to have a second referendum in the UK system's current democracy, and you have just poorly formulated the above argument from the opposite starting point that not-having a second referendum would not-be-democratic in the current UK system, no where have I made that claim. If the MP's vote for May's deal or something else that's not a second referendum, then likewise nothing anti-democratic has occurred within the first-past-the-post system of democracy.

My mention of first-past-the-post is that criticizing Brexit proceedings by the government and in parliament as such reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system, there is nothing special about Brexit in such a criticism. This was to simply make clear that none of the outcomes voted by MP's I view as undemocratic in the current system and that debating first-past-the-post would be a conversation largely independent of Brexit.

I've been predicting a second referendum, but not because the UK citizens have a right to a second referendum, but because it is the-least-worst-option for the debacle and at some point MP's will have a hard time making objectively worse choices.

Though second referendum may seem "too late", it is still very much in the running as it maybe the only way to secure a long extension from the EU.

From the Tory government perspective, there are only 2 good options among only bad options. Work out some sort of exit from the EU that can be called Brexit and move on (May's deal) or drag on the negotiation be at least able to say "we tried" and then create a last minute crisis where a second referendum needs to be carried out before a general election; this would at least bring some semblance of closure to the issue and the Tories could regroup before the next general election (whereas a "Brexit" general election would be the worst possible scenario for the Tories at is would an election where the only subject to talk about is Tory incompetence).

So, given May's deal is dead then (maybe) my prediction remains second referendum will spontaneously generate over the next couple of weeks out of the chaotic negotiations with the EU for an extension. The EU has now more reasons to revoke an extension than to grant one, but at the end of the day the EU is about democracy so there is no possible principled opposition to granting an extension for the purposes of a second referendum, which if the UK people voted to remain it's basically the best possible outcome for the EU: the UK is humiliated and the EU suffers zero negative consequences remaining as strong economically as before with a few countries having gained some business and investment from all the uncertainty (so all other EU national leaders as well as Brexit technocrats would be able to toast to that).

Of course I could be wrong, the humiliation of admitting a mistake and letting the people of the UK resolve by referendum a crisis created by a ill-defined referendum, maybe too great for the crust of English high society (in other words, the English upper class, in particular the Tories, may prefer to harm UK citizens much more by a chaotic Brexit or just stupid trade policy with their biggest trading partner, rather than harm their own pride even a smidgen; long term the consequences could be grave even for political careers of those involved (relative hiding behind a second referendum, just as the goal was initially with the first referendum), but who cares about that).

However the entangled photon could have interacted with a particle billions of years in our past, or even billions of years (or more) into our future. Yet these two events happened simultaneously as viewed from the photons' entangled states. — Jonmel

There is no functional definition of time from the photon's entangled state. No clock can be built to tell us this event happened simultaneously; we can only make a clock that records the time of experiments; so in this case when the two particles were observed (which due to relativity has no absolute definition of simultaneous already), and from there we can note a correlation between the results of experiments of the entangled particles. However, it's not meaningful to say that the photon's experienced the observation of the entangled variable at the same time; photon's do not experience anything at all and have no perspective and no functional time (no clocks) ever tick for any photon.

Your argument could be reformulated without functional time, with a context of some form of meta-physical time. I'm not sure how that would be done, but it's important to have clearly in mind what observable time is in these sorts of arguments.

A conclusion I could infer is that the whole universe is predetermined, macrospic time is therefore merely an illusion. It might be true to say that the whole universe lived out its entire existence instaneously through quantum intereractions. We are now merely witnessing the realtime effects of all these interactions play out... — Jonmel

It's not clear to me how your inference works. Entangled observations still happen at moments in time (in whatever frame of reference you want to choose), and what makes entangled observations strange (in most interpretations of what is going on) is precisely that they are not determined, an observation does not reveal a correlation that was already present (hidden local variable) but brings into existence the observation and correlation (a non-local link between the observations). However, there is nothing instantaneous between the event that created the entangled pair and the time one or both are observed. Likewise, the speed of causality is not violated as we cannot use what appears to us as instant communication between the entangled particles to communicate any information at faster than light speed, we can only bring results of experiments together at sub-light speeds and note interesting correlations between the results.

Quantum phenomena remain bound by the speed of causation, so it's not clear how an inference would be made that all events happened instantly.

Time does not pass in the frame of reference of a photon, but what is really going on is that the speed of light is not an admissible frame of reference. The speed of light remains the speed of light in all reference frames, and a light beam world line (in a sub-light speed reference frame) cannot be transformed to be at rest. What "from the perspective of" means, in a physical sense, is that the thing in question is considered at rest and everything moving relative to it. This transformation of the coordinates everything is following can be done for all sub-light-speed particles and observers, and the paths of everything else relative to the thing we're now considering at rest worked out. However, no matter how much we try to transform the path of a light-beam to be at rest it can never be done, light just stays at light-speed. So, there's simply no sensible formulation of the "frame of reference" of a light speed observer: it's impossible to have such a frame of reference in our physics. The point is, arguments are not sensible from a non-sensible frame of reference (i.e. "what light experiences" or "from the perspective of a photon" etc.).

Of course, there's plenty of theories, both predating and postdating quantum mechanics, that the universe is pre-determined and both the past, present and future already exist and experience is an illusion.

I was saying it makes no sense as something that could actually exist, not as an abstract construction. — Terrapin Station

I've already presented several arguments that a 2D universe could actually exit.

First, there could be another universe that actually exists detached from our own.

Second, our universe could be actually a 2D hologram.

Third, we could actually be in a 2D universe in the straight-forward sense, but have both mistakenly interpreted our experience as 3 dimensional. I.e. we must verify with our experience the dimensions of the universe, we cannot reason that it's impossible there's a 2D universe out there and rule that out a priori.

Do you see faults with the above arguments?

If you're using the term "non-sense" to mean "not a sensible interpretation of our experience in our own particular universe", then yes, I'd agree that 3 dimensions is a good conclusion to draw from our experience. But there's a difference between "not sensible in itself" and "not a sensible conclusion from our day-to-day experience".

Your original argument was that length contraction to zero at the speed of light made a non-sensible interpretation of the world and therefore there's some sort of problem. My points above are that the conclusion does not follow, nonsense is not the result of length contraction to a 2D description of reality (it's completely acceptable in our theories and is sometimes done on purpose to simplify certain calculations).

Why would you believe that things we can construct via mathematics might correspond to objective reality? — Terrapin Station

You quote me saying 2 dimensional universe is possible, asking why I "would you believe something like that", I responded why I think it's possible. No where do I say I believe it is the case. I already qualified my use of possible as being internally consistent, not "buildable" and certainly I do not equate possibility with what is true. The context of my assertion is responding to the claim that removing length makes no sense; i.e. results in some internally contradictory scenario, to which I am pointing out that a 2D universe is not contradictory in itself.

Maybe the universe really is 2 dimensional, in the most naive form, but I have just been under the illusion it is 3 dimensional. I cannot dismiss the idea I live in a 2 dimensional world because it makes not sense, I must appeal to my experience and use induction to be highly confident the world of my everyday experience has 3 dimensions.

And once I am confident my everyday experience is 3 dimensional, there remains the possibility that reasoning and more subtle experiment convinces me the world really is 2 dimensional but stores 3 information that I experience as 3 dimension through something exactly like or similar to a hologram.

Whether the "true substance" of the universe is holographic is another question as different is the question whether it is a good pathway to make a better mathematical description of a theory uniting relativity and quantum mechanics (regardless of how we want to interpret what the math really represents, other than correct predictions).

The problems a holographic universe would solve, and why experts are working on the idea, is 2 essential ones.

The first problem is that the only arbitrarily precise measurements we can make are from an arbitrarily far distance, and in such a description we are completely free to then claim that the measurements at this arbitrary distance (what we actually observe) are what actually exists (strict functional approach to physics where we only view experimental results themselves as existing and any object we imagine to exist for ease of calculation is exactly that mathematical mirage you refer to, and there is strictly zero basic to assume that math represents anything beyond the correct answers it gives, which in this scenario measurements at an arbitrary distance); this arbitrary distance we can then view as "at the same distance" for all the measurements we make and this then forms a 2 dimensional surface upon which all our measurements exist (a particle accelerator detector is an example of trying to approach this method, and although the LHC detectors don't seem big compared to the size of the universe, they are immense compared to the size of quarks and other subatomic particles they study). Therefore, if our most accurate approach to modeling the physical universe actually takes place on a surface, then the 3rd dimension that we imagine constitutes the things "inside" our observation shell we can simply dismiss. So, from this perspective, the 3rd dimension of space is simply superfluous to the true (i.e. most accurate) description of nature we can make. Just as developing relativity required abandoning the assumption that time was universal (ticked at the same rate wherever you are) and our quantum theory required abandoning the assumption particles have a precise position and momentum -- in other words just as relativity and quantum required abandoning our expectations of how the universe works based on ever day experience, where time does really does seem universal and constant for everyone and everything we can hold and toss in our hand really does seem to be really there at a well defined position and momentum -- maybe the next revolution in physics requires us to abandon the idea the universe has 3 spatial dimensions even if our everyday experience really strongly suggests space has 3 dimensions (of course, such a theory would still explain why we experience 3 dimensions, just as relativity explains why time seems pretty constant and quantum explains why big objects seem pretty discrete and determined in position and momentum).

The other reason, which is beyond simply a minimalist strict experimental functional approach which has helped us in the past, is that quantum systems seem to have a "non-local" communication within them (which just means things happening faster than the causal speed limit I've already referred to). Though we can't exploit non-local communication within quantum systems to actually pass information around at faster than light-speed, it's difficult (and most experts agree is impossible now) to explain the result of certain quantum experiments that have things happening at a distance (and then those results brought together at equal or slower than the causal speed limit to analyse them) without non-local information transfer within the quantum system. One property real physical holograms have (not 3d illusions based on parallax but real holograms), is that information is stored on them non-locally. If you cut a hologram in half, unlike a normal photograph, you get two smaller copies of the whole hologram each with less resolution. So, if the "true substance" within which quantum phenomena is really happening is holographic, then the information of the universe is stored non-locally and there's no puzzle about quantum systems seeming to communicate non-locally; this non-local information holding "holographic substance" has rules that give rise to our rules of accessible information never travelling faster than our observable causation limit, but quantum systems use the non-local aspect to resolve the results of experiments.

Of course, even if the holographic principle does play a central roll in our next physical theories, that doesn't imply it wins the "true substance" argument or even that such an argument can ever be won. Maybe out next, next physical theory will describe a 2 dimensional holographic surface within a 3 dimensional space and that parts of the the surface can interact with other parts through the 3rd dimension of this space, which appears to us like energy disappearing and reemerging through a 4th spacial dimension in our experiments (in more naive, less accurate description that don't take into account things are really a holographic spherical surface within a larger higher dimensional spherical space).

Oy vey. Say what? Why would you believe something like that? — Terrapin Station

It's possible because it can be mathematically consistent.

Nothing about the rules for what was required for either leave or remain to win the referendum was inconsistent with the political system of the United Kingdom, which is a form of representative democracy. It was all perfectly legitimate. Leave won, remain lost. Maybe some people would rather the rules had been different. Well, that's too bad. — S

I thought we already went through this. S and and Benkei are just pointing out that votes do not necessarily entail "will of the people" or democracy. If you don't view first past the post as democratic, but a sort of managed aristocracy, then the rules setup are likewise undemocratic. Though this is another part of the debate.

For the matter at hand, "dem's the rules" is also an overstretch. The promise was to trigger article 50, which has been done, so the PM's and government can claim they already fulfilled the mandate of the referendum. The fact that it was presumed to be irreversible and this assumption turned out to be false, we can say is "tough titties" for the leavers, and given this new information it's the responsibility of the house and government to review whether revoking article 50 is the best course of action today including putting it to another referendum vote. Likewise, even ignoring new information as the "dirty tricks" of remainers, it's entirely consistent with the "rules" you describe of putting the form of Brexit to another referendum and including in that vote the option of reversing it; as any deliberating body always has the option to change their mind, whether a king, cabinet, MP's or the electorate as a whole.

Likewise, it would be consistent with "the rules" to argue MP's must push Brexit through as it's of practical importance to not make Britain look like a total farce and their responsibility as first-past-the-post MP's is to make these tough decisions even if a majority are against it now. Criticizing this position reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system itself, not the particulars of Brexit proceedings within the system as it is.

However, that it is in principle undemocratic to use a democratic process to make a decision, because that decision might contradict the result of a previous democratic decision, is not consistent. Decisions can change, even in a democracy.

Now, one can argue there should not be a second referendum, but that argument does not follow from democratic first principles but from practical constraints (i.e. we can't have a referendum or general elections about everything all the time, and a second Brexit referendum falls on the other side of the line we must draw).

Also, to be clear, it's likewise possible to argue that functional time equals true time.

For instance, there is a position in the metaphysics of physics where the observation of particles is truly spontaneous, there is no mechanism of any kind but truly pure random occurrence manifesting with any particular observation; conforming to statistical rules but with absolutely "nothing happening in between" that determines if a particle is observed right or left, spin up or spin down. Although this seems difficult to accept, it seems equally difficult (to me at least) how to reject this view without a infinite regress of mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism.

Hidden non-local variable theories are still in the running though? — Devans99

Yes, this is what I mean when I say "some mechanism that determines where a particle actually appears", such a mechanism could be a hidden non-local variable theory or something totally different (maybe there is some deeper level that radically overturns our current quantum understanding, just as quantum radically overturned our classical understanding). A revolution in physics could lead to our understanding of functional "clock time" as emerging from some more fundamental time, that in turn could still be far from "true time". My use of the term "meta-physical" time basically refers to the fact we can always posit that something more is going on beyond whatever our current physical understanding of time is; i.e. today we are free to question whether there is a "time" beyond the closest clock ticks we can measure; and there are people working on theories where our functional time is an emergent property of something more fundamental; though it's very unclear if, even in principle, such theories could even have any physical meaning other than clever mathematics that happens to give right answer (predictions to experiments), just as building a mathematical framework based on holographic math doesn't imply the answers it gives is actually of a holographic system, it's just one mathematical path to the right answer (just as neither wave-mechanics nor matrix-mechanics has any preferred interpretive value beyond generating the right answers).

Two dimensions isn't really possible. It's just an idea we have. — Terrapin Station

It's entirely possible our world's true substance is a 2 dimensional hologram.

It's also entirely possible a 2D world really does exist somewhere out in the wider existence beyond what we can observe.

We couldn't build a true 2D physical system, nor can we build other universes of any dimension. But to say something doesn't make any sense, especially in a philosophy forum, is usually interpreted as some internal conflict in the idea itself, not that we simply can't build it. Also, it doesn't create a conflict to make a frame of reference arbitrarily close to the speed of light where the contraction is so great that it's dimension can be ignored, it doesn't approach non-sense to do so but is a physics trick called "boosting" that helps calculate certain problems.

The wave function could change but that is only our estimation of where the photon is; it is not the actual particle. Maybe the photon remains unchanged whilst its wave function evolves? That would fit in better with the photon experiencing no time? — Devans99

That's my point, the particle does not exist in a classical sense between events; we are still free however to suppose there is some substance and some non-classical time to it's existence. The interpretation that the wave function is only probabilistic prediction of "where the particle actually is" does not stand up to scrutiny; all local variable theories have essentially been ruled out, so the "particle", insofar as we're still calling it a particle, does actually somehow exist in some sense everywhere it's possible to observe, we simply cannot make any description of it's "true substance" beyond this "existing in some sense at all the points it can be observe". If we interpret time as evolution of a system, what I called metaphysical time (as there's no experiment that is not functional "classical time" of clocks), this wave function experiences this sort of metaphysical time (doing these calculations to predict things has no physical interpretation; but we are free to suppose it might); the only reason to have such a definition of time is simply to remind ourselves that there could be a reality beyond our functional time experiments that we are unable to access (at least for now); for instance, there could be a mechanism that determines where events actually occur (selecting where in the probability space to actually show up); it's not metaphysically ruled out, but we have no way to ask this question in the sense of experiment (again, for now; that things could change with some revolution in physics, is the practical reason to remind ourselves of functional definitions of things may not be the true definition).

How can we have a two-dimensional space? — Terrapin Station

Dimension just mean how many coordinates are required to define a point in space; in our physics that really means an event in space as Andrewk points out. So you can simply define a physics system with 2 dimensions. A classical system is easy to visualize as it's like most 2D computer games: objects move around in 2 dimensions and interact based on rules.

Of course, we can't actually build a physical 2 dimensional system in our world (when described as 3 dimensions and not a hologram), as our world has 3 dimensions so there will always be interactions along the 3rd dimension even if we try to reduce those interactions by doing experiments on a surface. In certain particle physics contexts, due to the length contraction, certain problems can "drop" the 3rd dimension as it becomes negligible, but it is still there, so this isn't a good example.

I think that we must be going wrong somewhere with our theories, because it's incoherent to have an existent with 0 length. — Terrapin Station

To add to what Andrewk says about this, we can have a 2 dimensional space, it's no incoherent. Indeed, since 3 dimensional information can be recorded on a hologram, it's possible to consider physical systems existing on a "holographic" "true substance" and work out all the math and predictions we "think we experience" in 3 dimensions in 2 dimension. So (on top of being able to make coherent 2 dimensional spaces with working physics; such as a 2D computer game) we can even build a symmetric 2 dimensional universe that expresses a 3rd dimension implicitly. So contracting length to 0 does not create any fundamental problem.

When first encountering relativity and quantum, these sorts of puzzles proliferate.

To make a long story short, there is not really any solution to them, which is why the motto of modern physics is "shut up and calculate". However, at the same time, to excuse the pun, of course someone trained in these sciences does understand something of what these puzzles are and that there is no contradictions or paradoxes of the kind you describe.

It's not exactly true to say the photon does not experience "time" in the metaphysical sense. If time is change, the photon's "wave function" changes over "our time"; so this evolving wave function can be viewed as a metaphysical time. What the photon doesn't experience is classical time, or functional time which is the time that we live in. Likewise, it's a misleading shorthand to say fundamental particles "don't exist" between observations, but rather more accurate to say they don't exist in any classical sense.

We only observe classical time and classical particles, and nature has given us zero clue as to what things are really like behind our observations. For instance, we can easily assume from a metaphysical standpoint that there is some "substance" to a particle and some "mechanism" that causes it to appear on one part of the screen rather than another at each observation, but nature forces us to rule out any "substance" or "mechanism" that makes any sense to us.

To answer more directly your pondering, what "classical time" means is a series of regular events. Einsteins simple clock he used to build relativity and general relativity is two mirrors with light bouncing back and forth, let's say at 1 second per bounce. Let's now consider these mirrors at some speed away from us; now the light must bounce at an angle and travel more distance between each bounce to "keep pace" with the mirrors. Since light travels at the same speed to all observers (just take this as experimental fact for now), then from an observer travelling with the mirrors the light is simply going straight back and forth at 1 second per bounce; but from our perspective the light is going more distance at the same speed and so takes more than 1 second per bounce, therefore we see time for the fast mirrors pass more slowly than our own time (any repeating event, i.e. clock, we will see happening slower than the same setup up kept with us). Of course, an observer travelling with the mirrors can consider themselves at "true rest" and us travelling at a speed and comes to the same conclusion with the rolls reversed. In this setup since we are travelling away from each other, we never meet and who is "really at true rest" cannot be resolved. In order to meet, acceleration of at least one party is needed, which is like being in a gravitational field where clocks run more slowly for same reason that again light must travel a greater distance in a gravitational or experiencing acceleration, but this time the parties can meet and see that less time really did pass for the party that underwent more acceleration.

So the above is a "functional" view of time, based on light bouncing around and "ticking" regular events. So, let's now replace the mirrors with light and imagine that 2 light beams can bounce a third light beam between them. That light doesn't do this doesn't actually matter because all three beams must be going in parallel to "keep pace" with the clock, and so they never converge and never bounce, no ticks in this setup are ever recorded. From this, it is too far a jump to say the universe must therefore be a single point. First for a technical point that it's only 1 dimension that gets contracted, leaving 2 dimensions for all information to be represented in. Second, because our "classical time" is made up of events of fundamental particles. We cannot conclude that classical time is the "only time", and why would we? Fundamental particles must somehow go from one event to another between events, there's simply by definition no "classical time" available for this more fundamental time.

Light travels at the speed light obviously, but what's special about this speed is that it's the speed of causation, nothing happening at A can cause anything at B faster than this speed. What limits a particles speed is mass, and so any mass-less particle goes as fast as it can and delivers it's cause from A to B at the speed of causation. If the speed of causation was infinite, everything would happen simultaneously and classical time would not exist.

With this concept of speed of causation we can now more clearly see that anything going at this speed cannot experience any internal events, no clock can tick for it. But it's also true that our whole concept of experience relies on internal events, within a clock or our brain etc. and so there's no experience at all. A photon travelling between events does record any information and has no perspective as we understand it. So it's not accurate to say "it's clock is stuck at the time of the cosmic microwave background" but rather that the photon "has no clock at all", and so any questions about the photon's clock are simply functionally meaningless: there is no clock you can build that travels with the photon and no experiment you can perform that measures this unconstructed clock, so all questions about time for the photon are not well constructed questions.

We can accelerate things close the the speed of causation, but can never reach this speed and anything even ever so slightly slower can experience time and internal events and has a clock and there's no problem.

So Theresa tries to clinch the MV3-deal by offering BoJo and Moggle potential power by resigning, if either wins the Tory vote for class president. That might work. But you can ask whether the split is all that meaningful. The withdrawal agreement explicitly states: — Benkei

It seems a moot point now (though perhaps 4th times the charm), but explicitly excluding something in a negotiation is generally basis to argue that it creates a wide birth around what would otherwise be implied (i.e. compared to had the thing in question not been proposed and removed, it may very well have been part of the agreement by implication of other language present); I do this all the time in negotiations. There's a latin expression for it, but I can't remember. So, in this case, removing the political declaration would be the basis for the next PM to argue that political declaration and everything implied by it was not agreed to, even if remaining language would otherwise imply the entire thing.

Yes. And sublime hypocrisy that the rejection of a second referendum (in favour of repeated attempts to get this through) is based on the idea that you shouldn't get to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want. — Baden

Thanks for pointing this out, it's the icing on the Brexit crumpet.

I have to admit that a second referendum, which I have been arguing as more probable (though far from guaranteed), seems less likely now, and that May's strategy of "my deal" or chaos may work out for the conservative party. But, it will be interesting if the deal fails to pass again. Likewise it will be interesting if it passes, what leaving out the political declaration part will mean down the road; will it lead to some sort of eternal brimbo, a brexitory of lost souls?

If our elected representatives cannot find a way to implement the result of the first referendum - and it seems so far that they can't - is there any alternative to a second referendum? Must Parliament not return to the people and say "we tried to implement your wishes, but we have failed to find agreement. All the available options we can find are these: XXX YYY ZZZ. As we cannot choose between them, we return to the people for your decision."

What (democratic) alternative is there? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, this is more-or-less the position I've been debating with, mostly @Benkei. A more or less standard governing principle is that things can only be overturned by an equally authoritative process. A duke cannot overturn the ruling of a king etc. A lower court cannot overturn a higher court. In this framework, then we'd normally conclude only a referendum could overturn the results of a referendum. If government represents the will of the people, then their can be no higher authoritative deliberation process than a vote that directly represents that will. One can argue it's the will of the people to not be consulted directly in referenda (including a will to not have a referendum about having referendums), but once a referendum is held it's difficult to argue less direct expressions of the people's will, such as representatives, can overturn that vote.

So, this is why I think this logic can ultimately not be escaped and without a second referendum there can be no closure (in a no-Brexit scenario, which seems very likely due to the parliament votes against and for reasons discussed below), and why I think it's ultimately likely (that the EU will give whatever time is needed to have another referendum, so the "running out of time" issue is not a fundamental obstacle.

The problem is that referendum aren't a real thing in the UK (unwritten) constitution, so technically it was an advisory referendum to just poll the sentiments of the people .... but, the conservative government promised they'd treat it as final (presumably thinking Brexit would lose and they could declare the issue final).

So the situation is unprecedented and has no firm legal basis; what does the verbal promise of the last prime-minister to treat the results of an advisory referendum as more than what it is legally mean? No one knows. The situation is also unprecedented because a government who's official policy was to stay in the EU called am unnecessary referendum on a thing that if passed they had no plan to achieve. Normally referendum are called when the party that promotes the policy is in office and has either an actual plan to carry the policy through or the will to deal with the chaotic fallout (for instance, the Quebec referendum happened when the separatist party of Quebec was in government in Quebec, so there was no doubt what would happen if the separatist party won a referendum on separation). In the case of Brexit, the conservative party believed in the democratic right of a referendum and promised one to appeal to voters on the far right anti-EU (stem vote-bleed to UKIP) as well as settle any internal debate within their own party.

The result of this is total ambiguity of what the referendum meant legally, but as importantly a political situation for the governing conservatives that has no solution. Their brand isn't "screw the EU, economy be damned", but rather "fiscal responsibility" (of course, their fiscal policies of privatization and lowering social investments of all kinds, in particular immigration integration while being tough of immigrants but also letting in as many as possible to drive down wages, and support of the oil industry, arms manufacturers and banks at all costs, leads directly to the economic dislocations that inspired people to vote Brexit, but usually over a longer period of time that goes unnoticed by an uneducated population which is achieved through low social investments, closing the circle of ignorance that the conservatives need to prosper). Suffice to say, making a swift work of impoverishing people is noticeably off-brand. An analogy would be that you're a sadistic bus driver trying to drive some clueless voyagers of a cliff; but on the way you run into a tree and people lose confidence in your bus riding skills and start to question the whole project of going to cloud-world (like, cloud-world sounds great, especially if you just need to just enjoy the ride to get there without doing anything but trust the leaders ... or maybe cloud world is a mirage and the leaders are just pocketing your fair and bringing you to drown in a flood of poverty): point is, rock your own boat and you maybe out of a job and you don't get to destroy society, it's bad for business. So an actual Brexit isn't an acceptable solution (for the conservatives interested in keeping a job); "soft-Brexit" that carries all the costs of staying in the EU but less benefit and no say in its governance no sane politician would vote for (it's like a restaurant running low on supplies that decides to deliver rotten food to their impatient clients; the joy of being served is short-lived); and reversing Brexit would re-ignite (with much added fuel) the internal debates and vote-bleed to UKIP and demonstrate total incompetence in every way imaginable.

As I mentioned in my last post, the only viable strategy is to run-down the clock and then have a referendum (the least bad option, as at least you can hide behind "the will of the people"), then manufacture other crisii before the next general election, probably war and violence and fear.

Wait, they voted against a "no-deal Brexit" right? — Benkei

Yes, I meant to say voted for no "no-deal-Brexit".

Yes, I don't see any other interpretation available. The idea that May didn't see losing by the largest margin ever, doesn't stand muster. Their strategy has worked surprisingly well so far, but there still has to be some definitive action at some point, so it will be interesting how they do that and what the fallout will be. Will the whole Brexit thing just be a bad memory that everyone wants to forget? Or will the Brexiters come roaring back? Of course, presuming Brexit is now dead, which I think it is.

Well Parliament just voted against no deal and they voted against what the EU says is the best deal possible. How much sense does it make to put the same question to the people in a referendum? And what if it's a piddling majority again? — Benkei

Yes, the other option is to resolve the issue in parliament.

However, the vote was for a "no-deal Brexit" in the context of Brexit still supposedly happening. It's not yet a vote to cancel Brexit.

I agree that parliament can just cancel Brexit, but that's simply not good democratic principles for parliament to override a referendum that they said they wouldn't override. A referendum to overturn a referendum resolves that issue.

In my opinion, the Tory leadership likely knew there was no way the deal would pass the first or second time (though they needed to advance like they didn't know that, to successfully complete a negotiation with the EU, to both say they tried and for the EU to say it's the best deal available), and so, knowing it wouldn't pass because presumably they know the position of their own members, the strategy was to wind down the clock to be able to push through a resolution of the situation without a general election. Once the solution emerges, either parliament or calling a referendum, the Tories will be all "sorwy, no time for a general election, we're really, truly sorwy". After the situation is resolved, the Tories can then try to outlast the embittering stench of the whole thing and focus the nation on other issues for the next general election. Whereas a general election in the midst of the consequences of your party's total incompetence is bad timing. Also the reason calling a snap election before starting the negotiation, before the impossibility of the task was clear, also helps avoid an election during the deed.

So far, there have been no signs of sufficient parliamentary support for a referendum. This may change if it looks like supporting a referendum is the only way to avoid a no deal situation. I am not holding my breath though, the second referendum is very dangerous to the individual careers of politicians. — Echarmion

Yes, I completely agree with this sentiment. The danger to careers is grave indeed; however, disorderly Brexit would be dangerous for the conservative party as a whole and at some point the interests of the country do override careerism.

At the end of the day (in my view) a second referendum is the only way to have some sort of closure to the situation (now that a soft-Brexit deal is dead).

That's correct, I thought a referendum would've been impossible in the given time frame before March 29. — Benkei

Though the official time-frames seem unfeasible, the EU is at the end of the day a democratic institution and there's no realistic way for bureaucrats (or the leaders of the other countries) to not acquiesce to giving more time for a referendum if Britain requests it.

I think the second and better option would be to have a general election. — Benkei

Though I agree a general election would be a good idea, it would likely be a disaster for the Tories so they will do everything to avoid it (and thus make concession to the DUP necessary). I feel strategically, the only reasonable option is to about face and call a second referendum now that the deal is defeated in parliament and there can be a binary "hard Brexit or reverse Brexit" vote. This would provide closure to the situation as well as time for the Tories to reorganize post-massive-ridicule.

... Of course the whole point of the first referendum was to resolve internal Tory differences, and that didn't work out so well for them. However, the basic logic that a referendum can provide fairly long term closure to an issue remains sound. Not that reversing Brexit with a referendum wouldn't cause high levels of consternation and lingering bitterness and division, just seems the least bad option of only bad options at this point.

The previous discussion revolved around a referendum before March 29. Any extension of the deadline will require that the UK has a concrete reason for it or the EU would not agree to it. — Benkei

Yes, the referendum option most likely hinged on an extension, which I found likely the EU would give for the purposes of a referendum. I thought a referendum was more likely, whereas from what I understood you thought a deal would be more likely. Of course all positions were fairly speculative at the time.

It seems a deal is off the table now, so it's either no-deal or a referendum ... or some cockamamie situation where parliament has no position, there's no general election, they're forced to unilaterally cancel Brexit somehow in the name of continuing Brexit.

In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option?

@Benkei

To continue our previous conversation on this Brexit thread, do you feel a second referendum is still unlikely and in any case a bad option? I'm curious if your thinking has changed.

Connecting Nietzsche and specifically Hitler is probably too ambitious if you are starting in you interest for philosophy. As others have mentioned, getting to an informed opinion of what either actually thought is a time consuming task before even starting to connect them directly, indirectly or culturally.

However, given the political climate, I think the general idea of discussing the roots of fascism is a good one.

You can lower the ambition of your question by asking a question such as how Nietzsche was interpreted by the Nazi's; i.e. focus on some key ideas that the Nazis saw as either coming from or being supported by Nietzsche, in a broader theme that philosophy is a dangerous thing and can give rise to philosophies that want to "make reality" instead of understanding it much less justify their interactions with it.

If the germ of this project is to connect the present Trump Administration to the Bush Administration to various intermediate stages back to Nazi Germany and then broader European fascism and the philosophical roots of that, you need but one tug on a single thread:

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [...] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'"

-- Suskind; In a 2004 article appearing in the New York Times Magazine.

A lot of "argumentative effort" (we can debate whether it's philosophy or not) goes into justifying the status quo, and this effort gets publicity: either because it's pushed by propagandists or then people searching out what they want to hear (that everything is fine).

As important, ideas that challenge the status quo (in an incompatible way), almost by definition, meet with resistance: censorship, counter-propaganda etc.

In the propaganda context, it's easy to use philosophy either as sophistry or then an appeal to authority (this philosopher developed "just war theory", and you better believe our leaders are taking all that really seriously, so nothing more to say about that). Of course, in another context where the justification for the war is clearly absurd, then the opposite strategy of simply dismissing any analysis as superfluous and even childish (certainly to act on one's analysis), so phrases will be used such as it's "human nature" or "we felt threatened, so very understandable" or just "we needed the oil and we should be grown up about it and not whine" and of course the timeless "support the troops" etc.

So, in other words, philosophy (or the appearance as such) will serve the status quo when it serves the status quo, and it if doesn't it will be dismissed.

A great example of this playing out in practice is Noam Chomsky, who has probably the highest name recognition of any intellectual today, but never appears on mainstream TV. Whereas a scientist playing the roll of a "real intellectual", like Neil deGrasse Tyson, appears on TV all the time. The difference, Chomsky challenges the status quo and asks uncomfortable questions, makes detailed investigations and provides hefty backup for his conclusions. If you observe Tyson, you will see sometimes he does mention something a bit "political serious", but it will be always be in the form "some people would say" and no substance of the arguments behind why those people are saying it, nor ever taking risk in what he's saying (other than he believes in science), which of course implicitly legitimatizes whatever talking-heads status quo view of the matter is, as it's all just opinion, none better than another. Chomsky on the same subject would call out the talking heads for being dishonest and duplicitous, just pushing propaganda and making the audiences dumber; more grievous, Chomsky can provide lists of details proving his point as well as the abundant evidence the talking heads ignore all the inconvenient facts, even ignoring whole regions of world history or current affairs if it's easier than making even a cursory white-wash (case in point, Yemen), and can also list ample times the talking heads contradict themselves whenever it suits their pay-masters and clearly have no legitimate intellectual framework they are overtly working within (covertly they may have a very sophisticated framework where it's justified in detail why manipulating the public is good, and also money).

In even more other words, imagine if there was some prime time tv show called "philosophical inquiry" and Chomsky, as a prominent intellectual -- as well as Marxists like Richard Wolf, journalists like Chris Hedges, and the most concerned climate scientists -- was on it often, along with talking heads and whomever, would such a show support the impression that philosophy supports the status quo? Even if one watched this imagined show, and concluded Chomsky and other "leftists" were wrong, I don't think one would conclude philosophy as-such is conducive to maintaining people docile and unquestioning.

In any case, not just opinion. — Benkei

By opinion I meant simply to differentiate with a ruling by the court. But I seem to be behind the times, I wasn't aware a court has made a ruling recently, previously I had only read about the ombudsman recommendation, or is this a separate thing?

Also, it says in this document "preliminary ruling", is there further steps to get to a final ruling, or this legaleze to say final ruling in this context for some reason?

Thanks for posting the link, it's an interesting read. They did indeed consider the crazy abuse unilateral revocation of article 50 would create:

38. The Council and the Commission, while agreeing that a Member State is entitled to revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw before the Treaties have ceased to apply to that Member State, dispute the unilateral nature of that right.

39. According to those institutions, the recognition of a right of unilateral revocation would allow a Member State that has notified its intention to withdraw to circumvent the rules set out in Article 50(2) and (3) TEU, which are intended to ensure an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, and would open the way for abuse by the Member State concerned to the detriment of the European Union and its institutions.

40. The Council and the Commission argue that the Member State concerned could thus use its right of revocation shortly before the end of the period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU and notify a new intention to withdraw immediately after that period expired, thereby triggering a new two-year negotiation period. By doing so, the Member State would enjoy, de facto, a right to negotiate its withdrawal without any time limit, rendering the period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU ineffective.

41. In addition, according to those institutions, a Member State could at any time use its right of revocation as leverage in negotiations. If the terms of the withdrawal agreement did not suit that Member State, it could threaten to revoke its notification and thus put pressure on the EU institutions in order to alter the terms of the agreement to its own advantage.

42. In order to guard against such risks, the Council and the Commission propose that Article 50 TEU should be interpreted as allowing revocation, but only with the unanimous consent of the European Council.

This argument makes complete sense to me.

I can honestly not follow how the conclusion to grant unilateral revocation rights is reached. Basically they refer to the principle that a country cannot be forced to leave the union against their will ... but the purpose of triggering article 50 is exactly a willful exit. It seems (to me) pretty weak quibbling to say a "that Member State changes its mind and decides not to withdraw from the European Union" is now "forcing the member state to leave against their will".

So will be interesting if this isn't the final decision if it gets reversed, likewise if the ruling become final, or is already final, it's interesting how the EU would deal with future article 50 negotiation (or that they have to amend the treaty to make the "exit as a member state" immediate at the start of article 50 but a 2 year status quo agreement, or something along those lines).

I guess they could try to force us into cancelling Brexit or leaving without a deal — S

Yes, this is the EU's current position.

It could change of course, but Benkei and I both agree that it's very unlikely the EU would grant an extension simply to see if the UK could get a better deal.

Benkei finds it unlikely the EU would grant an extension even for a time to have a proper second referendum, whereas I think they would do that; but the decision would be up to EU governments. Without EU governments being unanimous in changing the treaty, EU technocrats in Brussels would be forced to eject UK from the EU, as that's the law as it stands.

Even UK's right to revoke article 50 (i.e. without all the EU governments agreeing) is not officially a law, just recommendation as I mentioned. It could be basically the EU trolling the UK (messing with May's ability to say "Brexit is locked in, it's deal or no-deal"), and they'd actually not give unilateral revocation rights (as it's a crazy precedent; an analogy would be the right to give your work 2 weeks notice, then just send an email the night of your last day and then just show up and keep working there if your other plans fell through; "no backsies" is a pretty well established legal precedent, so this whole "right to revoke article 50" doesn't have any legal foundation as far as I can see).

Or it could all backfire spectacularly and we end up leaving without a deal, with both sides ending up worse off than otherwise. — S

As it stands, the EU views a no-deal Brexit far more painful for the UK than the EU, whereas showing the EU red-lines (the so called "pillars") can be bent would undermine all further EU negotiations with both member states and trading partners as well as create a "UK trading backdoor".any country could exploit. This is why most experts say there simply is no better deal to be had, and May's deal is way better than they expected (expectation was UK would be punished in someway, whereas May's deal is pretty fair and allows UK to simply delay the real problems leaving entails until the end of the century; problem is there's no real basis to say the deal is better than staying in the EU, and 80 years of transition would basically be a diplomatic farce).

I'm not sure if the confusion has been cleared up already, but there are two extensions.

Extending the negotiation deadline is a EU decision, i.e. the EU could unilaterally decide to not impose border controls and tariffs and extend the article 50 deadline to some later date. For instance, if the UK is in parliament deadlock, vote of no-confidence the week before the deadline, and simply does nothing, the EU could decide to grant an extension (there is no set process that the UK must request a extension by some formal mechanism, the EU could decide it by themselves to; to avoid chaos for EU citizens and business for instance).

However, absent parliament deadlock and a collapsed government, presumably it would be a mutual thing to agree on an extension. I mention the EU could grant an extension unilaterally just to underline that article 50 is an EU law and changing it would require an EU decision process: The consensus of all the EU countries. So in theory a single EU country could block an extending of the article 50 deadline (apparently France and Spain would be the most motivated).

These are small details but could become suddenly relevant.

Extending the article 50 deadline is not the same as extending the transition period that is part of May's agreement. Once May's agreement is in place, the whole article 50 deadline goes away and a new bilateral treaty between the UK and EU is in place ... which basically keeps the UK functionally in the EU for a period that could be extended unilaterally by the UK for up to 80 years (expressed by using 20XX as date placeholder, which to me is a weird way of saying it).

I'm not banking on the support of the EU for a delay at this point. — Benkei

I don't really get your focus on unilateral options available to the UK. What's relevant is that article 50 can be extended if need be, whether you find that point interesting or otherwise. And it's relevant because it could pave the way for alternative paths. — S

I agree here with Benkei that the EU would not help in the case of UK wanting to extend article 50 simply to negotiate more.

However, if the UK asked for a 1-2 month extension in order to do a referendum, in diplomatic parlance the EU would "look like a douche" for not granting that, so I think it would be likely. At the end of the day the EU still doesn't want the UK to remain and a referendum to remain would be the best way to put the issue behind to rest.

Given the cost of Brexit to the UK and that many issues still have no way to resolve (good Friday agreement) and that Brexit will supercharge Scottish independence and maybe Whales, and all the prominent Leavers jumped ship, I think the EU would be confident that the UK wouldn't start the whole thing over again any time soon.

The only unilateral action available to the UK would be a revocation. — Benkei

The more I think about this, the more tricky it becomes. At the moment it isn't official, just the recommendation of some top EU lawyer. But if it was official, any country could trigger article 50, try to get a better deal and if not revoke article 50; doing it whenever they want as much as they want. This may lead to the EU being forced to simply not negotiate whenever article 50 is triggered but offer only "crash-out or revoke"; not sure if this would be a good development or not, nor if the EU court would consider this scenario in a final decision to allow unilateral revoking (of course, revocation could always be bilateral).

Edit: Unilateral revoking of article 50 would even allow a group of countries to do it together, protesting this or that, and create one-sided brinkmanship since they can just cancel a minute before the deadline. Since all countries have to be treated equally within the EU, there's nothing the EU could do to disincentivise this sort of behaviour. As a contract lawyer, , I imagine you'd never accept a party able to cancel a deal, try to negotiate a better deal and shop around, and then be able to simply cancel the cancelling and go back the first deal if they don't find better.

Given the deadline of March 29, I don't see how else it could work to have elections, a new government with new priorities, which will then negotiate with the EU over a new deal. Given the holidays they would have 3 months. That doesn't seem possible without delaying the deadline and the UK can only do that unilaterally by revoking its article 50 notice. — Benkei

The process to extend the deadline isn't revoking article 50, nor even require any action on the part of the UK. The deadline is an imposition by the EU, and the EU states can vote to grant an extension; legally speaking they could do it unilaterally but I assume UK would need to ask.

There was an article the other day discussing exactly this, and that France and Spain may be motivated to block granting an extension.

However, I feel no one has any real principles to refer to in casting a veto against an extension for a second referendum to happen (although there's lot's of principled reasons to not grant the extension simply for the UK negotiate more), and it's very difficult to block a whole continent wide "almost consensus" for narrow self-interest (or just to spite the English). There's too much at stake and there would be too much pressure from Germany and the Nordic EU members and EU bureaucrats against a potential French veto for more time for a referendum.

I'm not saying it's guaranteed ... it would be a crazy irony that the French give UK time to have a second referendum, while dealing with the yellow-vests who have mostly consolidated around a demand to have more referendums in France. So it wouldn't be comfortable for France ... but the UK revoking article 50 is I think also sufficiently humiliating for the English political class and still weakens the UK's position within the EU for some time and simply revoking article 50 is a lot easier to deal with (French businesses don't want Brexit either).

All the options are bad now that the UK has verified that the EU won't give them a better deal (including not being willing to bend core EU principles to solve internal UK problems that any form or Brexit creates), but a second referendum seems to me the only way to really "settle" the issue and move on.

A no-deal Brexit would be an order of magnitude greater political suicide for the conservatives, potentially lead to large social unrest and serves no purpose.

If May's deal has no Parliament or public support (since it's clearly just a worse way to stay in the EU), then there's really no reason to pass it and even if they (whoever thinks it's a good idea, presumably May) managed to force it through it may result simply in wanting to get back in the EU later.

Parliament voting to revoke article 50 simply proves the Brexiters fear-mongering that the Parliament would never respect a leave vote and would just dilly-daddle and then cancel it. A second referendum is much easier to defend and provides some closure. The argument "it's not fair to vote again" simply doesn't holdup to scrutiny, and Brexiters holding on to this would eventually just be sulking in a corner.

Edit: Brexiters would probably still say it was dlli-daddling anyway, but there is actually a deal on the table and plausible basis to believe it's close to the best the EU would offer. More importantly, the prominent leavers are no where to be seen, so the "bad-faith" argument is much easier to throw at the leave campaign of not having a clue how to actually leave. For instance, UKIP hasn't been stumping everyday demanding that they should lead the negotiations since they would easily get so, so many concessions so easily from the EU and that a "better deal" would be this, this and that (the embarrassment of demonstrating their ignorance about what to do is worse than staying silent and implicitly accepting their bad-faith, but having the consolation prize of re-emerging after article 50 is reversed to accuse everyone else of bad-faith too). In other words, if Leave is A. better for the UK and B. the government was negotiating in bad faith, then certainly we'd hear about it from the Leavers: since we don't hear from them on how they would be easily doing it better, it's pretty easy to argue that they weren't of good faith to begin with (that their campaign was to build momentum for isolated aspects of their platform, such as anti-immigration, that they would have continued to beat on about when remain won the referendum, which everyone assumed, and their campaign was not some actual plan to leave the EU and resolve all the issues that creates).

It would to some extent be an act of self-harm by the establishment within the political system to that very system of which both they and we are a part. That political system is, by the way, a form of democracy. So, although it might not mean or want to be, it is in a sense anti-democratic. — S

I don't see what the contention is here. A referendum would happen if the Parliament voted for it to happen, so would satisfy the current system of democracy and simply be an extension of it.

Just because a second referendum would be more directly democratic than alternatives, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't undermine the democracy of the United Kingdom; and if it risks doing that, then it's not so different to threats of an explicitly anti-democratic nature. — S

I don't see how this works. Why would parliament calling a second referendum undermine UK democracy?

I've argued against some of those reasons. As I've said, the only circumstances in which I would accept a second referendum as a viable option is as a last resort if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit. — S

This seems to directly contradict your next statements:

The referendum results being treated as binding would mean that the government does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e leave. It wouldn't just mean triggering article 50, because they have the power to revoke it. The promise wouldn't be fulfilled if the government did anything that risked undermining or effectively invalidating the results, like holding a second referendum. — S

If the referendum was a binding mandate to leave, "does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e. leave", then there's basis to have a referendum nor a vote in parliament that could revoke article 50. Parliament could vote down the deal, but then there must be a no-deal Brexit.

It's not a principles position to say on the one had "the referendum was binding to leave" but on the other hand "I would accept a second referendum [...] if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit". It may feel principles, but thee principles are no consistent. The refernedum wasn't a vote for "negotiate a good exit from the EU and if that doesn't work cancel it", so if you want to stick to the results of the referendum as binding to leave, then what follows from this principle is leaving the EU deal or no-deal.

If you accept revoking article 50, either by parliament directly or by parliament calling a second referendum that revokes it, is better than a no-deal Brexit, that is to accept either mandate of the referendum was not to leave deal or no-deal or then the situation has changed enough to warrant reviewing (by parliament or a referendum) the decision to leave.

Your position seems to be that sticking to a principle until it's too inconvenient and then abandoning it, is a more principled position than accepting the position can be abandoned on a more nuanced discussion of the many principles in play.

That interpretation is susceptible to the criticism that there was what was essentially a verbal contract - which was made public knowledge - which stipulated that the government would treat the results of the referendum as binding, even though the referendum was technically only advisory, and even though the ECJ has since ruled that the UK can revoke article 50. It certainly wasn't sold to us as advisory or as a preliminary indication. It could be further argued that if the government were to violate that verbal contract.. — S

The problem, as I've mentioned, is that "parliament" nor "the government" is a single moral agent to begin with, so any MP can argue "they didn't make that promise". On-top of that "what exactly was the promise" is up for debate.

then they should be held to account in some way. There should be repercussions. — S

The available repercussions to levy are voting those responsible out of office.

Moreover, you mention a final say, yet there is already due to be a final say. — S

This is the core problem in your position. If you accept the parliament can have a final say then that final say could be to hold a second referendum to have a "final-final" say (in other words it's not a final say). If you accept the parliament can decide vote one way or another, then they are legitimate in deferring whatever decision they might make to a second referendum.

You seem to be interpreting things already assuming that there won't be a second referendum and the parliament has the right to not-call a second referendum, and somehow that parliament could do this is justification in itself. I agree nothing is forcing UK parliament to call a second referendum, but that they have the power to decide not to call a second referendum implies that they have the power to call a second referendum. The main purpose of my arguments is to show a second referendum isn't somehow anti-democratic, and that parliament could base a decision to hold a second referendum on a wide range of reasonable and sound arguments (that doesn't make those argument true).

That's a misreading. That's not at all what I meant. I meant that, despite the complexities involved in discussions about Brexit, some of it can be boiled down to some key ethical issues of a more general nature, that we're all familiar with, such as whether a promise should be kept, and under what circumstances would it be justified to break one. — S

Yes, this is also what I'm arguing against. The principle "promises should be kept" is actually quite difficult to apply, even to just add weight among many other considerations.

The "we'll consider it binding" is only really meaningful to consider as referring to the individuals politicians that participated in this claim and not "all parliament", even at the time. There was no law passed explaining what "binding" meant and actually making it "binding" on the government (until repealed of course).

Parliament is not a singular cohesive moral agent, so just to establish who exactly made this promise to begin with is a complicated task. Obviously any new MP could say "hey, I didn't make this promise". Since there was an election in the meantime, any politician that was MP at the time could say their mandate has changed (any representative can always justify a change in position based on claiming their constituents have changed position; whether disingenuous or not, it's a sound argument); so even politicians that unequivocally participated in the promise could say "it was a promise of the previous parliamentary session", now there's a new sessions and it's our job to look at all the options. But I would wager most MP's could easily say they "didn't really back the promise", that they viewed it as a promise of the PM and cabinet at the time.

Then, what was "binding" referring too?, if it wasn't a mandate for a no-deal Brexit and the chaos that would follow, then the only alternative is that it's a mandate to "get a better deal with the EU by a negotiated exit" ... but then who's to say what's a better deal or not?

After doing this, there remains the possibility that the promise has been kept, that everyone understood it to be triggering article 50 which the government did, which at the time everyone understood would "lock in Brexit"; in other words, the "binding actions" have been carried out, that the resulting situation is not what people expected doesn't somehow extend the scope of the "binding promise" one way or another.

So even just establishing what the promise actually meant and who should still feel bound to it and to what extent it has been fulfilled is a complicated philosophical task requiring reviewing each MP's statements and even state of mind of what they believed "binding meant" when they made or were associated with the promise.

That's the problem with vague promises and why verbal contracts rarely get uphold in law. The purpose of a written contract isn't so much as to prove the agreement was struck (a easily forged signature isn't much proof, which is why there are notaries for when the proof is the essential part), but much more to actually spell out what people are agreeing to and why what seems like a simple agreement can be easily dozens or hundreds of pages.

Then, once all this is established there's all the further issues of under what conditions is it right to break the promise and do those conditions exist.

I think UK politicians will feel compelled to recognise the results of the first referendum and don't think that realistically their thinking will have evolved or will evolve in the time left that it would lead to a sensible referendum. So it seems politically impossible. Ignoring that I'd think it would be good to have a referendum although I'm still not sure if it is already ready for one considering the lack of detailed analyses of various options. — Benkei

Yes I agree a referendum doesn't seem likely. The plan seems to be to go right to the edge of the "crash out" and so force accepting May's deal; or at least this seems May's plan. I don't know enough about UK politicians to guess what other factions maybe planning. However, if this plan doesn't work, I wager a referendum is more likely than no-deal Brexit and the EU would supply more time if that's needed. Parliament just cancelling Brexit is also in the running but seems less likely to me. A no-deal Brexit seems insane, but so was a vague Brexit vote with vague promises of the vague results being totally binding.

The EU was simply an awesome idea as an union for commerce. It's hideous as a vehicle for political union especially if the objective is some kind of US of Europe. I think the worst threat to the EU are the idiots in charge that are trying to make it into a tight political federation. — ssu

The tighter federation is a failure of the corporatist forces, not the peace building I am referring to. The goal of the EU constitution was basically so corporations can overrule local governments, which is anti-democratic and anti-peace. But, the EU constitution didn't pass precisely because the EU is not a federation where a central bureaucracy can impose their will on local structures.

However, in terms of promoting dialogue and cooperation between nations, and more importantly creating an economic and diplomatic block to implement shared values on the global stage, the EU is a big success.

The EU has far more impact on global affairs than the sum of all the individuals countries would have separately, and I would argue this influence is far more positive than what would otherwise occur. EU development aid policies, inter-governmental cooperation, a block of "power" that does have leverage visi-a-vis other great powers, as well as trade relations, has a massive affect on global politics. The EU's policies promote democracy and human rights in all sorts of ways, and the EU is also a template and example for peaceful close intergovernmental relations.

Of course plenty of criticism of the EU is valid on many levels, and it's possible (though I think now very unlikely) the EU doubles down on corporatist police-state trajectory, but if the EU were to breakup I find it exceedingly likely China and the fully developed distopian police state Chinese model will start to fill in all the cracks at the global level. China has zero interest in promoting democracy and human rights, does not serve as a democratic model, and (absent the EU as an alternative economic partner) China will be able to provide vassal states both economic development, protection and their social control technology (which will become more and more refined).

These geo-political considerations need to then be put in the context of ecological disruptions and resource crisis. The EU is in my view our likeliest chance to solve our ecological problems, it is a large enough trading block to implement large policy initiatives.

Of course, if climate change is a hoax, if China's a success case of how capitalism can thrive without democracy, if massive famines and resource wars aren't "our problem", then of course the EU is a silly thing. Not to say that you personally have such opinions, but I wish here to highlight that the EU is more than just commerce for people who see it as a force for peace, human rights and reasoned global policy initiatives (compared to it not existing at all), and despite a lot problems to fix and a hard road to help build and promote democracies elsewhere and also start solving the ecological crisis, still a good bet and worth contributing too.

Edit: So for us EU proponents in the above sense, Brexit is not simply "will Britain GDP do better within or outside the EU", but very potentially a start of a process that breaks up the EU; the UK is a big piece and leaving has lot's of political consequences, many unforeseeable.

The Dutch stand to lose 4.7% of GDP because of Brexit. We still closed ranks as part of the EU because the value of the EU is not only economic. There isn't a nice deal available as it would undermine the EU if not being part of it doesn't make you significantly worse off than being in it. — Benkei

I think a lot of UK commentators, and certainly more voters, don't quite get these two critical parts.

A "good deal for the UK" is an existential threat to the EU, the only options are crashing out (so painful no other country would try it) or then functionally staying in the EU but now with no say (no other country would see the point). The UK is big but not big enough to have leverage over the EU to make existential concessions.

And even with these two option of crash-out or basically stay in the EU, Brexit could still cause a cascade of events that lead to the break up of the EU.

The EU is both a successful peace mission and a failed neoliberal-corporatist experiment (with undertones of NATO encroachment to Russia's border and playing second fiddle to disastrous US militarism in the middle east) with these bills now coming due. It's tempting to walk away from the failure parts, I do sympathize with the Brexiters, but on a global scale the EU can anchor a peaceful re-ordering during the US-China inversion. Without the EU, most countries will have no choice but to switch from US to Chinese patronage, and if we now view the US's promotion of democracy during tenure as world super power as wanting we will give it a stellar rating compared to what we will see with unchecked Chinese geopolitical influence (especially once they start to really need those east-Asian and African and South-American resources to maintain internal stability).

The referendum is already contaminated by the results of the first thereby unnecessarily restricting the offered options. Remain still doesn't in any way address the issues people want to vote on, whereas both leave options do to a certain extent. See my previous example with five possible options to give you an idea. So it will still be issue voting and the only reason remain could win is because the leave vote would be fractured as the issues people would vote for are captured by both leave options. — Benkei

I mentioned three clear options to contrast with the first clear vs unclear referendum. I didn't mean to exclude the potential for even more options. Ranked choice seems to already deal with vote splitting. Do you think this wouldn't work for some reason, or are you against ranked choice in principle?

However, I completely agree with your points on why a no-deal Brexit (and Brexit to begin with) is a terrible choice.

From what I understand of the EU-May deal, it's basically "stay in the EU with a few ornamental changes, and have 80 years to activate the real Brexit". And I assume the politicians are in agreement that they won't let a no-deal Brexit happen, either calling an referendum or proceeding, as you suggest, of a parliament vote against the deal and then vote to remain in the EU (though I just don't see how that's politically palatable, so I assume they'll go with referendum or then accept May's deal).

edit: even now I can't bring myself to believe UK politicians are foolish enough to go no-deal ... but they've been proving me wrong so far ...

I'd argue to revoke the article 50 notice. Just don't have brexit. A referendum the sort that they would probably have to resort to on short notice is going to be plagued with the same problems and be marred by issue voting. — Benkei

Why would a second referendum be plagued by the same issues? From what I understand the main problem with the first Brexit vote is that the option to leave had no clear interpretation; no reasonable person would argue that 51% of people voted for a no-deal Brexit for instance, and without that interpretation it's unclear what the mandate is exactly.

However, a second referendum can be between three clear options: EU's offer, no-deal, or remain.

Parliament simply revoking article 50 seems to me, pretty clearly, would be plagued by far more issues; and is exactly what the Brexiters were crying wolf about (that parliament would one way or another ignore the referendum results).

Edit: Also, in terms of time, the EU would certainly grant an extension so a proper referendum can be made if needed; in terms of money the cost of a referendum is far outweighed by the economic implications; and in terms of democracy it's the most valid democratic process on critical issues (why a referendum was called to join the EU in the first place, so completely consistent that a referendum would be called to validate a new relationship with the EU).