A musing Beam

Introduction For a (hopefully refreshing) change of pace, this post has absolutely nothing to do with politics.  Instead, it is about how to allocate chores and rent between roommates. Let's say you live with 3 other people.  All of you move in to a 4-bedroom apartment at the same time, and all of you are on the lease.  You pay the same amount, use utilities the same, and eat the same.  You can add in whatever considerations you want to make all of you absolutely equal with respect to each other, how much space you have, and how much you monetarily contribute.  (For present purposes, let's also say that you all agree on how many chores should be done, how well they should be done, and on what schedule.) The basics Default rules Now, how do you allocate chores?  I think one important distinction is who causes the need for a chore to spring into being, and one way to think about that is "passive" chores versus "caused" chores (my terms).  Passive chore

Here is another small entry.  This is solely to debunk the silly notion that President Obama is a socialist.  It is made again and again by those on the radical right.  Unfortunately, others keep buying in, I fear because they do not pay attention to any outlet that doesn't spew conservative dogma. So, here are the basics.  Socialism means to advocate government or employee ownership of industries. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism )  If the steel worker gets his paycheck from the state, and not from a private owner, that is socialism for steel production.  If all hospitals are run by the government (see England), that is social medicine.  If, on the other hand, doctors work for private hospitals who are paid for their services by various customers, including the state, this is not socialism.  If everyone received health insurance through the state, we would have socialized health insurance (but not socialized medicine).  Of course, we don't even do that. What it

This is a quick note specifically discussing whether the contraceptive requirements in the Affordable Care Act implemention are unconstitutional. For those that don't know (and where have you been?), "Obamacare" requires that companies that provide healthcare have to offer contraceptive services without co-pay.  There are some exceptions (small businesses; organizations with religious missions, employees, and clients; grandfathered plans), but let's ignore them.  Some private companies are suing because they say this mandate forces them to pay for services that they find morally repugnant. The first court to hear the case on its merits (as opposed to dodging the question for various procedural reasons) gave a pretty resounding "No":  This does not substantially restrict religious freedom.  In, O'Brien v. HHS ( http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/missouri/moedce/4:2012cv00476/119215/50/0.pdf?ts=1348931108 ), the district court said &q

Introduction This is my third in a three-part series on a secular approach to how to come to a voting decision. My first was on related the  societal constructions of earning and value.  (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-1-foundational.html ).  The second was on the purpose of government. (See http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/10/voting-thoughts-part-2-foundational.html ).  This entry is on adding social values to the mix, then bringing it all together to form a coherent approach to voting. Societal values Previously I discussed the notion of the importance of the social contracts we have all implicitly entered by being citizens in cities, counties, states, and countries. What values drive those continually changing agreements? Documentary evidence There are some obvious (though problematic) places to start. The Declaration of Independence states that they held "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they ar