TIL that it is legal for fraternal societies to discriminate in providing services based on membership status in the group (so for example a Christian mutual-insurance benefit society can limit membership to Christians)...
but it's ILLEGAL to limit EMPLOYMENT to members!
It is apparently actually the law that you can make a "KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS ONLY" rule for selling your products, but it's illegal to limit *employment and leadership* to that *exact same class*.
Religious organizations have the right to discriminate in religious roles, but it's insane to me that it's a crime for overtly religious organizations with "secular" functions to *ask if the person actively opposes the religion*
It's actually a crime for a faith-based service provider to ask, "Is it your objective to destroy our religion on the basis of your deep-seated philosophical opposition to our beliefs?"
Of course in practice, people often volunteer this kind of information. But.... still.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Folks I am SO EXCITED for a report that I wrote for @AEI to be published TODAY! This has been a labor of love for over a year, and it is finally AVAILABLE FOR YOUR READING. aei.org/research-produ…
Why has American civic life become so divisive and impoverished in quality? Why is associational life in decline? Why are our intermediating institutions failing?
Using data from 1750-today, I argue the answer is BREAD AND CIRCUSES. aei.org/research-produ…
Basically, I argue that 19th century American life was NOT one of "dense associational life." The "nation of joiners" epithet WRONGLY attributed to de Tocqueville is also just wrong: the associations of "Democracy and America" are not Putnamesque at all!
The Federal government pays a considerable share of public education costs and declines to offer those funds to support students going to non-public schools (which often reopened!) so I think it’s wrong to say the Federal government isn’t involved.
I think the argument here is not that JUST FEDERALISM will do the trick but that federalism is PART OF a push for a more pluralist government at all levels. So you’d need the Feds to say “our education dollars will go to whatever schools states deem fit to permit”
The reality is that schools which were opening were broadly less likely to be receiving Federal funds, while schools staying closed were getting Federal funds. That the federal government did not issue an explicit policy doesn’t make that imbalance irrelevant!
The reason we tax the things we tax and in practice the whole political debate about tax policy is simply the intersection of ability to pay by the payer and ability to enforce by the state and that’s why all the imputed rent or taxing home production stuff is idiotic.
Economists like to say tax policy is based on idk efficiency or something but there isn’t really any evidence that’s actually what it’s based on... and also no compelling argument that it ethically *should* be based on this
But if you think it’s somehow “unfair” to tax a worker who gets paid to do something but not to tax someone who does that thing in their own home idk maybe you don’t understand the ethical intuition behind taxes
Republicans may often oppose facially neutral policies on the grounds that they help “undeserving” people, generally meaning “nonworking,” and we know more racial diversity causes assessments of deserving ness to change.
Ie when you know the nonworking are racially other, you’re less likely to support helping them
But that’s not the point made above. The claim made above is Democrats must use explicitly racialized arguments because Republicans do so.
The fundamental problem is that while there is not *necessarily* tension between economic growth and stable fertility, there absolutely IS tension between "developmentalist states" and stable fertility (cc @Noahpinion ).
By imposing strict discipline on labor and making extremely large investments in infrastructure and education *beyond some natural rate*, developmentalist states super-charge growth.
Nice article about Biden's family policy proposals. Virtually all quoted experts emphasize PERMANENCY: nobody wants to see expiration dates on any proposed policies.
But what's striking to me is the comment made about parental leave by Glass, saying she explicitly wants a generous leave program ***in order to justify*** lower direct cash payments to family.
My quote is basically, "I'm worried we're gonna get half-measures across all policies because the Biden team wants to appease all these interests and the result will be a weak commitment to cash."