He's been unusually successful in his law career despite being insane, JD/PhD from T14 law school, professorship at T14 law school, argued case in front of supreme court, represented former governors, etc.
There is a school of thought that the U.N. failed the UDHR by breaking it into two covenants and many progressives agree the values written in 1948 don't go far enough. And many of the people he actually goes to talk to are interested and want to sign. That's the steel man.
I would say the AI psychosis is just another delusion added to his stack of analytic flaws that are all pretty common:
- Everything is a nail when you only have a hammer. It's not that surprising that a nader's raider style prosecutor believes every problem in society can be solved by framing it as tort with liability.
- Chesterton's fence. UDHR was split for a reason: economic rights can't be guaranteed just by a court system.
- Build it and they will come. He seems to think once his document is good enough, people will come to it naturally.
- Appeal to authority. His go-to to dismiss disagreement, citing his credentials or famous philosophers, Rawles, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc. who ironically would all be against his specific plan.
He's been unusually successful in his law career despite being insane, JD/PhD from T14 law school, professorship at T14 law school, argued case in front of supreme court, represented former governors, etc.
There is a school of thought that the U.N. failed the UDHR by breaking it into two covenants and many progressives agree the values written in 1948 don't go far enough. And many of the people he actually goes to talk to are interested and want to sign. That's the steel man.
I would say the AI psychosis is just another delusion added to his stack of analytic flaws that are all pretty common:
- Everything is a nail when you only have a hammer. It's not that surprising that a nader's raider style prosecutor believes every problem in society can be solved by framing it as tort with liability.
- Chesterton's fence. UDHR was split for a reason: economic rights can't be guaranteed just by a court system.
- Build it and they will come. He seems to think once his document is good enough, people will come to it naturally.
- Appeal to authority. His go-to to dismiss disagreement, citing his credentials or famous philosophers, Rawles, Eleanor Roosevelt, etc. who ironically would all be against his specific plan.