Herein we will review the position of the antifederal writer ‘Federal Farmer’ in the Antifederalist paper #36 and contrast to our current situation. We will see that things have gotten drastically worse as compared to the days of the Antifederalists and explore solutions and expected results.
To begin, it is worth reviewing the language of the constitution as regards the house of representatives. In particular, we ought to consider what was required when the constitution was first ratified. Today, our number of representatives in the house is fixed by law. This contrasts with the constitution’s language, namely a portion of article 1, section 2:
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative,; and until such enumeration shall be made[author’s note: the census], the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Here you will see that the number of representatives was 65, while the population was considered to be somewhat more than 3 million (no one knew exactly how many people there were, as the census had not been conducted). This gives a ratio of 46,000 to 1. However, the 1790 census established that there were closer to 4 million souls living in the USA. Note that this is not including the 3/5th factor for slaves, as such for representation purposes there were some 3,683,000 people living in the USA. Congress was then enumerated at 105 members! This significantly reduced the ratio to 35,000 to 1. Congress would continue to adjust the number of representatives as new states were added to the union and new censuses conducted. However, the ratio of population to representatives would not stay so low. By the early 1900’s the ratio had grown approximately 6 times to around 200,000 to 1 when the number of representatives was set at 435. Does that number sound familiar?
Today, congress has failed to change the number of representatives in over 100 years. The end result? We now have a ratio of over 760,000 to 1 (331,449,281 to 435). At this ratio the fledgling US would have just 3 representatives in the house (considering the requirement for each state to have 1 would make this 13). Consider also, that some states are even worse (e.g. Montana has one representative, but over a million people). In Anti-federalist #36, the Federal Farmer makes the case that even the representation provided for in the constitution is sorely lacking. He writes:
Should the general government think it politic, as some administration (if not all) probably will, to look for a support in a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws, and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving anything for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation then must be called into operation, and internal tax laws and federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country. All these circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate? And to trust to amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose? It is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge power in a government before it is fitted to receive it. It is confessed that this power and representation ought to go together. Why give the power first? Why give the power to the few, who, when possessed of it, may have address enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not keep the power, and, when necessary, amend the constitution, and add to its other parts this power, and a proper increase of representation at the same time? Then men who may want the power will be under strong inducements to let in the people, by their representatives, into the government, to hold their due proportion of this power. If a proper representation be impracticable, then we shall see this power resting in the states, where it at present ought to be, and not inconsiderately given up.
When I recollect how lately congress, conventions, legislatures, and people contended in the cause of liberty, and carefully weighed the importance of taxation, I can scarcely believe we are serious in proposing to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in a government so imperfectly organized for such purposes. Should the United States be taxed by a house of representatives of two hundred members, which would be about fifteen members for Connecticut, twenty-five for Massachusetts, etc., still the middle and lower classes of people could have no great share, in fact, in taxation. I am aware it is said, that the representation proposed by the new constitution is sufficiently numerous; it may be for many purposes; but to suppose that this branch is sufficiently numerous to guard the rights of the people in the administration of the government, in which the purse and sword is placed, seems to argue that we have forgot what the true meaning of representation is. . . .
In considering the practicability of having a full and equal representation of the people from all parts of the union, not only distances and different opinions, customs and views, common in extensive tracts of country, are to be taken into view, but many differences peculiar to Eastern, Middle, and Southern States. These differences are not so perceivable among the members of congress, and men of general information in the states, as among the men who would properly form the democratic branch. The Eastern states are very democratic, and composed chiefly of moderate freeholders; they have but few rich men and no slaves; the Southern states are composed chiefly of rich planters and slaves; they have but few moderate freeholders, and the prevailing influence in them is generally a dissipated aristocracy. The Middle states partake partly of the Eastern and partly of the Southern character. . . . I have no idea that the interests, feelings, and opinions of three or four millions of people, especially touching internal taxation, can be collected in such a house. In the nature of things, nine times in ten, men of the elevated classes in the community only can be chosen….
I am sensible also, that it is said that congress will not attempt to lay and collect internal taxes; that it is necessary for them to have the power, though it cannot probably be exercised. I admit that it is not probable that any prudent congress will attempt to lay and collect internal taxes, especially direct taxes: but this only proves, that the power would be improperly lodged in congress, and that it might be abused by imprudent and designing men.
[Bold my own]
The basic thrust is that true representation will not be present in congress as people when forced to choose from among 30,000 or more of their ‘peers’ are highly unlikely to pick someone from amongst the lower or even middling classes. That only the rich and noteworthy will become represented in the congress, and further, that the representation is not sufficient to represent the different cultures and modes of living throughout each state (e.g. rural vs. city). Further, the members of congress will be incentivized to restrict their number to preserve their own power. The intent of representation in congress is of course to have people be heard without violence and to get their buy-in and prevent discontent with the results of government.
No doubt, what the Federal Farmer feared has occurred, most representatives are not so alike their constituents when elected, and after many terms of service, have little in common with anyone else.
Compare the situation then to now and despair. Things are (literally) 25 times worse, and while slavery has been abolished, the country is far more diverse than it was in the early days of the republic. Why is redistricting such a fight? We need to both pack and crack minorities, while of course maintaining the optimal situation for the party in power. This also means large percentages of people are not being well represented, both by virtue of not having an alternative they desire (see the large numbers of nonvoters) but also because they are stuck in districts with dissimilar people, and diverging interests.
Democrats often decry the results of the relatively large number of senators compared to representatives, as they then effect the election of the president. Well, one easy solution is to expand the house of representatives to be more representative. Its current composition leaves those elected elevated too far above the general populace and unable to respond to their constituents.
These defects can be partly mended by increasing the number of representatives back to something like 1 for every 30,000 people. That still seems a fairly large number. I don’t know about you, but I barely know 100 people, and estimates, even on the very, very high-end of Dunbar’s number (the maximum number of people you can maintain a meaningful relationship with) is something like 1500. While this may make the house impractical and unwieldy to have debates and self-govern that more so makes the Federal Farmer’s argument. Such a body which cannot be representative should have no such powers as taxation.
Consider other benefits… when there are 10,875 representatives (the maximum allowed by the constitutional standard), who do you buy off to get a carve out? There are simply too many people, and some of them, might even have a conscience.
So, to recap, the purpose of representative democracy is to give the various components of society the opportunity to effect government policy, prevent dissent and dissatisfaction and, philosophically, to give the assent of the people to the actions governments take. By so severely restricting the membership of the house of representatives, the current congress can no longer represent the people, especially of so diverse and far-flung a country as ours. Increasing the number of representatives to the maximum allowed by the constitution is the first step in determining if the People can be represented at all.
I can’t remember who proposed increasing the size of the house and shifting it to state-level proportional voting.
I proposed the latter.
I favor the former too, but don’t remember mentioning it here.
I heartily agree. One representative for 750,000 people is ridiculous.
I’d like the formula to be 2 representatives for the smallest state and each district across the rest of the states to meet approximately the same population.
Interestingly enough if you do the math on that, it actually shifts representation even slightly harder to the top population states: Top 5 goes from 37.0% to 37.32%, Top 20% goes from 75.63% to 75.86%.
The bottom 10 states actually go down in representation, from 2.99% to 2.86%.
That would put it at 1 rep for every 275,000 people or so.
CA would have 143 reps at 1 rep/275,000 people.
Wyoming has around 580,000 residents, so that would be 1:290,000. We have about 330MM residents (I still think representation should be of citizens, but whatev), so that would be a House of 1,137 Representatives.
I wonder: where would they meet? Not in the Capitol, that’s for sure.
CA would have 136 reps using RC’s 1:290,000 ratio.
TX would have 100.
As to db‘s observation, ok, so the small population states get big over-representation in the Senate and are slightly under-represented in the House – really not all that different from now.
It wouldn’t work out to 1137 because of the fractions where the next whole number doesn’t kick in, but still around 1100.
Zoom.
It’s much harder to bang interns that way.
Hey buddy, leave that for Wednesdays!
Get rid of the desks and lay out the House more like Parliament – make them literal back-benchers!
RFK is not being used.
The system is broken, but proposing adding so many more politicians doesn’t appeal to me either.
Pretty much what I was thinking. How about we give them less to do by restricting the scope of government?
That hasn’t occurred with so few representatives. Just the opposite. Not saying this will be the magic sauce to turn that around, but I don’t think it would hurt anything in that domain.
Less to do and less compensation. Let’s take the aggregate compensation today, and apply it to the new, 10-20x bigger batch of representatives. Those together would tidily reduce both current motivators (power, money) that drive our current politicians. Yes, yes, I hear you about the outside funding that really drives their portfolios, but I imagine it would also be less prevalent when there are 10,000 DC pockets to grease compared to 535.
Think of it as diluting the scope and power of each current Representative.
In a perfect world yah, but that would just drive people to yearn for a singular branch or person to make government move.
And those people should be driven into an ocean.
You misspelled “woodchipper.”
Sharks need to eat too, same as worm.
The goal would be that they’d be less politician like and more like you and your neighbors. Part two isn’t written yet, but might be more up your alley.
Going back to a part-time congress would help that
I considered that as well, but only so much done can pack into an article without it being too rambling. I also think there’s no appetite for that.
There’s nothing in increasing representatives that any party ought to be against. But somehow it’s a total non issue.
Part-time congress = even more power to executive agencies since there is no time to debate legislation.
It would work if we went back to the government as it existed in 1870, but not in the modern era.
No, they won’t. There are people who like politics and those who don’t. Those who don’t, like myself, aren’t suddenly going to love politics. So the people that want to be political will still be the same, and they won’t be like me.
^^
“Congratulations on your promotion HOA President… erm, I mean Representative Karen!”
I agree, those arguing about “more democracy” need to be pleading for an increase in the size of the House (and reduction in the number of people per district) – not for abolishing the Senate. The UK has roughly one MP per 100K constituents.
My questions are:
Has that provision of the Constitution been amended?
How did we get from 1:30,0000 to the current situation?
Are we just disregarding the Constitution (again)?
I don’t believe it has been amended, as it was merely a provision against rotten boroughs. No one thought of the opposite problem where one person ‘represented’ so many people that they were effectively unanswerable to any given constitutent.
The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand
Now that I read it a little closer, it does set a minimum but not a maximum ratio of subjects per Representative. Or, put the other way, a cap on the number of Representatives, but not a floor.
Agreed.
I think it was the visible versus non-visible issues with parliment they saw at the time. The issue of rotten boroughs was known and not fixed until 1832, so they were well aware of the problem where one voter elected two MPs, but didn’t extrapolate the issues cause by the other extreme, so nothing was said on the matter.
I think they weren’t entirely unaware of the issue as this article references writings from that time. But clearly it wasn’t particularly persuasive.
The anti-federalists were happy with Congress where each state had one vote. They clearly were not up for greater popular representation.
And since I didn’t say it earlier – great write up Lackadaisical!
All of them? I’ll admit I haven’t finished reading them all, but I didn’t get that impression. Maybe in the context of a much less expansive, confederation style government, then I could see that.
Thanks.
Well they rejected the Constitution as written, and the only alternative was the AoC. It’s fair to argue that the convention had exceeded its mandate, but it’s equally hard to argue that everything with the AoC was hunky-dory, otherwise there would’ve been on convention to begin with.
argh, fingers — on convention s/b no convention
Right. To the extent they admitted issues with the articles, they said they could be better fixed with amendments rather than removal.
One argued (I forget which author or paper) that it hardly would have mattered if Congress had the power to levy taxes as they were requesting more funds than anyone even had, the 8 years of war had devastated the country, sales of Western land had actually about covered the debts and the economy was finally recovering. As such they felt there was no need to change things much.
Keep in mind, people like Hamilton were not exactly on board with democratic Republic and wanted an empire.
Good thing Hamilton didn’t get anything near what he wanted, in terms of structure. The NY delegation was set up to deliberately frustrate his ambitions, as they could over-rule him as to what was in NY’s interests.
I think we gloss over the problems that existed back then. As difficult as it is to amend the Constitution, the AoC was far worse – requiring complete unanimity. That’s simply insane.
It took a couple hundred years, but with the Imperial Presidency and our far flung controlling interests, I think we’re a lot closer to what Hamilton wanted than Jefferson.
Yeah Ron, that is the great irony of Jefferson’s party now being completely Hamiltonian.
I’ll disagree about the empire bit though. Hamilton’s party was quite unhappy with expansion of the territory (since that further diluted their own power) and were the first to talk of secession.
The Constitution states the number of representatives shall not exceed 1 for every 30,000. It was standard for Congress to pass apportioning laws after each census. At some point they passed a law that automated apportionment at the current 435.
A good argument for breaking up the U.S. into smaller pieces.
No. We will force the commies to live under the boot of personal responsibility. It’s the only way to prevent them from forcing us to live under the boot of communism.
What isn’t, these days?
Speaking of corruption, it turns out “Pedo Peter” wasn’t Joe, it was Hunter’s niece, Natalie. The daughter of his brother Beau and Hallie, who Hunter famously banged after Beau died.
Draw your own conclusions.
I really have no idea what to make of that.
Meh…I have weird names in my phone for my kids and wife…same with the names they attach to me. I mean, it might be weird if someone ask my kids who “Nordic Muscle” is
An Icelandic Gym.
Tom of Finland?
I’ve commented on this before:
a) I can talk with the President and board members of my HOA. I know them, they know me. I’ve even been asked to run for a position on the board.
b) I’ve talked with my County Commissioner at length. While he might not know me personally he knows the area where I live and has some idea of our issues.
c) I could call my state rep and actually speak with a human. She also knows our area but represents a larger area.
d) If I tried to contact my Congressional rep I would be routed to voicemail. If I send her a letter or email I would receive a form letter with vague reference to my issue. Further, my “rep” is a foaming-at-the-mouth prog so we probably overlap on 10-15% of issues.
Yeah, if we have to have a gigantic Federal government then let’s has a gigantic House to provide for a more fair representation.
It may be worth a try. You can’t really say “its not broke, so why fix it”.
It also doesn’t address the fundamental problem(s) – too much national government power, and the administrative state. But it might not hurt!
Well, with lots more Representatives there would be lots more of them to do oversight! Stop laughing, it could happen.
I live across the street from one of my county commissioners. I’ve talked to him maybe 3 or 4 times in the last 8 years.
Good article. Got me curious as to what the size of the House would be if we were close to that 1 Rep/30K people limit.
https://www.infoplease.com/us/states/state-population-by-rank
Here’s where I got my population numbers from, and a little Excel magic came up with the following. I rounded down all results to ensure the guideline was set.
State ———— 2020 Census — Reps
California —— 39,538,223 — 1,317
Texas ———— 29,145,505 —– 971
Florida ———- 21,538,187 —– 717
New York ——- 20,201,249 —- 673
Pennsylvania – 13,002,700 —– 433
Illinois ———— 12,801,989 —- 426
Ohio ————— 11,799,448 —- 393
Georgia ———- 10,711,908 —– 357
North Carolina – 10,439,388 —– 347
Michigan ——— 10,077,331 —– 335
New Jersey —— 9,288,994 ——- 309
Virginia ———– 8,631,393 ——- 287
Washington —– 7,705,281 —— 256
Arizona ———— 7,151,502 —– 238
Massachusetts — 7,029,917 —- 234
Tennessee ——– 6,910,840 —- 230
Indiana ————- 6,785,528 —- 226
Maryland ———- 6,177,224 —- 205
Missouri ———– 6,154,913 —- 205
Wisconsin ——— 5,893,718 —- 196
Colorado ———- 5,773,714 —- 192
Minnesota ——– 5,706,494 —- 190
South Carolina — 5,118,425 —- 170
Alabama ———- 5,024,279 —- 167
Louisiana ——— 4,657,757 —- 155
Kentucky ———- 4,505,836 —- 150
Oregon ———— 4,237,256 —- 141
Oklahoma ——– 3,959,353 —- 131
Connecticut —— 3,605,944 —- 120
Utah —————- 3,205,958 —- 106
Iowa —————- 3,271,616 —- 109
Nevada ———— 3,104,614 —- 103
Arkansas ———- 3,011,524 —- 100
Mississippi ——– 2,961,279 —- 98
Kansas ————- 2,937,880 —- 97
New Mexico —— 2,117,522 —- 70
Nebraska ———- 1,961,504 —- 65
Idaho —————- 1,839,106 —- 61
West Virginia —— 1,793,716 —- 59
Hawaii ————— 1,455,271 —- 48
New Hampshire — 1,377,529 —- 45
Maine —————- 1,362,359 —- 45
Rhode Island —— 1,097,379 —- 36
Montana ———— 1,084,225 —- 36
Delaware ———— 989,948 —- 32
South Dakota —— 886,667 —- 29
North Dakota —— 779,094 —- 25
Alaska —————– 733,391 —- 24
Washington DC —- 689,545 —- 22
Vermont ————- 643,077 —- 21
Wyoming ————- 576,851 —- 19
House Total: 11,021
Get rid of DC and it’s still 10,999 reps.
Going to need a bigger Capitol.
Let em sit in an unused concert hall. General admission seating.
Visions of trampled concert-goers in Cincinnati dance in my head.
All debate must be conducted via public written correspondence. No need to meet in person. Oh so sad if that slows down the pace of governance
It’s not like they can pass a budget or appropriations on time as it is.
We need that thing from that Star Wars Fan Fic movie from the 90s where they sit in those pods.
Mendel, the Inheritance?
Get rid of DC
The actual federal buildings are in a small area. DC should be shrunk to that area, bounded by major streets (and easily walled off, if one is so inclined), and the rest ceded to Virginia. Think Vatican City.
Re-attach the Pentagon and Arlington cemetery to the District.
Virginia already got its part of DC back. Now Arlington County and Alexandria. What is left was part of Maryland.
Can we give that to Maryland also?
The state would be better without all the DC parasites.
Destroy all bridges across the Potomac, Occoquan and Rappahannock rivers.
Maryland, Virginia already got there part of the square back.
What kind of gerrymandering could be done with 11,000 districts?
Probably some pretty crazy stuff (who says districts must be contiguous anyway?)
But it would certainly make it look pretty obvious.
This in smaller sizes
They will just assign down to the parcel.
That is hilarious.
Nothing nefarious there, no, just honest democracy.
Very hard to protect that many people…. the assassination market could help whake up the power structure as well…
Very hard to protect that many people
Issue them each a handgun, and an ammo allowance.
That allowance to them should be one bullet. Do with it what you choose.
Only one?
That looks like fun. A natural for a long-form TV series. So of course the rights are tied up for a movie.
I really liked the first couple of volumes, then it spun into worldwide conspiracy storytelling.
It isn’t Mayberry.
Upon election, each Rep shall make an official statement affirming exactly what sort of personal defense weaponry the citizenry have a right to keep and bear, and then be permitted to carry according to that statement.
I’m thinking a Glibstitution would be a fun project.
I’m in. We could have a Glibstitutional Convention thread in the forum.
I couldn’t imagine a more fractured infighting pissing match in my life and it would be glorious
My thoughts exactly.
Could be fun.
I couldn’t imagine a more fractured infighting pissing match
I can.
An actual Constitutional Convention.
Just to start the pissing match, I propose funding via the Single Land Tax.
Drowns robc in a torrent – taxation of land was a feature of the AoC.
…which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State…
no thank you, I don’t need that image
I propose funding via the Single Land Tax
*cancels Glibstitutional Glibsvention*
*cancels Glibstitutional Glibsvention*
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
We the generally peaceable adherents of Self Ownership, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Free Land of Glibertopia.
Ive seen this movie before
untz untz untz untz
The Glibertopia Congress to meet by Zoom, on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, at 4:00PM OTTZ (One True Time Zone.)
* Sobriety optional
Supposedly the bar bill for the Constitutional Convention in Philly was…substantial. The final tally included, “54 bottles of Madeira wine, 60 bottles of claret, 8 bottles of whiskey, 22 bottles of porter, 12 bottles of beer, 8 bottles of cider and 7 massive bowls of spiked punch.”
Challenge accepted.
Bunch of lightweights, unless that was for the first weekend.
I’ve got a challenge for you:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/drinks/the-day-i-tried-to-match-churchill-drink-for-drink/
Thats like the first hour of a GlibZoom, we are gonna need a bigger bar
Paywalled.
Non-paywalled.
Holy shit that’s a lot of booze.
Could it possibly be more British?
Would a preview button be a right? Firsting a capital offense? Puns must be protected. Mandatory Quordle?
Give me edit or give me death!
1.
previewedit button2. YES!!! SO MUCH THIS!!!
3. Absolutely!
4. Mandatory
QuordleDouble Acrostics“Puns must be protected.”
*narrows options*
There is only so much constitutionally protected Mexican weed fueled ass sex that could be tolerated. We would need to formally institute the iron laws.
I’m not sure I’m up for Me today, you tomorrow as applied to Mexican weed fueled ass sex.
Well you aren’t free unless you are free to be wrong
Is that (Mexican weed)-fueled ass sex, or Mexican (weed-fueled ass sex), or Mexican (weed-fueled ass) sex?
Like most things in Glibertaria, the choice is up to the individual.
Maybe should be “…and then be provided with a security detail equipped accordingly.”
Nope. No government security details. They get the same personal protection options as their subjects.
I like that better, but if they get security details at all, they have to be armed no better than the general citizenry.
They can pay for their own security details out of pocket, not our taxes.
Nope. The Secret Service can return to just dealing with counterfeit currency crimes. Government reps can pay for personal security out of their own pockets, same as me.
There’s also less of a reason to take them out. What are the chances that a single vote makes it breaks a bill?
I’m not sure very many assassinations in history were conducted on the basis of rigorous cost benefit analysis…
How often have presidents been assassinated (or attempted) versus representatives?
Wiki says 15 congressmen killed vs. 4 presidents? Once you factor in that there are hundreds of times more representatives, that’s not very dangerous vs. being president.
Consider 1:30000 representative ratio: the larger street gangs in Chicago would have 3-4 direct representative each (rather than the one or two bought-off reps they have today). They’d be taking each other out!
One representative for each 30K people. New York, NY will have over 600 representatives alone. Assuming residency requirements, rich white people will not be representing poor neighborhoods. Dipshits like AOC will get elected, but the media won’t care, because there will be 600 other clowns in the show.
California will be balkanized. Differing enclaves with competing interests. The will be dozens of parties with representatives in government, not just the big two that have captive populations to abuse.
It could be worse than now I suppose, but I don’t think that it would.
Given Grumbletarian’s data, I may have succeeded in googling New York state population instead of New York city. The idea is still valid (I think).
25 times increase in pet projects.
“NEED MOAR FUNDING!” would be inevitable.
Yes, but only big coalitions can gather enough votes to get anything done.
I think that’s okay.
If we’re going to pretend to be democratic then people should be able to elect someone or their choosing.
How about having less significant legislation passed at the federal level and more at the state level? (Less overall would be nice too…) That way we wouldn’t have thousands of congresscritters in DC wheeling and dealing our lives and fortunes away.
Congresscritters with no sacred honor.
I’d be willing to bet that 85% of them have never heard the phrase “sacred honor” and wouldn’t recognize where it came from, let alone possess any of said honor.
All this is academic if the president can effectively rule by arbitrary decree.
For example, the HVAC repair guys diagnosed that the AC wasn’t working due to a leaky valve stem. Relatively cheap repair, but had to add Freon to replace what had leaked out.
Biden administration in May 2021 slapped a limit on how much Freon could be used per year total, forcing the price up due to artificial scarcity. 1 lb of Freon was $85 last year prior to the decree; now it’s $150.
Let’s go Brandon.
At what price will freon theft become common?
Good question. The HVAC guy went on a bit of a rant on Brandon and the EPA. He advised us to keep our AC units until they completely fall apart.
Apparently, some cabal of AC manufacturers fully endorsed the EPA rule because it will force the purchase of many new AC units in tens of thousands of homes (maybe more?) that will use other refrigerants. So cronies/bureaucrats—the usual story.
Repair guy also said he had to get his latest batch of AR-15 ammo from Russia!!
It would be funny if it weren’t so painful.
On the plus side, the house is already nice and cool again.
Isn’t R-600 iso-butane the new refrigerant?
I read somewhere that they’re switching to ammonia and propane. I know no details.
We just put in R-22. Apparently it wholesales somewhere around $50/lb but once the repair guy factors in his fees and all the hoops he has to go through and fees HE has to pay, the retail price gets up there to $125-$150.
At least propane is readily available. Be careful about leaks.
I remember in one of my first chemical engineering thermodynamics classes, we had a homework problem to design a refrigeration system. We were instructed to use propane as the refrigerant, because it is particularly well suited for use as a refrigerant in theory. It has excellent characteristics for heat transfer and phase change temperatures that make it perform very well.
In class, someone asked “why not use propane all the time, then? Why do we use CFCs?”
The answer, of course, was flammability.
Now that we’re headed away from the relatively safe and unreactive CFCs, expect to see more frequent fires and injuries related to refrigeration systems.
Think about another of the most effective refrigerants: anhydrous ammonia. There’s a good reason you don’t find it in household refrigeration systems–blindness used to be a common occupational hazard in household refrigerator repairmen.
What could possibly go wrong?
The EPA’s Supply-Chain Disruption
https://www.wsj.com/articles/epas-supply-chain-obstruction-refrigerants-disposable-cylinders-ban-shortage-worthington-china-11656450871?st=aihtlvt9oztv3fi&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
And thanks for the article it’s an interesting read. I’m not sure if it will work, but as was mentioned above it sure is broke so change is required.
That is infuriating, the bit about the EPA declaring that the legislation granted them inherent authority to make “complementary” rules.
Wouldn’t that come under the last SCOTUS decision?
Shouldn’t the EPA immediately stop making laws?
I almost typed that with a straight face.
That’s a whole other issue. One I don’t know the answer to, except the actually enforce the Constitution and prevent delegation by Congress.
You’re just mad it costs you more now to destroy the earth.
Good news on the repair, both of mine went out in a three month timeframe and needed total replacement.
That hurt, that hurt a lot.
2 years ago I bought 30lb kegs of 134a (automotive) for $120 apiece or 3 or more for $99.99 each. I just bought one 2 weeks ago for $399.99. And they won’t sell me more than 1 per day.
Let’s not forget your license too!
Oi! Do you have a loicense for that loicense?
That reminds me:
When a new parent leaves the hospital will their baby, there is, of course, paperwork. One piece of it is essentially a receipt for the baby (its not called that, well, except by me, but that’s what it is). Years ago, I managed to get a receipt for the receipt into the mix – can’t remember why, but it may have just been mischief.
It’s maddening. I had a leak in my AC that might have been worth repairing, except the R-22 was going to cost about $1000 to replace. OK, fine, it’s a fairly old unit, so I replaced it instead. Only, the refrigerant used by the only models you can reasonably buy right now, R410, is already being phased out, starting next year. Which means any future repair for my brand new AC that involves replacing refrigerant is going to cost a small fortune. And for what? None of it will make one fucking iota of difference to the environment.
For what? To ban Air Conditioning and force you to suffer in the heat for you sins against government.
R410, is already being phased out
Buy some now? I’m going to have to check what ours use, and may stock up.
I am getting my A/C replaced, the kicker is the current unit is only 14 years old. A-coil and condensing unit are both leaking. The unit before that was over 25 years old before it died.
They don’t make them like they used to. The A/C tech mentioned that R410 was being phased out so I asked what was replacing it. He said he didn’t know but he had heard that each manufacturer might have their own proprietary refrigerant.
Awesome.
I have a decades long debate with a friend. It sort of lays out the difference between a libertarian-leaning republican and a libertarian. He thinks the Federalists were right, while I argue the Anti-Federalists were.
Great article, Lack
Thanks slumbrew.
30000 is too large a limit, I propose following Dunbar’s number and requiring at least 1 rep for every 150 people.
Yes, that leads to a US house greater than 2.2MM members.
Only if they are unpaid and have no expense accounts.
I’m down for that.
Thanks for this article, Lackadaisical.
I had read the federalist papers (Even made my son copy them as a punishment for not doing homework), but never looked at the anti-federalist ones.
At that time I thought the Constitution was perfect and didn’t think there was a point to read them.
If I never had read Lysander Spooner, I still might be a Constitutionalist.
I probably would agree more with the anti side now.
Another reading assignment, thanks.
I read them from librivox for free. https://librivox.org/the-anti-federalist-papers-by-patrick-henry/
None of the readers are terrible, and it’s free.
Thanks for the link! And for the article.
Glad to write it, we all have to pitch in to keep our community going. I’ve been slacking off lately.
Thanks, I’ll check that out.
I think there are more pharma lobbyists – c. 650 – than actual Representatives in Congress.
Let that sink in your gender fluid brain.
O/T: Far be it from me to open the abortion can of worms again, but a friend sent me this heartwarming anecdote: https://imgur.com/a/uNqSVtB
*moves the mirror*
SEA SMITH LOVE PUSSY
Deep.
Fantastic article, Lack.
I wasn’t aware of that history.
Looks to me like we’re too fucking big, period. Adding more slime to the swamp might theoretically give more people a voice, but I suspect that it would just make things worse.
Come on Texas, secede already!
July 4, 2023 – Texas secedes from the United States.
July 5, 2023 – Texas invades Mexico.
Why would texas want to add a shitload of socialists to their population?
Wars need not be of conquest. Could be an invasion to kill off the current crop of cartels, reinforce the border, and withdraw north of the Rio Grande.
They might want to keep all the good beaches.
Back in the 90s when Clinton was proposing loaning Mexican a big pile of money, I suggested buying Baja California instead and making it a new state. Just one, we didnt need both North Baja and South Baja.
Combined they are a bit over 4.5 million in population.
Beaches? We don’t need no stinkin beaches!
There’s a pretty damn great amount of natural resources in Mexico. Properly privatized and exploited, the extraction and manufacturing industries they could support would be really impressive. Plus the Yucatan peninsula would be an excellent site for a spaceport, and control over a large portion of the Gulf would allow for easy and secure orbital returns. Plus, it might make a decent anchor point for a space elevator eventually.
Shouldn’t a space elevator be on the equator preferrably?
The highest point on the equator is over 15000 ft in Ecuador.
That give the elevator a 3 mile head start.
I think there’s a mountain there that’s over 18,000 feet. That’d be quite good.
yes, but it’s not impossible, just gets harder the further north or south you go
Elevators are lame.
Trucks are cool.
Lord
Oddity.
We need a place that’s a little cooler to build our vacation homes and Mexico is not as hot as Texas.
Isn’t Mexico already invading Texas?
Spicy!
Spicy!
I expect the discovery to be 10000 pages of redacted documents.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/detroit-man-7-5-million-for-police-misconduct
That’s not enough for those lost 25 years.
So, apparently Ivana Trump was found at the bottom of a staircase. Wonder who long before someone at DU posits that she had “dirt” on Trump and he had her bumped off.