[ExI] Gödel's Loophole

[Jason Resch]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2026, 12:54 PM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:

>
> ...
> > Amending Article 5 requires not just control of Congress but control of
> the legislatures of 75% of the states.
> >
> > However, adding new states requires only majority control of Congress
> and the president. A corrupt Congress that lacked control of 75% of the
> states could pass a bill that creates 150 new "dummy states" under the
> control of the corrupt Congress and then they can thwart the Article 5
> requirement for consent of the States.
> >
> > So Godel likely also recognized the flaw in Article 5...
> >
> > Jason
>
>
>
> Ja.  The obvious question Jason is that if this is a real vulnerability,
> why didn't it happen?  A Constitutional Convention under article V must
> meet the 75% of states criterion, which has never happened and will not.


Arguably a lighter version of it has happened.

The AI also told me that Lincoln rushed through the making of Nevada into a
state, at a time when it's population was just 20,000 transient miners. He
did this to secure the passage of a constitutional amendment.


  Three quarters of state legislatures cannot agree on the color of snow.
>
> Here's a fun aside for Californian among us.  Back in the olden days, when
> the electronics jobs were coming in the SF Bay area, a new and highly
> profitable industry was driving real estate costs above the point were
> ordinary people could afford to pay real estate taxes.  In 1978, a popular
> governor Jerry Brown (also known as Mr. Linda Ronstadt) influenced the
> legislature to pass Prop 13, which limited property tax to 1% of the sales
> price of the property, with a modest maximum increase after that (it takes
> about 35 years for the tax bill on a property to double, regardless of the
> value of the property, which typically goes up by about a factor of 5 in
> that time span (or more (in some fortunate cases much more.)))
>
> Recognizing the risk that greedy future legislators would try to undo that
> provision in order to collect more tax, Prop 13 was encoded into the
> California constitution, requiring a 2/3 vote of legislators to change the
> property tax structure.  Even in a single-party dominated legislation, 2/3
> of the legislators will not agree on the color of snow there either.  The
> modest property tax rate, originally designed to help long-time homeowners
> has become an onerous impediment to the California state government, which
> has made repeated efforts to repeal or modify it, efforts which show up on
> nearly every ballot.
>
> I can pass along my tax structure to the next generation.  This is the
> aspect of Prop 13 which has come under the most heavy direct fire, for it
> was originally designed to protect agricultural property, which no longer
> exists in the area, but applies to residential property as well.  This has
> resulted in people inheriting homes worth 2 million dollars or more, while
> they get by on minimum wage.  I know of several local examples.  One of my
> neighbors is single.  She lives in an inherited home she grew up in, whose
> value is over 50 years of her gross salary.
>
> The most intense effort in the kill-Prop13 industry is a repeal of the 2/3
> vote requirement.  However, repealing that requirement requires a 2/3 vote
> as well (by design.)  Repealing the 2/3 requirement to repeal the 2/3
> requirement also requires a 2/3 vote (and so on (by careful design (thanks
> Governor Ronstadt.)))  Result: in spite of persistent efforts by the
> California legislature, Prop 13 is alive and well.  The kill-P13 industry
> appears to be in decline.  We will be celebrating (many cursing) the 50th
> anniversary of that brilliant legislation in less than two years.
>
> Prop 13 has its consequences.  Homeowners can get helplessly trapped in
> their original homes which they bought when they were young and poor.  My
> neighbor's house is the same model on the same size lot in similar
> condition to mine.  He bought it about a year ago, whereas I have been
> helplessly trapped in mine for 32 years.  His property tax bill is more
> than triple mine, almost closer to a factor of 4.  I can't move, not if I
> want to stay in the area (I do (there are many advantages to life in the
> fast lane (even after one is retired (lotsa cool stuff happens around
> here.))))  I can't leave this house: my property tax bill would go up too
> much.
>

The law of unintended consequences... Who could have guessed a simple cap
on tax increases could lead to this situation?

Jason



> The consequences are many, and most of them are good.  If people are
> trapped in their own homes by Prop 13, if they prosper (as many locals do)
> they are more likely to improve the homes they live in, rather than move to
> a nicer area.  Result: the area they live in becomes a nicer area.  Rich
> people move in (from India (rich people!  (from India!  (we always heard
> that India was poor (all the local rich people are Indian (they have really
> nice houses (and they carry the state with their property taxes.)))))))
> Second consequence: affordable housing shortage.
>
> The existing limited local housing is already occupied by rich people
> (from India (which has a lot of people (which implies a lot of rich
> people.)))  This isn't going to change.  Result: locals who grow up here
> cannot afford homes in their own neighborhoods.  Result: our second most
> valuable local export (behind electric cars) is well-educated children.  It
> will likely get worse.  Prop 13 converted the area to a retirement
> community for geezers who stayed put, then used their resources to doll up
> existing homes rather than move.  Result: a lot of ordinary homes have
> really nice stuff in them.  Well OK then.  It's all good.
>
> spike
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260618/c350e70c/attachment.htm>