I mean property tax is already rent.
217 karma · joined February 17, 2022
Zoning laws ultimately restrict your property rights as you lose the right to do what you wish with your property. They ought to be abolished to protect property rights.
Most societies did just fine without zoning laws for the entirety of human history.
Note, that I don't approach this from the YIMBY or woke side of things. Rather, as a pretty staunch free market advocate, it is painfully obvious to me that we should not restrict people's rights to do with their property as they see fit.
As an example, I was recently going to buy land to develop into a business. However, zoning laws in this area of the county (in the middle of nowhere mind you) meant I would have to jump through endless permit and red tape. Any so-called supporter of property rights should be livid that this goes on in this country. Buying the land should be enough to give me rights to do what I wish with it. Environmental laws should deal with actual human health hazards, not how much shadow I'm spilling onto a neighboring property or how much view I'm blocking.
A lot of the issues with zoning is people attempting to own that which they don't. You don't own your neighbor's property.
Presumably by some kind of voter identification? Like the way most countries do it.
> The poling place is open on exactly one day, and you have to wait in line for your turn. Have to go to work that day? Well, tough shit. For some people this is simple, but for quite a lot of people in overcrowded polling places and inflexible working conditions it is not. The option of a mail in ballot provides a convenience for people less privileged with the ability to make it to a polling place during a sub-24 hour window.
I guess I don't get it. The polling places open at a ridiculously early hour and end at 8. You could have multi-day polling too, that's fine. I don't understand why this is so hard in this country.
> Notice I said option. If filling out a ballot is difficult for you, you can still do it by showing up in person.
No I can't because I live in Oregon, which despite being a high tax state, is unable to conduct even the most basic election.
> Perfect is the enemy of good.
It's not when we have an easy answer to this problem -- have a physical place to vote. I've voted absentee in California, and one year, my ballot got lost there. Do you know what I did? I went to a polling location. In Oregon, because it was COVID, there was no place to get a ballot. EIther you use the byzantine system set up by the state which was too complicated, or tough shit. That's not acceptable. Why aren't these 'voter suppression' tactics used in liberal states not up to questioning? Why is only the motivations of one party suspect? I don't think it is easier to vote in Oregon than any other state, despite what everyone here wants you to believe.
> Ron DeSantis signed a law banning abortion after 15 weeks "without exemptions for rape, incest or human trafficking.
You are deliberately misrepresenting the law and what I said about it. Your own article says:
> The bill, which goes into effect July 1, does allow exemptions in cases where a pregnancy is "serious risk" to the mother or a fatal fetal abnormality is detected if two physicians confirm the diagnosis in writing.
And Germany has no automatic exception for rape after fifteen weeks. It's up to the government. There is no government involvement in getting abortion approval in Florida. That makes florida more progressive.
In fact, in Germany, abortion is illegal at all stages, just merely decriminalized. So again, Florida et al are more progressive. I don't understand why we have to do this pointless thing where we just pretend America is less libertine than all of Europe. In fact in Germany, their courts have ruled that unborn fetuses are innately entitled to human rights. The only reason abortion is allowed is because the courts have said it's okay for the legislature to not punish this kind of murder (that's what the German courts say it is, not my opinion)
In my experience, non-conservatives tend to believe conservatives are 'regurgitating' Tucker Carlson. Most of Carlson's audience are actually democrats. Polls show that most conservatives distrust fox news. And the whole 'bad faith' thing is a way to dismiss people. You shouldn't every think that what people are telling you is in bad faith. If you think that what someone is telling you is so preposterous as to not possibly be in good faith, perhaps you need to recalibrate as to what is normal.
> And it just so happens that turnout is negatively correlated with republican election victories.
This is increasingly not true. The democrats have kind of maxed out on their voter turnout. It turns out that they mainly have voter turnout efforts for people who will vote democrat. They've ignored the non-democrats (not their fault of course), and these are the bulk of the people who don't vote. Several South Texas districts for example have seen higher turnout amongst formerly non-voting Hispanics, and most of these are new GOP voters.
How anyone could state this with any particular confidence is beyond me. The truth is, when someone votes by mail, you have no idea who filled in the ballot. How could anyone possibly collect metrics? No one can possibly say what's going on, unless you trust the populace at large, which not everyone does. Many countries have systems for dealing with this. In many countries, they ink your finger to indicate you voted. Why not just do that at physical polling stations.
Honestly, mail-in ballots are very difficult for me. They get mailed to you, and by the time I finally have a chance to sit down, I often have to go searching for where it went / whether my toddler put it somewhere. On the other hand, when I voted in person, I would just go to the polling booth in the morning and be done. Super easy. I don't understand the desire for pure vote by mail.
One year, I didn't even receive my ballot, and it was difficult to get a replacement. Whereas, when I lived in CA, it didn't matter. You show up to the polling station (which is conspicuously noted), and just vote.
I mean they have a name for these people: RINOs. I think I read an article that showed that most conservatives distrust their own politicians more than liberals distrust theirs. The feeling I get is that they have a clear idea of a politician they want, but no one who believes that runs, and they feel there is a mass conspiracy to prevent people like them from running -- namely funding. That sort of thing doesn't bode well for a country's stability.
1. Photonics is a new technology. It is more expensive than silicon 2. Silicon can do the compute as fast as photonics, and we understand silicon. Building a silicon chip is 'easy'. 3. The problem is data transport, which silicon cannot do fast enough. We can compute inferences faster than we can get the data
Photonic compute doesn't help with (3). Photonic data transport does, and there are several companies who have entered this market, including several who have already exited with large deals. However, photonic data transport can terminate at photonic compute or silicon compute, and silicon compute is fast enough and cheaper / better understood.
Student debt forgiveness is an incredibly aristocratic idea by which the slowly establishing american aristocracy seeks to tax peasants for their failed lavish lifestyles. It's not 'far left', and it shows just how duplicitous the supposed 'left' in this country has gotten. They're openly advocating for wealth transfers from the poor to the rich, and are attempting to portray themselves as the sole party of empathy, working class sympathies, etc. It's really something to watch from the outside.
While it's true that some republican run states are going this direction. If we look at the original case that will likely lead the SC to overturn Roe v Wade (again, it hasn't even happened yet), would be a European style ban, where abortion is allowed up until 15 weeks (this is a typical European cutoff). I believe the Mississippi law also has exceptions based on maternal health or fetal disability, which in countries like Germany, would actually require government approval in the late second and third trimester [1]. After the Roe v Wade leak, only a few GOP states have attempted to ban abortion outright. Popular GOP governors like Ron Desantis, whose name keeps coming up for 2024, signed a Mississippi style 15-week ban in Florida, instead of a full on ban.
So, while it's certainly true same in the party want a 100% ban, it's also true that the mainstream ones (again, DeSantis is extremely popular, so is a good indicator of 'centrist' republican thought) are not going that direction and instead making our laws more similar to Western European countries.
No fathers cannot marry their children. Nor can mothers. That is illegal in every state I believe.
(1) Leave the company. There are plenty of companies that don't do this. Just keep changing jobs till you find one
(2) Make sure you defensively program to keep yourself out of emergencies. That means doing your work on time, and if you're not consistently capable of that, then waiting before taking on more work.
I'm not saying be a social pariah. Just introspect once in a while and adjust from there.
Behaviors I disagree with include things like flaking on a commitment with friends, forcing your children to do activities they don't want, etc. The effects of drugs are a whole order of magnitude worse, and these effects affect myself, others, and the drug user, in potentially deadly ways. Equating these concerns to simply being things I disagree with is disingenuous.
You know... despite what is commonly claimed, Prohibition worked great. During Prohibition cirrhosis was down, deaths from liver disease were down, and deaths due to drunkeness was down. The only thing not working was people wanted to get drunk.
Given that no one here today has lived in a world where drugs available today are legal, how can we honestly claim that what we're doing is 100% ineffective and merits scrapping it? Few people here in favor of decriminalization are contending with the possibility that the situation we have today is better than what it would be were drugs decriminalized. Since no one's ever seen drugs being decriminalized, I don't understand how this claim is made with such confidence.
And no.. Switzerland and Portugal are not comparable because what is being proposed here (and implemented in states like Oregon) are nothing like those countries.
A rational CEO prefers revenue growth as companies are valued based on revenue, and the CEO's purpose is to maximize per share value.
What does it mean to be 'unspent'? If it's put into bank accounts and banks risk the money on mortgages or something, then it gets spent by proxy, and drives up housing costs as banks seek to create new loans