this is why I personally advocate against making any crimes illegal.
after all. criminals ignore the law anyway. so why criminalize anything?
--
in all seriousness: "I often hear the excuse for not having gun control: in area's where there are more strict rules for owning a gun, there's more gun violence" Not even close to factually accurate. mpercy was kind enough to post a list for us earlier. youll find most of the violence is primarily located in red states/cities, and have less gun control and more gun availability. the few gun control cities you'll find on the list are those where the neighboring suburbs lack said gun control, making the local ordinance almost useless.
if the UK or Germany had the same patchwork of uneven inconsistent gun control, you could expect to find higher numbers over there too. uniformity and consistency in laws helps a great deal in effectiveness.
ah so even you realize that Chicago barely eve makes the list. and also for clearly showing that the cities at the top of the list are primarily located in red states/cities, and have less gun control and more guns. in particular, note the lack of cities with strict gun control.
and these guys maintain a database of gun incidents: so far for 2016 we have:
Total Number of Incidents 23,308 Number of Deaths 5,965 Number of Injuries 12,249 Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured 257 Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured 1,276 Mass Shooting 136 Officer Involved Incident Officer Shot/Killed 146 Officer Involved Incident Perpetrator Shot/Killed 370 Home Invasion 981 Defensive Use 718 Accidental Shooting 1,044
Defensive uses are vastly outnumbered, representing only 3% of the total.
most (2/3) gun deaths are suicides. most sprees aren't in fact in gun free zones. nor are gun free zones chosen for that reason; targets are nearly always chosen because of a specific target or connection at that location. place of employment, significant other, etc.
the downward trend in crime is very long-term and consistent and shows zero correlation to the increase in CCW permits.
what we have instead in this country, on both state-by-state basis, as well as a metro-area basis, is very clear correlations between gun prevalence and gun deaths. and it's summed up thus: more guns = more deaths.
this trend also is clearly shown at the national levels as well, as of all western nations the US has by far the most gun deaths of any nation not currently engaged in an active conflict.
as for permit carriers actually stopping crimes, for every gun used in self defense, 34 people die. and yes, the FBI and CDC has statistics.
In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.
Or, look at it this way. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings.
There are, of course, plenty of solid arguments for robust 2nd Amendment protections. Millions of people use guns for sport and recreation every day. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, not criminals.
But, though some people certainly use guns for self-defense, the data suggest that overall, guns are used far more often for killing than self-defense. As a result, it may be worth thinking twice about arguments for more guns in schools, churches and other public places.
Don't like those statistics? Then lobby Congress to remove the ban on funding for actual dedicated research of gun violence.
After all, what have you got to lose? If you're right and the current statistics are completely wrong, then actual dedicated statistics research and collection should prove that.
That is woefully ignorant thing to say. Ignorance is what is toxic. Liberals and progressives don't believe in the power of the state.
The power of the state can originate in many places. In western liberal political theory that place is the people, ie, the consent of the governed. That is then represented though democracy, either direct or representative.
the power of the state can also originate in a belief in divine right of a special family. we call those monarchies. some places believe in the power of god (or other religion) empowers some religious leader. those are theocracies. or in the power of the military. we call those military dictatorships.
Liberals and progressives believe that all political power and authority, ie "the state", originates in the people, the governed, not the state itself, nor do we worship it.
Question is: where do you believe it originates? Since you seem to have a problem with a basic tenet of western liberalism.
Are you one of those conservatives who is tired of the military being limited by civilian oversight? Maybe a military junta is more to your liking then.
Or perhaps you think the people have limited religion too much, and a theocracy would be more to your liking?
Or there's always merry old England, if a King/Queen is more your thing.
Some places already use proportional voting. I want to say Delware? And I know there is a push in Maine for it.
IIRC FPTP is used simply because the other concepts hadn't really developed as yet. Voting was a simple concept back then and so no one had really given thought to potential short comings when done on a progressively grander scale, especially as the growth this country has seen wasn't really anticipated. Also, most of the founder's were generally opposed to the idea of political parties, even though they couldn't help themselves from coalescing into them themselves.
The method of Congressional elections is determined by each state for its delegation, though the Constitution does provide for the Congress changing the rules there.
But the Presidential election is laid out by the constitution as being determined by the result of the elector college, which is clearly laid by the constitution. It then states the electors in the electoral college can be chosen by each state in a method of their choosing. most simply hold an election, which we generally think of as voting for prez, but really we're selecting delegates to the elector college. and most states do require the delegates to the electoral college to vote as directed in the "general" election, though some (Nebraska) split their delegate votes proportionally (still voting as directed, just not "winner take all").
So for Congress, no constitutional fix needed. For President, yes constitutional change would be needed.
For individual state level and city level elections, it depends on state constitutions and city charters.
To my mind, the easiest way of course would be a constitutional amendment eliminating FPTP, but I'm not sure extending it beyond the federal level would fly everywhere (I'd support that though).
But the court has been wrong before. And i believe its wrong this time. They key is in how they frame their decision, and in turn how you frame the question before the court.
Hopefully next time (and hopefully its soon) its framed properly so that the court has no choice but to kill civil forfeiture. Oftentimes we lay people can easily see the right and wrong of a thing. But because the court couches (or pretends to) everything in legal concepts, it doesn't always present the "common sense" viewpoint.
As long as we use a FPTP voting system, hold closed primaries, and have dozens of other factors that all cause a natural digression into what we call the two party system: thirty votes will be a wasted vote.
the only way 3rd parties ever have a shot in this system is when the main two are so disliked (legitimately or not) that everyone floods to the 3rd party. this year may be the closest third parties ever get to having a real shot, but the simple truth is we don't actually have a viable 3rd party. Greens are just more liberal democrats, and only ever attract liberal votes who were going to vote democrat anyway. Libertarians are just conservatives with another name, who happen to like pot and (mostly) not care about gay people. The only vote they ever attract are republicans.
there is no true viable 3rd party with a clear centrist platform, because the main parties are both "big tents" who are built upon appealing both to the middle and their particular sides.
we don't have a system that really allows multiple parties in the way other nations have multiple parties. over there parties tend to coalesce around a handful of issues. as such parties are much more focused. we don't have that, and as long we have FPTP voting, we wont.
the closest we have to a centrist party is the democrats (judged by outside looking in), but because internally we are such a conservative nation they aren't seen as centrist, and anyone further left is in a very small minority. this is gradually changing as the GOP becomes ever more extreme. following the eventual marginalization of the GOP, the democratic party will also implode as it will no longer be able to contain all its factions. but at some point it will happen as society lurches back to the left after the rightward tack of the 80s.
then you might get your viable third parties again as we had for a period in the 1800s. but it will be just as shortlived as those parties were if we still maintain our FPTP voting system. if you want them to survive and thrive, our FPTP voting system is going to need replaced with one more conducive to multiple parties, rather than one that naturally encourages people to form two large parties.
its because the ones always threatening revolt and succession, are the same ones who worship at the altar of the police and are convinced they can do no wrong.
Are we talking discretionary, nondiscretionary, or total budget?
In discretionary spending (the part they argue over every year) military is ~57%, and yes social stuff is ~5%.
But then most social program spending isn't discretionary, its non-discretionary, ie, already mandated by law.
The total federal spending is thus: Military (discretionary): 20% Non military (discretionary): 20% Social Security: 20% Medicare/Medicaid: 20% Net Interest: 7% Other mandatory spending: 13%
Now I agree, military spending could be reduced. But we do gotta make it clear which spending we're talking about, or else people just talk past enough with their talking points and everyone is correct, cause no one is talking about the same thing. Case in point: 20% of total federal spending is military (which is considered discretionary), and 40% of total federal spending is Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.
But then for added fun, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are funded through their own mechanisms and never comes out of the general budget, and so are never part of the yearly budget arguments. Those arguments strictly cover the spending of the revenue raised from the "regular taxes" as opposed to the FICA lines of our paychecks.
More fun: Veterans benefits likewise are not considered discretionary spending, but fall under that "other mandatory" spending category, being entitlements earned. So does actual welfare spending (TANF, the replacement Clinton replaced actual welfare with), being mandated by law at 16.5billion per year (unchanged since 1996) and distributed among the states. Food stamps are discretionary, being appropriated every year.
Like said, I agree with reducing military spending, and upping social spending. But the whole thing is convoluted, and its important to talk using clear reference points.
Perry seized the moment, basically insisting that blind 4-year-olds should be legally permitted to drive without any sort of government imprimatur
as he insisted that 5-year-old children should have the legal right to inject heroin without adult supervision.
The first of these put his cellphone on the lectern, played a song into the microphone, and stripped down to his underwear, shaking rolls of fat in some sort of demented burlesque.
When I pulled this guy aside and asked why he favored McAfee, he began, “My main concern is interstate commerce legislation,” launching a runon sentence that somehow ended, after several minutes and some really surprising detours, with an avowal that “humans will be displaced by A.I. the same way we displaced the whales and the rhinoceroses, and so it’s important to remember that bigotry is better than slavery.”
The ISP shill is back. And just as ignorant as ever
But in capitalism, no actor threatens violence.
You should probably acquaint yourself with the history of the banana republics and other interesting bits of history where they did exactly that, or else got the government (ours and the local ones) to exert the violence for them.
There is no ignorance like the ignorance of a libertarian with an internet connection.
in creating a just and equitable society there is no requirement to tolerate the views of racists (ie intolerance) as the views of those people are explicitly inimical to said just and equitable society.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper
except you didn't pay for it. in very few residential neighborhoods were the roads paid for by the public.
the developer put the roads in when they made the subdivision. they then sell lots, which don't include a piece of the road, to buyers and include a portion of the road construction costs. the road itself is then signed over to the municipality (or sometimes to the HOA, making it a private road) for common access. maintenance for the road may come from the HOA fees, the municipality, or (quite often) from a "special tax district" that takes a portion of your property taxes and uses them for your neighborhood roads only.
point is: you don't know what you're talking about.
this also wouldn't be the first time technology increased the scale of something from inconsequential to undesirable. in this case, from a handful of people who know a shortcut, to hundreds of people turning a residential road into a thoroughfare.
they probably had to redo the entire road bed in those cases. the recycling/resurfacing machines only get used when the underlying layers are still suitable for use.
we have resurfacing machines in the US too. very common actually, but only usable when the existing road is still in sufficient condition that recycling it makes sense. IE, the rock aggregate is still in good shape as well as present (if the top layers are missing or excessively pitted, then you need to add more material, but it needs to be similar in classification to the existing aggregate, or else it will introduce weak points in the resulting surface, quickly leading to new cracks and potholes). the existing road bed (underlying layers beneath the driving surface) also need to be in good shape. if its not you still need to pull everything up and put down a new foundation.
the system I typically saw in use was a 3 vehicle design for asphalt resurfacing. front one scrapes up the old surface, deposits in #2. #2 lightly grinds and washes the aggregate to remove and clean the old binder from the rock (otherwise the new asphalt wont stick very well to it), dump it into #3. #3 is typically your normal in place mobile asphalt layer (as opposed to asphalt mixed elsewhere and trucked in while still hot), mixing binder and freshly cleaned rock, cooking it, and laying it down. there's usually a 4th vehicle in the procession as well, but it's independent of the 3 machines working together, being just a generic steamroller following behind to press it down and ensure smooth and level.
using this system I saw several mile stretches of interstate through Atlanta be resurfaced in a single night, one lane per night. very economical (dont need to to bring in truckloads of material other than the asphalt binder itself) and quick, and because it's asphalt it's drivable in time for rush hour next morning.
they may not be private roads, but they also were not intended or designed as public thoroughfares. these kind of streets typically have cars parked on one or both sides, as well the chance of children playing. residential streets are not intended for this kind of usage. this kind of usage is exceeding a design that was intended solely for getting local residents from their home to the actual main road.
But Trump’s racism exists solely in the minds of his opponents. He has proposed no racist policies and he has no racist acts in his past.
Just completely wrong.
Literally no one – ever – has believed all Mexicans are rapists. If you think Trump believes it – or wants us to believe it – you have abandoned any hold on reason. But we agree that Trump says outrageous things, because doing so gets him elected, apparently.
No one believes it...trump doesn't believe it...but somehow it helps him get elected? by who? and that's ok then?
And keep in mind that Islam – as commonly practiced in Muslim countries around the world – is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States.
No.
Trump also suggested creating a government list of which residents of the country are Muslim. That’s some scary shit. Untilyou realize the government already has that list. You know they do, right?
Well that makes it ok then...?
Trump famously suggested we use torture to fight terrorism. Torture is not legal. And he suggested going after the families of terrorists. That’s a war crime too. Did he mean any of that?
Again, Adam's suggests that it's ok because "he doesn't really mean it".
Trump is less likely to play that game because he doesn’t need their money. That makes Trump the lower risk of starting a war. He has no profit motive.
a) Adams must have missed how he's now taking their money b) Trump the "puncher" who self-describes himself as having to respond to any and all attacks, will calmly take it on the chin from other countries? c) Adams think that the only motive here is profit, in describing a man who's main motivation is self-promotion and power?
-- His entire screed is essentially "he doesn't really mean it, and that makes it ok, even though it's what makes people like him, and will get him elected". And what happens when those people who elected trump for saying those things, expect him to actually do it?
I also like the part where he implies that we can't trust Hillary because she's old and takes meds that might change her mood (as well as, sexistly, including wine), which calls into question her decision making skills. While completely ignoring that Trump is older, and just as likely to take regular meds and consume alcohol, but somehow magically wont be affected by it.
Like I said: I no longer think the words insightful and intelligent apply to Scott Adams.
Slashdot Mirror
this is why I personally advocate against making any crimes illegal.
after all.
criminals ignore the law anyway.
so why criminalize anything?
--
in all seriousness: "I often hear the excuse for not having gun control: in area's where there are more strict rules for owning a gun, there's more gun violence"
Not even close to factually accurate. mpercy was kind enough to post a list for us earlier. youll find most of the violence is primarily located in red states/cities, and have less gun control and more gun availability. the few gun control cities you'll find on the list are those where the neighboring suburbs lack said gun control, making the local ordinance almost useless.
if the UK or Germany had the same patchwork of uneven inconsistent gun control, you could expect to find higher numbers over there too.
uniformity and consistency in laws helps a great deal in effectiveness.
ah so even you realize that Chicago barely eve makes the list.
and also for clearly showing that the cities at the top of the list are primarily located in red states/cities, and have less gun control and more guns.
in particular, note the lack of cities with strict gun control.
Impossible to prove?
Not really.
statistics bear it out.
Number of mass shootings in France last year: 1
Number of mass shooting in the US in just the past 6 months: 136
Gun control may not prevent 100% of shootings, indeed few things are 100% effective.
But >99% is still pretty damn good.
and these guys maintain a database of gun incidents: so far for 2016 we have:
Total Number of Incidents 23,308
Number of Deaths 5,965
Number of Injuries 12,249
Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured 257
Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured 1,276
Mass Shooting 136
Officer Involved Incident Officer Shot/Killed 146
Officer Involved Incident Perpetrator Shot/Killed 370
Home Invasion 981
Defensive Use 718
Accidental Shooting 1,044
Defensive uses are vastly outnumbered, representing only 3% of the total.
most (2/3) gun deaths are suicides.
most sprees aren't in fact in gun free zones.
nor are gun free zones chosen for that reason; targets are nearly always chosen because of a specific target or connection at that location. place of employment, significant other, etc.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
the downward trend in crime is very long-term and consistent and shows zero correlation to the increase in CCW permits.
what we have instead in this country, on both state-by-state basis, as well as a metro-area basis, is very clear correlations between gun prevalence and gun deaths. and it's summed up thus: more guns = more deaths.
this trend also is clearly shown at the national levels as well, as of all western nations the US has by far the most gun deaths of any nation not currently engaged in an active conflict.
as for permit carriers actually stopping crimes, for every gun used in self defense, 34 people die.
and yes, the FBI and CDC has statistics.
In 2012, there were 8,855 criminal gun homicides in the FBI's homicide database, but only 258 gun killings by private citizens that were deemed justifiable, which the FBI defines as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
That works out to one justifiable gun death for every 34 unjustifiable gun deaths.
Or, look at it this way. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data shows that in 2012 there were 20,666 suicides by gun. That works out to one self-defense killing for every 78 gun suicides. CDC data show that there were more than twice as many accidental gun fatalities as as justifiable killings.
There are, of course, plenty of solid arguments for robust 2nd Amendment protections. Millions of people use guns for sport and recreation every day. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens, not criminals.
But, though some people certainly use guns for self-defense, the data suggest that overall, guns are used far more often for killing than self-defense. As a result, it may be worth thinking twice about arguments for more guns in schools, churches and other public places.
Don't like those statistics?
Then lobby Congress to remove the ban on funding for actual dedicated research of gun violence.
After all, what have you got to lose?
If you're right and the current statistics are completely wrong, then actual dedicated statistics research and collection should prove that.
That is woefully ignorant thing to say.
Ignorance is what is toxic.
Liberals and progressives don't believe in the power of the state.
The power of the state can originate in many places.
In western liberal political theory that place is the people, ie, the consent of the governed.
That is then represented though democracy, either direct or representative.
the power of the state can also originate in a belief in divine right of a special family. we call those monarchies.
some places believe in the power of god (or other religion) empowers some religious leader. those are theocracies.
or in the power of the military. we call those military dictatorships.
Liberals and progressives believe that all political power and authority, ie "the state", originates in the people, the governed, not the state itself, nor do we worship it.
Question is: where do you believe it originates?
Since you seem to have a problem with a basic tenet of western liberalism.
Are you one of those conservatives who is tired of the military being limited by civilian oversight?
Maybe a military junta is more to your liking then.
Or perhaps you think the people have limited religion too much, and a theocracy would be more to your liking?
Or there's always merry old England, if a King/Queen is more your thing.
Not really.
Some places already use proportional voting.
I want to say Delware? And I know there is a push in Maine for it.
IIRC FPTP is used simply because the other concepts hadn't really developed as yet. Voting was a simple concept back then and so no one had really given thought to potential short comings when done on a progressively grander scale, especially as the growth this country has seen wasn't really anticipated. Also, most of the founder's were generally opposed to the idea of political parties, even though they couldn't help themselves from coalescing into them themselves.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibi...
The method of Congressional elections is determined by each state for its delegation, though the Constitution does provide for the Congress changing the rules there.
But the Presidential election is laid out by the constitution as being determined by the result of the elector college, which is clearly laid by the constitution. It then states the electors in the electoral college can be chosen by each state in a method of their choosing. most simply hold an election, which we generally think of as voting for prez, but really we're selecting delegates to the elector college. and most states do require the delegates to the electoral college to vote as directed in the "general" election, though some (Nebraska) split their delegate votes proportionally (still voting as directed, just not "winner take all").
So for Congress, no constitutional fix needed.
For President, yes constitutional change would be needed.
For individual state level and city level elections, it depends on state constitutions and city charters.
To my mind, the easiest way of course would be a constitutional amendment eliminating FPTP, but I'm not sure extending it beyond the federal level would fly everywhere (I'd support that though).
But the court has been wrong before.
And i believe its wrong this time.
They key is in how they frame their decision, and in turn how you frame the question before the court.
Hopefully next time (and hopefully its soon) its framed properly so that the court has no choice but to kill civil forfeiture.
Oftentimes we lay people can easily see the right and wrong of a thing.
But because the court couches (or pretends to) everything in legal concepts, it doesn't always present the "common sense" viewpoint.
As long as we use a FPTP voting system, hold closed primaries, and have dozens of other factors that all cause a natural digression into what we call the two party system: thirty votes will be a wasted vote.
the only way 3rd parties ever have a shot in this system is when the main two are so disliked (legitimately or not) that everyone floods to the 3rd party. this year may be the closest third parties ever get to having a real shot, but the simple truth is we don't actually have a viable 3rd party. Greens are just more liberal democrats, and only ever attract liberal votes who were going to vote democrat anyway. Libertarians are just conservatives with another name, who happen to like pot and (mostly) not care about gay people. The only vote they ever attract are republicans.
there is no true viable 3rd party with a clear centrist platform, because the main parties are both "big tents" who are built upon appealing both to the middle and their particular sides.
we don't have a system that really allows multiple parties in the way other nations have multiple parties. over there parties tend to coalesce around a handful of issues. as such parties are much more focused. we don't have that, and as long we have FPTP voting, we wont.
the closest we have to a centrist party is the democrats (judged by outside looking in), but because internally we are such a conservative nation they aren't seen as centrist, and anyone further left is in a very small minority. this is gradually changing as the GOP becomes ever more extreme. following the eventual marginalization of the GOP, the democratic party will also implode as it will no longer be able to contain all its factions. but at some point it will happen as society lurches back to the left after the rightward tack of the 80s.
then you might get your viable third parties again as we had for a period in the 1800s. but it will be just as shortlived as those parties were if we still maintain our FPTP voting system. if you want them to survive and thrive, our FPTP voting system is going to need replaced with one more conducive to multiple parties, rather than one that naturally encourages people to form two large parties.
its because the ones always threatening revolt and succession, are the same ones who worship at the altar of the police and are convinced they can do no wrong.
Are we talking discretionary, nondiscretionary, or total budget?
In discretionary spending (the part they argue over every year) military is ~57%, and yes social stuff is ~5%.
But then most social program spending isn't discretionary, its non-discretionary, ie, already mandated by law.
The total federal spending is thus:
Military (discretionary): 20%
Non military (discretionary): 20%
Social Security: 20%
Medicare/Medicaid: 20%
Net Interest: 7%
Other mandatory spending: 13%
Now I agree, military spending could be reduced. But we do gotta make it clear which spending we're talking about, or else people just talk past enough with their talking points and everyone is correct, cause no one is talking about the same thing. Case in point: 20% of total federal spending is military (which is considered discretionary), and 40% of total federal spending is Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.
But then for added fun, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are funded through their own mechanisms and never comes out of the general budget, and so are never part of the yearly budget arguments. Those arguments strictly cover the spending of the revenue raised from the "regular taxes" as opposed to the FICA lines of our paychecks.
More fun: Veterans benefits likewise are not considered discretionary spending, but fall under that "other mandatory" spending category, being entitlements earned. So does actual welfare spending (TANF, the replacement Clinton replaced actual welfare with), being mandated by law at 16.5billion per year (unchanged since 1996) and distributed among the states. Food stamps are discretionary, being appropriated every year.
Like said, I agree with reducing military spending, and upping social spending.
But the whole thing is convoluted, and its important to talk using clear reference points.
Another deeply Conservative Red State, putting the Constitution first.
The Internet has flourished despite the US's "protection".
FTFY
bingo.
when the rich wage war it's the poor who die.
Libertarianism needs no help making itself look bad.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Perry seized the moment, basically insisting that blind 4-year-olds should be legally permitted to drive without any sort of government imprimatur
as he insisted that 5-year-old children should have the legal right to inject heroin without adult supervision.
The first of these put his cellphone on the lectern, played a song into the microphone, and stripped down to his underwear, shaking rolls of fat in some sort of demented burlesque.
When I pulled this guy aside and asked why he favored McAfee, he began, “My main concern is interstate commerce legislation,” launching a runon sentence that somehow ended, after several minutes and some really surprising detours, with an avowal that “humans will be displaced by A.I. the same way we displaced the whales and the rhinoceroses, and so it’s important to remember that bigotry is better than slavery.”
The ISP shill is back.
And just as ignorant as ever
But in capitalism, no actor threatens violence.
You should probably acquaint yourself with the history of the banana republics and other interesting bits of history where they did exactly that, or else got the government (ours and the local ones) to exert the violence for them.
There is no ignorance like the ignorance of a libertarian with an internet connection.
in creating a just and equitable society there is no requirement to tolerate the views of racists (ie intolerance) as the views of those people are explicitly inimical to said just and equitable society.
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper
except you didn't pay for it.
in very few residential neighborhoods were the roads paid for by the public.
the developer put the roads in when they made the subdivision.
they then sell lots, which don't include a piece of the road, to buyers and include a portion of the road construction costs.
the road itself is then signed over to the municipality (or sometimes to the HOA, making it a private road) for common access.
maintenance for the road may come from the HOA fees, the municipality, or (quite often) from a "special tax district" that takes a portion of your property taxes and uses them for your neighborhood roads only.
point is: you don't know what you're talking about.
this also wouldn't be the first time technology increased the scale of something from inconsequential to undesirable.
in this case, from a handful of people who know a shortcut, to hundreds of people turning a residential road into a thoroughfare.
they probably had to redo the entire road bed in those cases.
the recycling/resurfacing machines only get used when the underlying layers are still suitable for use.
we have resurfacing machines in the US too. very common actually, but only usable when the existing road is still in sufficient condition that recycling it makes sense. IE, the rock aggregate is still in good shape as well as present (if the top layers are missing or excessively pitted, then you need to add more material, but it needs to be similar in classification to the existing aggregate, or else it will introduce weak points in the resulting surface, quickly leading to new cracks and potholes). the existing road bed (underlying layers beneath the driving surface) also need to be in good shape. if its not you still need to pull everything up and put down a new foundation.
the system I typically saw in use was a 3 vehicle design for asphalt resurfacing. front one scrapes up the old surface, deposits in #2. #2 lightly grinds and washes the aggregate to remove and clean the old binder from the rock (otherwise the new asphalt wont stick very well to it), dump it into #3. #3 is typically your normal in place mobile asphalt layer (as opposed to asphalt mixed elsewhere and trucked in while still hot), mixing binder and freshly cleaned rock, cooking it, and laying it down. there's usually a 4th vehicle in the procession as well, but it's independent of the 3 machines working together, being just a generic steamroller following behind to press it down and ensure smooth and level.
using this system I saw several mile stretches of interstate through Atlanta be resurfaced in a single night, one lane per night. very economical (dont need to to bring in truckloads of material other than the asphalt binder itself) and quick, and because it's asphalt it's drivable in time for rush hour next morning.
they may not be private roads, but they also were not intended or designed as public thoroughfares.
these kind of streets typically have cars parked on one or both sides, as well the chance of children playing.
residential streets are not intended for this kind of usage.
this kind of usage is exceeding a design that was intended solely for getting local residents from their home to the actual main road.
From Scott Adam's post:
But Trump’s racism exists solely in the minds of his opponents. He has proposed no racist policies and he has no racist acts in his past.
Just completely wrong.
Literally no one – ever – has believed all Mexicans are rapists. If you think Trump believes it – or wants us to believe it – you have abandoned any hold on reason. But we agree that Trump says outrageous things, because doing so gets him elected, apparently.
No one believes it...trump doesn't believe it...but somehow it helps him get elected? by who? and that's ok then?
And keep in mind that Islam – as commonly practiced in Muslim countries around the world – is not compatible with the Constitution of the United States.
No.
Trump also suggested creating a government list of which residents of the country are Muslim. That’s some scary shit. Untilyou realize the government already has that list. You know they do, right?
Well that makes it ok then...?
Trump famously suggested we use torture to fight terrorism. Torture is not legal. And he suggested going after the families of terrorists. That’s a war crime too. Did he mean any of that?
Again, Adam's suggests that it's ok because "he doesn't really mean it".
Trump is less likely to play that game because he doesn’t need their money. That makes Trump the lower risk of starting a war. He has no profit motive.
a) Adams must have missed how he's now taking their money
b) Trump the "puncher" who self-describes himself as having to respond to any and all attacks, will calmly take it on the chin from other countries?
c) Adams think that the only motive here is profit, in describing a man who's main motivation is self-promotion and power?
--
His entire screed is essentially "he doesn't really mean it, and that makes it ok, even though it's what makes people like him, and will get him elected".
And what happens when those people who elected trump for saying those things, expect him to actually do it?
I also like the part where he implies that we can't trust Hillary because she's old and takes meds that might change her mood (as well as, sexistly, including wine), which calls into question her decision making skills. While completely ignoring that Trump is older, and just as likely to take regular meds and consume alcohol, but somehow magically wont be affected by it.
Like I said: I no longer think the words insightful and intelligent apply to Scott Adams.