It's not that strange when you consider who the likely major party candidates are, and how the winner-take-all system directly resulted in Trump's success.
I think the OP was referring to the fact that the DNC and GOP make it really hard for other parties to gain a foothold or even be on the ballot in some states.
Oh, I wasn't trying to argue whether healthcare and welfare were good or bad, but whether you can call them "freedoms".
The EU rules do a pretty good job on this. The US has some good rules, but they get violated all the time and the highly litigious natures of the US does more to suppress free speech in the US than actual criminal laws do in either place.
I'm going to have to partially disagree with you on this; I don't think hate speech laws are a good thing, as they're far too easily abused by those in power. I will agree that litigation does have a chilling effect on free speech, although I'm not sure it's worse than the criminal laws.
The US certainly does have its fair share of stupid laws, but enforcement of those can sometimes be lax - which, admittedly, doesn't make up for the laws existing in the first place. I'm not sure what the jaywalking laws are in the UK, but enforcement varies drastically across the US. On the East Coast in particular, they really aren't applied; I've jaywalked with cops sitting right there before and nobody cared. I've heard the West Coast tends to enforce those quite a bit more; on the other hand, you can lose your driver's license in Germany for doing that, so at least it's not uniquely American. Alcohol laws are somewhat influenced by state; the drinking age is certainly too high though.
All the goose-stepping, WWII collecting Americans must be loving this thread....
If you only believe in freedom for people you agree with, you don't believe in freedom.
In the UK, at least, you can use "reasonable force" to defend yourself. But it's true, I can't use disproportionate force, like shooting someone dead for wanting to steal my TV.
In the US, you can't shoot someone dead for *wanting* to steal your TV; in some states, you can shoot them if they *try* to steal your TV. Do you think you shouldn't be allowed to defend your possessions at all, or what would "proportionate" force look like to you? In the UK, in many cases you aren't allowed to carry anything that would actually help you defend yourself. I'm not even talking about guns; effective pepper spray and knives are banned in many areas.
That really depends on how you rank different aspects of freedom, and whether you consider so-called "positive freedoms" (healthcare, welfare, etc.) to actually be freedoms. It also depends on whether you are on the side of freedom of speech or on freedom from hate speech - depending on which ideological side you fall on, those will give quite different results.
Is this a geographic average (were they testing areas in the middle of nowhere) or a population average? That'll probably make quite a bit of difference.
Fair enough, there's no point in trying to have a discussion one of us doesn't want to have.
I'd argue that zoning laws are one of the reasons American cities tend to be so spread out, and why Americans need to drive so much. They may be a valid tool sometimes, but like anything else, they are often overused. More to the point, I'd argue that you can't enforce a "no skyscrapers" rule even when lots of people are moving to your city and then complain when housing costs skyrocket.
There are a lot of aspects to it; mainly, height limits in most of the city, the ability of people in neighborhoods to prevent or significantly delay construction near them, rent control, and lengthy, extremely convoluted permit requirements make it really hard to build anything new. There's a lot of concern over displacing existing residents - okay, fine, whatever - and a lot of anger about gentrification. SF lets people file environmental objections to proposed new buildings, and those can take a long time to resolve as well. Requirements to add in below market-rate housing in new buildings mean that the rest of the units in those buildings will be more expensive (or require extensive taxpayer support), which helps to price out the middle class. There's more detail in the article - I know it's long - but basically there's a whole lot of bureaucracy and NIMBY protectionism going on.
I think it's reasonable to want to live in a city without skyscrapers, sure. I'm not sure it's reasonable to prevent skyscrapers from being built, especially if it's to solve a severe housing problem. I think if you want to live in a city of single family houses, that's totally fine, but it's up to you to find one you like. I don't think you can try to force a city - especially one undergoing significant economic and population growth - to stay the way it is forever.
Interesting perspective. Why is that fundamentally a healthy thing?
Well, that was certainly part of the article. The major part was focusing on why housing is so scarce when there is economic pressure for it not to be.
It arguably is an objective sign; there is a shortage of legal weed in most states, since demand for legal weed is far higher than supply.
A better way to increase supply in the real estate market is to just change the rules regarding construction; see here for a more thorough explanation.
Airbnb is just letting people capitalize on SF's own mistakes with its real estate market. See this article for a pretty good explanation of how badly SF fucked up. Getting rid of Airbnb wouldn't help all that much, the system is screwed up too much already.
"The minute you take your feet on a public sidewalk you must follow whatever rules the government has imposed for granting you the privilege of using your feet on a public sidewalk or the government can suspend or revoke your license to use your feet on a public sidewalk".
See how your argument fails there? The government cannot impose "whatever rules" it wishes; it can't prevent you from exercising your free speech while driving, they can't make you waive your Fifth Amendment rights while driving, etc.
Because there's no appeal process for the "No Fly" list, primarily. It would need to be reformed such that due process is actually a possibility before I'd support it at all, let alone expanding it to deprive people of anything else.
You dramatically missed the point. They're saying that, distance otherwise being equal (which is reasonable for estimating car maintenance), you want to go that distance in as short a time as possible, as long as it's being used to make money.
I have, actually; either your gun needed some maintenance or you had a bad model. One person per minute would not be hard, especially if we're talking about a scenario like the Orlando shooting where you're in a club and nobody will really be all that far away.
I don't, personally. But you followed up your claim of an ad hominem by saying "Liberal Detected". I was just continuing your logic, under the assumption you were using it as an insult. Apparently, that was wrong. Oh well.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that strange when you consider who the likely major party candidates are, and how the winner-take-all system directly resulted in Trump's success.
I think the OP was referring to the fact that the DNC and GOP make it really hard for other parties to gain a foothold or even be on the ballot in some states.
There are more useful things to do than post on /., but you went and did it anyway.
Stipidity indeed.
The EU rules do a pretty good job on this. The US has some good rules, but they get violated all the time and the highly litigious natures of the US does more to suppress free speech in the US than actual criminal laws do in either place.
I'm going to have to partially disagree with you on this; I don't think hate speech laws are a good thing, as they're far too easily abused by those in power. I will agree that litigation does have a chilling effect on free speech, although I'm not sure it's worse than the criminal laws.
The US certainly does have its fair share of stupid laws, but enforcement of those can sometimes be lax - which, admittedly, doesn't make up for the laws existing in the first place. I'm not sure what the jaywalking laws are in the UK, but enforcement varies drastically across the US. On the East Coast in particular, they really aren't applied; I've jaywalked with cops sitting right there before and nobody cared. I've heard the West Coast tends to enforce those quite a bit more; on the other hand, you can lose your driver's license in Germany for doing that, so at least it's not uniquely American. Alcohol laws are somewhat influenced by state; the drinking age is certainly too high though.
All the goose-stepping, WWII collecting Americans must be loving this thread....
If you only believe in freedom for people you agree with, you don't believe in freedom.
In the UK, at least, you can use "reasonable force" to defend yourself. But it's true, I can't use disproportionate force, like shooting someone dead for wanting to steal my TV.
In the US, you can't shoot someone dead for *wanting* to steal your TV; in some states, you can shoot them if they *try* to steal your TV. Do you think you shouldn't be allowed to defend your possessions at all, or what would "proportionate" force look like to you? In the UK, in many cases you aren't allowed to carry anything that would actually help you defend yourself. I'm not even talking about guns; effective pepper spray and knives are banned in many areas.
That really depends on how you rank different aspects of freedom, and whether you consider so-called "positive freedoms" (healthcare, welfare, etc.) to actually be freedoms. It also depends on whether you are on the side of freedom of speech or on freedom from hate speech - depending on which ideological side you fall on, those will give quite different results.
But even "rural" areas of Germany are closer to real cities and more densely populated, in general, than rural America.
Comparing landlines to mobile coverage is not valid. They're different things with different limitations.
Is this a geographic average (were they testing areas in the middle of nowhere) or a population average? That'll probably make quite a bit of difference.
Fair enough, there's no point in trying to have a discussion one of us doesn't want to have.
I'd argue that zoning laws are one of the reasons American cities tend to be so spread out, and why Americans need to drive so much. They may be a valid tool sometimes, but like anything else, they are often overused. More to the point, I'd argue that you can't enforce a "no skyscrapers" rule even when lots of people are moving to your city and then complain when housing costs skyrocket.
There are a lot of aspects to it; mainly, height limits in most of the city, the ability of people in neighborhoods to prevent or significantly delay construction near them, rent control, and lengthy, extremely convoluted permit requirements make it really hard to build anything new. There's a lot of concern over displacing existing residents - okay, fine, whatever - and a lot of anger about gentrification. SF lets people file environmental objections to proposed new buildings, and those can take a long time to resolve as well. Requirements to add in below market-rate housing in new buildings mean that the rest of the units in those buildings will be more expensive (or require extensive taxpayer support), which helps to price out the middle class. There's more detail in the article - I know it's long - but basically there's a whole lot of bureaucracy and NIMBY protectionism going on.
I think it's reasonable to want to live in a city without skyscrapers, sure. I'm not sure it's reasonable to prevent skyscrapers from being built, especially if it's to solve a severe housing problem. I think if you want to live in a city of single family houses, that's totally fine, but it's up to you to find one you like. I don't think you can try to force a city - especially one undergoing significant economic and population growth - to stay the way it is forever.
Interesting perspective. Why is that fundamentally a healthy thing?
Well, that was certainly part of the article. The major part was focusing on why housing is so scarce when there is economic pressure for it not to be.
It arguably is an objective sign; there is a shortage of legal weed in most states, since demand for legal weed is far higher than supply.
A better way to increase supply in the real estate market is to just change the rules regarding construction; see here for a more thorough explanation.
Airbnb is just letting people capitalize on SF's own mistakes with its real estate market. See this article for a pretty good explanation of how badly SF fucked up. Getting rid of Airbnb wouldn't help all that much, the system is screwed up too much already.
The Chinese own about 7% of America's debt, with the majority being held by American citizens or American organizations.
"The minute you take your feet on a public sidewalk you must follow whatever rules the government has imposed for granting you the privilege of using your feet on a public sidewalk or the government can suspend or revoke your license to use your feet on a public sidewalk".
See how your argument fails there? The government cannot impose "whatever rules" it wishes; it can't prevent you from exercising your free speech while driving, they can't make you waive your Fifth Amendment rights while driving, etc.
Because there's no appeal process for the "No Fly" list, primarily. It would need to be reformed such that due process is actually a possibility before I'd support it at all, let alone expanding it to deprive people of anything else.
>implying either of those parties are "civil rights groups"
You dramatically missed the point. They're saying that, distance otherwise being equal (which is reasonable for estimating car maintenance), you want to go that distance in as short a time as possible, as long as it's being used to make money.
I have, actually; either your gun needed some maintenance or you had a bad model. One person per minute would not be hard, especially if we're talking about a scenario like the Orlando shooting where you're in a club and nobody will really be all that far away.
I don't, but you just confidently asserted that I do.
/joke
I don't, personally. But you followed up your claim of an ad hominem by saying "Liberal Detected". I was just continuing your logic, under the assumption you were using it as an insult. Apparently, that was wrong. Oh well.
Quality argument there, AC. Good job. Such a great contribution.
You mean like the Ad Hominem attack you opened this thread with? I guess that makes you a liberal too, huh?