boredpeter

No I think he’s saying the government should not get to decide which speech should and shouldn’t be allowed. For example in the US the government attempted and was somewhat successful in banning speech that favored communism which was in no way justified.

I think it’s a reasonable criticism of these types of policies given how governments of the past have misused their power of censorship.

I disagree, it’s special because it’s owned collectively by the people living in the community without some for-profit middleman rent seeking inflated payments for sub-par service. This isn’t some victory for capitalism and free markets. This is the government having to step in because of the failure of the market to provide a basic 21st century service to the people at a reasonable price. The same way the market has failed to provide healthcare access at a reasonable price in the US.

I think your conclusion is also incorrect. A for profit corporation only has incentive to maximize profit for their shareholders so if they are the only provider in town they will likely jack prices up. But a municipality/town does have incentive to improve the lives of their constituents and even if you don’t believe that argument, there is always the argument that a fast reliable internet at a reasonable price could spur economic investment in the community. So a single municipal owned internet provider could be a decent option without competition but that’s unlikely to be the case for a for profit business.

> Speaking of health care, the DEA would not go away if illicit drug addiction were solved. They are the ones who license physicians to prescribe medication. So are y'all advocating for OTC-everything, and no controlled substances? Like, propofol for all? Chemotherapy at your corner drugstore? Complimentary COVID vaccine with your Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream?

No I’m advocating for fixing/reducing the drug problems in the US by enacting universal healthcare instead of giving another law enforcement agency unprecedented surveillance powers. I’m advocating for a solution that 32/33 developed countries have already adopted but the US hasn’t because it’s run by immensely corrupt conservative politicians that happily take bribes and give corporations what they want at the expense of regular people.

Yes and the legislature would have one less argument to enact mass surveillance if there wasn’t this “convenient” drug problem in the US. And if we had a universal healthcare system then maybe this wouldn’t be as big of a problem and politicians wouldn’t be able to use it as an excuse. Of course this wouldn’t prevent them from using other nonsense like CP to do it (see : UK), although arguably that problem could also be reduced with healthcare.

These two issues are related in this case. What I’m basically saying is the government could attack the root causes of these problems but they won’t because mass surveillance benefits them in other ways such as monitoring dissidents and protecting the status quo.

Or we could pass universal healthcare and get drug addicts the healthcare they need to fix their addiction problems and thus lower demand for the products. Nah, let’s create a massive surveillance state and keep drug addicts homeless and living in poverty. It’s what the private health insurance companies want.

You don’t need arbitrary codes to get statistics for something that can be typed in a description field.

It does when all the land in a country is privatized and people can’t sustain themselves without being coerced into an employer-employee agreement where the employer has all the leverage.

Since when does running a business mean you have to be a billionaire?

Do you think only businesses worth billions of dollars should exist? And all small and medium sized businesses shouldn’t?

There’s many things we can do to address the problem without resorting to seizing all of their wealth in a single year.

1. A wealth tax of 1% (we pay property taxes today this is no different) over a wealth of $10 million 2. End share buybacks (this is just stock price manipulation to enrich shareholders) 3. Tax corporations on the profits they report to shareholders, not the IRS. If corporations want to dodge taxes with nonsense ownership structures but want to brag about their profits to shareholders then fine, we’ll use that number instead

At the end of the day we don’t need billionaires to run corporations. Amazon would be fine without Bezos, as would Tesla, etc. There’s millions of competent people that exist that can run a business without privatizing all the wealth for themselves.

What an embarrassingly privileged comment. The US funds terror around the world for their own benefit. Millions die because of the actions of the US or are effectively enslaved for the benefit of US capitalists to sell overpriced products to wealthy consumers such as yourself. The CIA regularly destabilizes 3rd world countries for the benefit of US corporations (see United fruit company and Guatemala). To suggest the world is a “peaceful” place simply because you live in a country that has never seen war in its homeland during your lifetime is ludicrous especially given the wars the US has started and participated in. Frankly this comment reeks of propaganda, I wouldn’t be surprised if you worked for the fed or a company profiting from the military industrial complex.

Don’t worry, I’m sure Elon will find a way to integrate those charging networks with the screens inside his cars to show you ads there too. What’s better than showing ads on a small screen at a gas station? Showing ads on a big screen inside an electric car that charges for 5x as long!

Another band-aid on the dumpster fire we call the American healthcare system.

Landlords don’t build housing, what gave you that idea? Construction companies build housing, home builders build housing. Landlords purchase existing housing and rent it for a monthly fee.

No I’m not suggesting we eliminate renting altogether. I do think there is an opportunity to limit how many rentals can exist in an area or the form of those rentals (multi family or single) in order to drive down housing prices in areas where landlords own a substantial amount of land. Alternatively I would suggest not privatizing ownership of rental housing and socializing the housing.

Did you read the last part of my comment? Go live in a hotel if you want to. You could argue my language was a bit extreme when I said add nothing of value, I will admit that. However, the situation with housing is different than cars or computing. Land is a finite resource. If landlords buy up all the houses in a town and convert them to airbnbs then residents have to compete for the small remaining land area that hasn’t been monopolized. It deprives many of home ownership which is something they want. Fetish is a dishonest term to use for something I would guess a majority of Americans want or have and really just sounds like a personal attack against me. Im guessing you must be a landlord.

Or ban rental properties and force them to sell. Landlords add nothing of value to society. I don’t care if they’re corporate or “mom and pop”. They rob people of generational wealth and monopolize housing. Very little need for them. Exceptions can be made for vacation destinations, hell just build hotels if you’re so desperate to be a landlord.

Are you implying that housing just disappears if there aren’t landlord to monopolize it? That’s hilarious. Remove landlords and now you have housing that can be purchased by residents through a bank loan. Can’t afford the down payment? No problem, a government program can fund that just like PPP loans. At the end of the day landlords are just parasites who exploit the poor and middle class by monopolizing housing. There is no need for them, anyone who can rent can, by definition, buy the property they are renting. Otherwise the landlord wouldn’t be renting to them.

Tesla actually did give model 3 performance owners in 2018 the option of getting a check for $5k after they made the performance upgrade option free. The only downside was you would lose your free supercharging for life. But that was back before Elon was a massive d-bag.

I’ve never seen a billionaire so desperate for attention

How does turning the poorest people in a country into wage slaves "benefit" those poor countries? Those poor people would be better off just being self sufficient farmers at that point. Workers at foxconn were literally killing themselves because of how bad the conditions were. When do we as a society decide that industrialization makes life worse for a huge percentage of the population? These multinationals go into poor countries with no worker protection laws specifically to exploit people. That only benefits those multinationals and their owners.

Actually, Tesla is using that camera for that exact purpose in the FSD beta already. https://insideevs.com/news/499611/tesla-cabin-camera-analyse...