The people of a country have an incentive to shape collective behavior that affects the collective, now and in the future. Straight taxes on the item causing problems is the least corruptible way to do it. Such as taxing fossil fuel.
The market will then allocate to which needs the remaining fossil fuel usage should go towards. Presumably, not to using pickup trucks and SUVs to take kids to soccer games and shop for groceries.
You make a fair point. But then again Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Obviously they get a say. Everyone gets a say. Even (hell, especially) for things that are "self serving". The government serves us all. We regulate for the benefit of society, not the industry being regulated!
Big Clive's channel(s) (he has a separate one for live streams) have some of my favorite content on YouTube. He's super down to earth and just has fun with what he does, never taking himself too seriously while being very knowledgeable.
We're in a very dark period where people are fine with censoring viewpoints that they don't agree with, especially around political boundaries. It's very unfortunate - censorship is censorship, plain and simple.
Yup. I gave up arguing with the posters and even founder of TechDirt about it. They call it 'content moderation' when they agree with it and censorship when they don't, based on whether it's left leaning (Good™) or right leaning (Bad™).
It's so bizarre how the left controls the house, the presidency, academia, the mainstream media for the most part, all of the big tech companies, but complain that the Republicans are the fascists.
We either have free speech, or we have fascism. And it's not the right trying to censor and cancel people, it's the authoritarian left who feel like they know better than everyone else. Very irritating as a libleft, because they read my disagreement as being right leaning rather than freedom loving.
If you are a freedom lover foremost perhaps you should work more on making the issue seperate from right vs left rhetorics. Always look at why someone wants to censor, rather than just assume it's because of ordinary left vs. right. The scale seems to a lot more binary in the US than I'm used to.
It's not a left right issue, we do need to have sex-ed in schools, you need to talk about homosexuality, and the problem with nationalism even the american flavour. I don't even think those are issues that all left leaning people agree on. Dig deeper.
>If you are a freedom lover foremost perhaps you should work more on making the issue seperate from right vs left rhetorics.
I have tried. It simply doesn't work. Proudly censorious authoritarian leftists. They see themselves as the good guys saving the world, and if that means free speech has to go, then so be it.
I'm reminded of this quote:
>“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
The problem with opposing civil rights movements is that reciprocity matters in the real world. People are disinclined to support your rights if they see you as advocating against theirs.
This might have been the case maybe 30 years ago, today's mentality is really all about submission to power, their power. If they say "put a hand on your stomach, one on your head, and turn from right to left singing the International on a single hand", you better do it, or fear being cancelled.
I’m not accepting your assertion as fact. There are currently multiple civil rights movements facing organized conservative resistance.
You can invent whatever moralizing obligation you want, but I don’t think it’s reasonable expect an organized effort from the {$outgroup} community to defend the rights rights of the people who designated them the outgroup.
Existence of such groups is not your original assertion. You stated:
> People are disinclined to support your rights if they see you as advocating against theirs.
By that argument, the Libertarians would be loved by everybody, but they aren't, because it's no longer a discussion on ethics, it's a fight over holly dogma. The ACLU will no longer support people on the Right in the name of Free Speech. Lines in the sand have been dug by the left, and they no longer crosses them. The right, (ie. the MSM's fascist) however do it all the time because they are the most open ones. If you are a gay 1sh amendment absolutist, you aren't gay, you're just a nazi. The ancients Greeks are no longer the bases of our culture/civilization, they're esclavagist.
When you start broadcasting an SSID, there's no reasonable expectation that some parties will be able to see it, but other parties won't. If you won't to keep a secret, don't share it.
When you start showing your face in public, there's no reasonable expectation that some parties will be able to see it, but other parties won't. If you want to keep a secret, don't share it.
When you start leaving fingerprints in public, there's no reasonable expectation that some parties will be able to pick them up, but other parties won't. If you want to keep a secret, don't leave fingerprints anywhere.
When you start dropping hair strands or dead skin cells in public, there's no reasonable expectation that some parties will be able to sample it for DNA collection, but other parties won't. If you want to keep a secret, don't drop hair or skin cells.
Thank you for this. There is a huge difference between some stranger being able to see your face as you walk down the street, and having the same stranger record your face, upload it to the cloud and then make it searchable by anyone in the world, tied to other pieces of data track your movements, spending, speech, etc.
The lack of privacy comes from how the data is concentrated, combined, and then shared with people and systems beyond your approval. This is not a binary "secret"/"public" classification where privacy only applies to things in the secret bucket, and no privacy protections apply to something you are not actively trying to keep secret.
I guess you're going for reductio ad absurdum. (did I spell that right?) But I actually think it's reasonable that I might be recorded if I go out in public. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I just don't see how it could work otherwise.
So you'll have no objection to me publishing your exact location to the entire world at all times that I can see you from a public space? After all, you're opting in by being visible.
It's unfortunate that the Apple cult has enough power on YC to downvoted anything that's not positive towards it. Sad that only pro-Apple opinions are allowed here.
