|
As an overweight Coloradan, state and local Police have carte blanche to chase me around and snap me with towels. I've lost 5 pounds this year!
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Did you go to the parts of China that are closed to foreigners without the government's approval? That would be back in the 20th century. Only Tibet requires that you go on a tour (and even then it's not like it's North Korea). Perhaps it could be said that China would be less likely to, say, take in millions of immigrants from India, the way America has done with Mexico, legally and otherwise. That's a difference in attitude there. It's a very ethnically homogeneous nation, thanks to the magic of declaring that almost all Chinese are of the Han ethnicity. They are quite stingy with visas- you can't get a permanent visa even if you are married to a citizen. You can't be nationalized and become a Chinese citizen. So in that way, they aren't very welcoming. But once you've gotten through the door, they do not have a culture of inhospitality. The color on that map seems to imply that a foreigner walking down the streets would get dirty looks and insults, as opposed to smiles, greetings, and general kindness up to rockstar treatment. Yes, even for black people, based on what friends have told me, but they have to jump through more hoops for the visas. The Dagda posted:I would be really interested to see a similar map based on the permissiveness of immigration laws rather than self-described attitudes toward visitors - I think you'd get a much better picture of how people (or at least governments) actually feel about foreigners coming and hanging around for a while, not just dropping in for a week-long vacation. Exactly. Some countries let in lots of people but treat them like poo poo, others let in almost nobody but are great towards the few who do move in. (spoiler: wealth is a factor in this, but not the only factor)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 06:16
|
|
|
A map of FREEEDDOOOOOMMMMM in the US. North Dakota is the most free state, California and New York are the least free. This from the Libertarian Mercatus Center wherein we learn that allowing workers to organize is not freedom, but there is a freedom category named "Bachelor Party" which is a, "user-created category combin[ing] a variety of laws including those on alcohol, marijuana, prostitution, and fireworks."
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
I've never been so happy to apparently be totally oppressed. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. While America was becoming the first country in the history of the universe to have a constitution and "are freedom", they were doing the same! Of course Russia and Prussia then made sure it no longer existed a few years later. E: Whoops, wrong pic 
Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 15:45
|
|
|
Apparently having no zoning laws helps in your freedom ranking, which explains why Texas is so high. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Apparently having no zoning laws helps in your freedom ranking, which explains why Texas is so high. Given that one of the most common reasons zoning laws are enacted is to make land too expensive for lower income people to move in and that another major one is to protect vested interests (e.g. I own a store and I don't want someone else opening a store and reducing my profits), that doesn't seem to be a particularly objectionable claim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Given that one of the most common reasons zoning laws are enacted is to make land too expensive for lower income people to move in and that another major one is to protect vested interests (e.g. I own a store and I don't want someone else opening a store and reducing my profits), that doesn't seem to be a particularly objectionable claim. The joke is that Houston lets you open a beer cannery next to residential housing (I literally saw this driving through once).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
Joementum posted:A map of FREEEDDOOOOOMMMMM in the US. North Dakota is the most free state, California and New York are the least free. quote:It shares the maximum possible score on marriage freedom with several other states, because it allows civil unions equivalent to marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Cygni posted:We all know this is hilariously bad, but on California: Maybe states like Massachusetts that allow full on gay marriage get extra credit or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Maybe states like Massachusetts that allow full on gay marriage get extra credit or something. Too bad Marriage freedom is only 2.1% of the overall score. Guns are 6.6% and taxes are 28.6%, open carry is 3 times more important than gay marriage when it comes freedom. Edit: Oh sweet, they let you make custom weightings. Here's my take on what 'freedom' is important, pull out the bs economic aspect and just look at personal freedoms. http://freedominthe50states.org/cus...jclsifc/jtdereg Nukelear v.2 fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Nukelear v.2 posted:Too bad Marriage freedom is only 2.1% of the overall score. Guns are 6.6% and taxes are 28.6%, open carry is 3 times more important than gay marriage when it comes freedom. So what you're saying is that tax laws are like the essay portion of the test, gay marriage is just one multiple choice question, and Guns are a three part question? Man this test sounds like it really sucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Joementum posted:A map of FREEEDDOOOOOMMMMM in the US. North Dakota is the most free state, California and New York are the least free. They might want to redo that now that we passed our heavy handed abortion laws. Also, they banned bottle rockets back in 2009. Bottle rockets!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
reagan posted:They might want to redo that now that we passed our heavy handed abortion laws. Also, they banned bottle rockets back in 2009. Bottle rockets! As far as I can tell, they don't actually score abortion laws. Who would have guessed a libertarian think tank wouldn't even consider women's rights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Nukelear v.2 posted:As far as I can tell, they don't actually score abortion laws. Who would have guessed a libertarian think tank wouldn't even consider women's rights. Oh, they considered it. quote:Our definition of freedom presents specific challenges on some high-profile issues. Abortion is a critical example. According to one view, a fetus is a rights- bearing person, and abortion is therefore an aggressive violation of individual rights that ought to be punished by the government. According to another view, a fetus does not have rights, and abortion is a permissible exercise of an individual liberty, which entails that government regulation of abortion is an unjust violation of a woman’s rights. Rather than take a stand on one side or the other (or anywhere between), we have coded the data on state abortion restrictions and made them available online at https://www.statepolicyindex.com but have not included the policy in the index of freedom. v  v
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:Given that one of the most common reasons zoning laws are enacted is to make land too expensive for lower income people to move in and that another major one is to protect vested interests (e.g. I own a store and I don't want someone else opening a store and reducing my profits), that doesn't seem to be a particularly objectionable claim. Zoning laws are pretty sweet when used for the purposes of increasing walkability and preventing sprawl.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
Joementum posted:A map of FREEEDDOOOOOMMMMM in the US. North Dakota is the most free state, California and New York are the least free. This is one of the most blatant examples of doublespeak I've ever seen: quote:Connecticut’s labor laws score poorly, with no right-to-work law, a high minimum wage, strict workers’ compensation regulations, and a law banning employers from charging smokers more for their health insurance. Health insurance freedom is quite low, with one of the highest benefit mandate costs in the entire nation (at 57.1 percent of a basic premium). So "labor freedom" means "the right to be utterly hosed over by your employer", and "unfree" states are the ones that actually give half a rat's rear end about your dignity and well-being. Good to know!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:This is one of the most blatant examples of doublespeak I've ever seen: As I said before, I'm so proud of my tyrannical state  I can't even imagine what the report is going to say about Vermont when that public option comes into effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:As I said before, I'm so proud of my tyrannical state Hell yeah nutmegger buddy  What about our oppressive law mandating paid sick leave? I'm sure food service workers would much rather have the freedom to have no choice but to work while ill, coughing all over the food and infecting customers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
Nukelear v.2 posted:Too bad Marriage freedom is only 2.1% of the overall score. Guns are 6.6% and taxes are 28.6%, open carry is 3 times more important than gay marriage when it comes freedom. Thats sounds like a pretty accurate weighting of Libertarian preference of economic issues versus social ones. Their socially "liberal" views (if they have any) are just window-dressing on economic reactionism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
They also make a quip about New York losing 9% of its 2000 population, so it must be a socialist hellhole, and then in teeny tiny print at the bottom of the page they acknowledge that New York's population actually increased during that time and they used statistical voodoo to produce the 9% number. Also all the usual garbage about public sector jobs not counting along with any kind of public health or infrastructure spending being absolutely evil. Eminent domain is literally worse than Hitler, urban planning and zoning be damned. They also seem to really really hate cigarette taxes, despite the obvious public safety issue with secondhand smoke. Hell, neoliberal econ 101 supports corrective taxes for externalities, but it's not like these fuckers let their own espoused ideology stand in the way of loving over anyone who makes less than $100,000 per year. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:I've never been so happy to apparently be totally oppressed. One of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's biggest issues was the liberum veto which allowed any member of the 150 member Congress to veto a piece of legislation or annul any previously passed pieces of legislation. Austria and Russia were able to paralyze the nation by bribing a handful of nobles and asking them to veto everything. It was removed in 1791, far too late for Poland-Lithuania to be saved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:One of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's biggest issues was the liberum veto which allowed any member of the 150 member Congress to veto a piece of legislation or annul any previously passed pieces of legislation. Austria and Russia were able to paralyze the nation by bribing a handful of nobles and asking them to veto everything. It was removed in 1791, far too late for Poland-Lithuania to be saved. The liberum veto is brought up a lot up not what established it, was that Poland-Lithuania's constitution was based around protecting a very large petty nobility from a very weak elected monarchy. However, while you were part of the nobility you had rights, if you were a peasant you might as well be living in Russia as far as the rights you got. Poland-Lithuania was an "aristocratic" republic, and its problems largely stemmed from that fact. The rights of the nobility were priorized over everything else and the liberum veto was just one of the extensions of that. Another one is that they're army was quite small and heavily reliant on a relatively small number of heavy cavalry units. Once everyone figured out this whole mass use of musketry thing out, they were screwed. Poland-Lithuania more or less reaped what it sowed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
The Corsican Republic gained its independence from Genoa in 1755 and had a Constitution based on Enlightenment principles, it even was the first nation with women's suffrage. Of course it was then invaded by France in 1769, who "bought it" from Genoa.  
Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The liberum veto is brought up a lot up not what established it, was that Poland-Lithuania's constitution was based around protecting a very large petty nobility from a very weak elected monarchy. However, while you were part of the nobility you had rights, if you were a peasant you might as well be living in Russia as far as the rights you got. Yes. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't as progressive as some make it out to be. It was a pretty depressing place to be for the average person. They did make some eventual reforms, but by that time it was because the nobility realized, "Oh poo poo. We might actually die" more than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Yes. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't as progressive as some make it out to be. It was a pretty depressing place to be for the average person. They did make some eventual reforms, but by that time it was because the nobility realized, "Oh poo poo. We might actually die" more than anything else. Yeah the 1791 constitution was a modern constitution, but as you said the writing was very clear on the wall and it was only in effect for 14 months before the second partition. There is a fair argument to make it might have spurred the second and third partition since neither Tsarist Russia nor Austria or Prussia was very interesting in a Polish puppet-buffer state promoting enlightened values. By the mid-17th century, Poland-Lithuania was already on a downward track (Andrusovo) and by the 18th century, it was terminal. The liberum veto has too much emphasis placed on it though, Poland-Lithuania wouldn't have had much of a shot even if the veto didn't exist since there was so much other forms of dysfunction within its political system. Also, like I said, its military strategy was so rigidly died to its noble class that it would have been pretty impossible for them to compete militarily. Polish cavalry could be very potent in certain situations (the second siege of Vienna) but times were changing. In the case of Vienna, the Poles were probably helped by the fact the Ottomans were as or even further behind in military tactics at that point. It is an interesting state, and a bit of a oddity but sometimes it is lauded a bit excessively for what it was. That said, the United States when it was formed also had a very restricted electorate (landed white men).
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
edit: nevermind
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:Yes. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wasn't as progressive as some make it out to be. It was a pretty depressing place to be for the average person. They did make some eventual reforms, but by that time it was because the nobility realized, "Oh poo poo. We might actually die" more than anything else. To be fair it did have a pretty unprecedented religious freedom, there weren't many other places for the Jews to turn to outside of the Ottoman empire maybe? I understand that some Muslim Tatars lived there too (until the Deluge made things a bit hairy). khwarezm fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The joke is that Houston lets you open a beer cannery next to residential housing (I literally saw this driving through once). If Houston's bad it's because half of it is a parking lot, not because it arbitrarily separates residential and business areas
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
Senor Gato posted:If Houston's bad it's because half of it is a parking lot, not because it arbitrarily separates residential and business areas There are many valid reasons someone would want to separate residential and business areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
As someone who lives in an old European city I've never been clear on how far this zoning stuff goes in America, all I know is from playing SimCity. Are residential areas still allowed local businesses like newsagents and pubs or is it complete segregation of businesses and homes? And here's a map. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Poland-Lithuania was pretty religiously tolerant, although Ruthenians/Ukranians were brought into communion with the Catholic church which is a bit problematic considering the orthodox/catholic schism. That said, late Medival Rus/Muscovy was in general was also quite tolerant to other religions including Islam (Turkic Kazan which was conquered in the early 16th century were pretty much integrated with Muscovy without mass conversion). It is only during the 19th century under Nicholas I and then Alexander III when things majorly go off the rails. In the US, it really depends on the city or neighborhood. Older areas of cities like Chicago, Boston and even San Fransico have corner bars and grocery stores. If you live in suburbia, it is going to be vast seas of houses and maybe some strip malls that service a considerable expanse. Zoning is such a broad term it is really hard to be for or against it depending on the circumstances, should battery plant be opened up in a residential area or should you micromanage retail so you have to drive miles to buy a beer? probably not
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
Urban renewal in many cities basically lead to suburbia meeting the urban landscape in the most terrible way possible. Here's a prime example of Tuscon which can be seen in too many cities around the country. It's like 40% parking lots, what the hell. You can't see it in that but just outside the frame the whole downtown is completely surrounded by huge interstates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Arizona is a special type of zoning hell. When I visited Tempe it was the most confusing poo poo ever. Streets would go house, house, boat dealership, house, taco bell, house, apartment complex, TJ Maxx. It was totally insane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Why does Arizona have boat dealers  I live near the coast in CT and there's only a smattering of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Arizona makes no sense at all. There are letters on hills in pheonix that change colors every day or something there. It was explained to me as college kids would sneak up there at night and repaint the whole drat thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
How did that pass section 5?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:How did that pass section 5? Supreme court said it was politically-biased gerrymandering, not racially-biased gerrymandering. And they said politically-biased gerrymandering is just fine. One of the best examples is the dilution of the Austin vote with a 300 mile tract of bumfuckville land back in 2003: 
Goatman Sacks fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Mar 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
That's why America should have regional list PR instead of single member districts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:46 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Supreme court said it was politically-biased gerrymandering, not racially-biased gerrymandering. And they said politically-biased gerrymandering is just find. One of the best examples is the dilution of the Austin vote with a 300 mile tract of bumfuckville land back in 2003: Believe me I know, I live in the pink district. After redistricting I'm in a new one but it's still a Republican. Austin has been split into six different districts now, only one of them Democratic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2013 07:12
|
|