kjdndisneinj

That's a pretty simple regulatory change to cap HOA fees as a percentage of rent for affordable units though.

Obviously the developers will fight this, and the rich tenants will never exercise or swim near poor people, but conceptually it's easy enough to solve.

The free market will always distort regulation to suit the elites that profit from those distortions. Either through government or monopolistic corporations.

As long as private property is enforced through the threat of violence these problems are not tractable. The only solution to regulatory distortion is the complete abolition of capital.

In the case of healthcare, nationalized single-payer system gets far enough for something so critical to our existence without requiring a complete restructuring of the economy.

What does that have to do with anything? If anything it should be cheaper because the risk pool is much larger and the population density is much higher. A big part of Canada's healthcare cost is due to the huge geographic distribution of the population.

The truth is American elites systemically abuse poor people and feed them propaganda to make sure they don't question their terrible conditions. You're repeating that propaganda.

You've got some interesting points here, but it definitely reads more like conspiratorial thinking. What realistic difference is there between "The States" and the federal government? In the end you're still going to have a government enforcing these things, unless you depart radically from our current societal structure.

It sounds like you're just skeptical of a powerful centralized state, and it's coming out through the lens of historical American federation/republicanism. That isn't wrong, but it's as much a history of competing factions as it is an strong intellectual basis.

You're not the only one skeptical of a powerful, centralized state. Try reading Kropotkin or Luxemburg. You might find the ideas resonate with you. Those authors have a coherent ideological basis, and suggest paths to decentralized democracy that has been realized in various forms in recent history, but is radically different to the current American government.

It's cultural appropriation, and it's understandable you feel it's silly or offensive. Part of what makes it uncomfortable is the appropriation of culture for little more than vapid monetary gain. Like you said, it's not contributing to Americans' understanding of Italian culture---if anything it's hurting it with silly stereotypes.

Interestingly, if someone was criticizing the appropriation of an indigenous or asian culture, there is little chance it would be this highly upvoted on HN. I think this is a worthwhile lesson for the community.

> The point of socializing healthcare is making other people pay.

Yes. Especially you personally. Honestly, I don't even care about socialized healthcare as long as your tax rate is > 90%. Think of it as a "stupid libertarian tax".

I think most people will be in support of this measure, as hopefully it will force you to work so hard you don't have time to make inane internet comments.

So now not only do I have to spend several days on the phone each year with my insurance company, on top of figuring out which plan I want every new job, but I also need to watch a bunch of videos about kidney-replacement options for when I get in a car accident? And what heart attack care is available? And how many $1000 Ti screws they should put in my leg when I shatter it rock climbing? And somehow the collective time-wasting is going to be somehow cheaper for all of us?

I always wonder if you libertarians are doing a bit, because it sure seems like it.

Luck isn't involved as long as you can ensure your sampling noise is uncorrelated with the incoming wave, either by direct insertion of dither or characterization of environmental noise. Regardless, your point still stands, just a fun tidbit.

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]