potato3732842

The point is that they implicitly expect private entities/individuals to be able to own and deploy "go toe to toe with the the state equivilent" quality units (though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality).

>they'd just take a bit longer to have identified the members of the insurrection

They'd have had to enjoin more parties, probably to include state agencies. Any party can push back, stall or blow the whistle if they feel something wrong and risky to them is happening. Which is exactly the opposite of what the feds want. They want to act unilaterally, on anything and everything.

It was mostly a joke, since these sorts of groups have always, like going back 40+yr, been magnets for law enforcement who always seem to push them to do illegal things.

Second, the incident I'm referencing is well documented. You should look it up. It's basically the "feds radicalize then arrest muslim man, pat themselves on back for catching terrorist" playbook but for white people.

> I’m not sure the expense has been worth simply delaying the inevitable.

Now that I'm jaded I ask myself how many government and private sector jobs were "created" (in sarcasm quotes because broken windows fallacy) washing all those boats for free over the years and whether they even expected to prevent the spread or if the spread is the justification for expansion.

Literally every industry is like this.

Academia is basically a reputation laundering industry. If the cigarette people said smokes good or the oil people you'd never believe them. But they and their competitors fund labs at universities, and sure those universities may publish stuff they don't like from time to time, but overall things are gonna trend toward "not harmful to benefactors". And then what gets published gets used as the basis for decisions on how to direct your tax dollars, deploy state violence for or against certain things, etc, etc. And of course (some of) the academics want to do research that drives humanity forward or whatever, but they're basically stuck selling their labor to (after several layers in between) the donors for decades in order to eek out a little bit of what they want.

It's not just "how the sausage is made" that's the problem. It's who you're sourcing the ingredients for, who you're paying off for the permit to run the factory, who's supplying you labor. You can't fix this with minor process adjustments.

> where are the well regulated militias?

They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".

>What I find confusing about this comment is that to me, authoritarian and libertarian are opposites, but have only to do with individual freedoms, not the political system.

"Do whatever the F you want as long as you don't challenge the state" isn't that incompatible at first glance and might work ok if you have a low touch state. Where it gets obviously incompatible is when you have eastern european style oligarchs and western style administrative state and state favored businesses and industries that leverage state violence to stifle competition.

I don't think it's possible to have an authoritarian government in a modern society that doesn't trend in one of those directions.

A landlord insulates the tenant from price volatility. A tenant will never have to just eat a $20k roof one month.

Ain't no different than leasing bajillion dollar process equipment.

>I don't see any difference between individuals and monopolies on violence ("states") doing this, as long as they both have sufficient levels of certainty.

This peasant is faulty. He's not indoctrinated enough. Someone nab him and send him for reeducation. /s

You need "a little bit" of politician/judge/enforcer lynching to keep the government in line the same way they make a big show of "a little bit" of kicking in people's doors at 4am to keep the peasants in line.

>hey needed just ten minutes to inflate the balloon and an additional three minutes to heat the air.

That's faster than most professionals by a substantial margin. I guess when it matters you make it work.

Once again this is a take predicated on bad assumptions.

If you're just doing something and intend to meet or exceed the rules then dealing with government enforcement apparatus is pure overhead. You were always gonna do the right thing so you gain zero upside and have to deal with a potentially capricious and unaccountable (in any practical way) enforcer which is a huge downside.

Second, the rules are chock full of 10,000ft ivory tower view type stuff that makes statistical sense but is inefficient compared to using judgment. But you can't use judgement because the whole point of code is to make everything quantitative so that idiots can inspect other idiots and parties can more efficiently bicker in court and whatnot.

People who conflate "not actively regulated and inspected with government permission being given before stuff even happens" with "sub par" as if that's not reductive at best is exactly how we got here.

In "communism works because the cows are spherical, friction is 0 and gravity is 10" example land sure.

In reality building code is how a huge amount of back handed regulation is done. When the powers that be can't make a particular rule, because of other laws, or because of precedent to the contrary, or because the peasants wouldn't stand for it, what they do is they adopt a ridiculous code and then slap a "can be waived at the discretion of board X" on it. This way they can make the thing they don't like a non-starter economically for most people.

In my city you can park a semi trailer as storage. But it counts as a "structure" and because it's not a commercially manufactured shed, car port, stick framed garage or litany of other exemptions you have to go through the "everything else" process which includes all the "normal code shit" that any other non-exempt structure would hav to go through like an engineered foundation and snow loads and all sorts of other stuff that's just inappropriate. They have a similar set of BS they use to prevent DIYers from erecting kit buildings.

>Individual regulations, each reasonable in isolation...

Every single one of these rules that amounts to death by a thousand cuts preventing these sorts of businesses (as well as many others) will be rabidly defended by many/most if presented in the abstract. That sort of inability to reason about the forest based on what you're doing to the trees is the root problem. And it's a social/ideological/moral one, even if it expresses itself via governments.

It's no more "reasonable in isolation" to peddle rules than it is to justify littering in the park because they don't take effect in isolation. If everyone does it everything goes to crap and we all know it so we don't let anyone justify littering in the park using the effect in isolation.