stickyricky

People can absolutely be "forced", "coerced", or "compelled" into doing something with no understanding on how to stop it. Or perhaps they do understand how to stop it but don't want the trade-offs a potential solution implies.

Either way, the coercion in the equation is constant. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing. But it is something we can acknowledge and then determine if X degree of coercion for Y outcome was moral, valid, justifiable, etc. But the coercion existed regardless of our conclusion of its utility.

Sure but we're talking about if people were forced to take a vaccine. Social pressure, conditions of employment, mandates by government agencies. All of these things can muddy what it means to make a "voluntary" choice.

> a fair trade

That's exactly my point. You join the Marines and you get all of the benefits and drawbacks you enumerated. You don't and you get to live in poverty. I think that can be described as coercive.

To be clear, I'm not against the Marine corps or their vaccine policies. I just don't think coercion (even if it originates outside the Marine Corps) can be removed from _some_ people's choice to join.

We should at least acknowledge the "trolley" problem here. You have two bad choices: join the marines or live in poverty. The US has a "volunteer" force but "volunteer" is a stretched euphemism in my mind. There aren't many people with options "volunteering" for the marines.

Obligatory "I'm pro vaccine".

I love the language we choose to communicate ideas. "Increase health equity" is such an interesting phrase. I'd like to propose others:

- Sugary drinks tax could reduce diversity in health outcomes: study.

- Sugary drinks tax could boost diversity in healthier lifestyles: study.

Or perhaps a more stodgy, economical way of thinking:

- Sugary drinks tax could incentivize participation in health initiatives: study.

Or perhaps an article shared on facebook:

- BOOM! SUGARY DRINKS TAX PUTS COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK!

> Unless you [...] provide them transportation, you're still going to get inequalities of outcomes.

I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Rich people buy homes near good schools. Poor people live in homes they can afford next to bad schools. Removing the option for poor parents to drive their kids is not equity. Its damnation.

I live in a state where you can _pay_ (yes not a voucher - you PAY) to attend a school outside your district. I knew several poor families which took advantage. I don't know of a single middle-class family which did the same.

Not a scientific study. But it seems to me totally excluding the possibility of going to a better school is not kindness or progress or equity. Infantilizing poor people who "don't have time to drive" is silly. Some don't but there's always car pooling. When you're desperate you make it work.

This is proof that vampires are real and they walk among us. You need to prune slurs more than two centuries old. Otherwise the mortals will catch on to you.

I'm confused. Do you support LVT? I'm under the impression you don't. If England has no LVT and unequal distribution of land wouldn't that imply that LVT is not a prerequisite for that sort of distribution?

A land value tax is very common and is universal in the United States. It seems appropriate that those who own the exclusive right to use a parcel of land should pay a tax to the society who enables that exclusive right. If this land is as productive as you say ("if it's not earning a return then it's not happening") then it should be well within their ability to pay the tax. And if its not productive then you'll see land distributed from ineffective landlords to more productive individuals and businesses which can effectively manage the land.

You said it yourself Jeremy Clarkson's farm has only generated $2. If he paid a tax proportionate to his ownership of land he might consider selling that property to someone who could better steward it.

I pay LVT in the United States. I've owned three different plots of land in my life. At no point did this tax prevent me from acquiring land. In fact, it seems like it enabled me to buy this land because in the UK land ownership is significantly lower than in the US.

If land costs _nothing_ to own then it costs nothing to hold as an investment _forever_.

The Guardian may or may not consider it a problem. They don't explicitly state. However, the Scottish government _does_ consider it a problem.

> Last month, a major review conducted by the Scottish Land Commission, a government quango, found that big landowners behaved like monopolies across large areas of rural Scotland and had too much power over land use, economic investment and local communities. The quango recommended radical reform of ownership rules.

I'm an American and am totally divorced from this subject so I don't really understand why your response is so argumentative. It seems to me a description of who owns what land is a mild enough "accusation". The Guardian doesn't make mention of farming or food security. They just says who owns what and quote concerned institutions and individuals.

Doesn't methane break down in the atmosphere relatively quickly? I think the goal of this proposal is to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Producing hydrogen doesn't contribute to that goal (which isn't to say its a bad idea only that the hydrogen production facilities can exist independently of this proposal).

> almost any other carbon source is much more available

Two things: the author addresses this by saying these other sources will become more scarce in the future (undeniably true as they're non-renewable however who knows how the economics of this will actually shape up).

The second thing I'll say is that despite the availability of alternatives there are externalities to burning it (i.e. climate change). Air extraction may be less efficient but that inefficiency may be worth it to A) prevent continued CO2 pollution and B) reverse existing CO2 pollution.

If cognitive dissonance was a hackernews comment.

> Nobody is trying to replace you.

I'm trying to replace me! Humans are first and foremost economic units. Fungible and replaceable. There's absolutely no reason to prefer any one human over another -- except for their ability to produce economic output.

Society is a vain illusion for the true foundation of civilization -- economic produce. Things like care for the elderly or education of children only exist to maximize the future labor of the young and to deceive the middle-aged. We should cut these vestiges from our society and embrace a new future where only the economically gifted are permitted to remain.

I know at first this is hard to accept but its only through this radical, but sensible, plan that every citizen in Canada will be able to afford a Netflix account with password sharing.

I have two words for you. Tundra. City. That's right; we did it. We took the Canada you love and made it _more_ Canada. Up to _twice_ as cold as the previous generation of cities. More that _six_ times as remote. No other competitor is offering this kind of performance. I want to be clear this is a _generational_ leap over the competition. We're at least five years ahead of other major countries. And, boy, you better believe we patented it!