ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
No bio...
User ID: 822
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
19d ago
Pareto. 80% of the improvement in auto safety over the last 40 years comes from seatbelts, first-gen airbags, and crumple zones. The first two were cheap, but the third one was not (if you crash/are crashed into- it's not really more expensive to make a car that accordions if you hit something, but a modern car is more likely to be a total loss from that event).
There isn't much of a difference between survivability of a crash in 2010 (average car on the road has airbags) and 2024 (average car on the road has... more airbags), but the cost of a car has doubled and pedestrians now get killed more often because visibility is the cost of that safety.
Safetyists are demonstrably utility monsters. It's like the car seat thing: massive improvements for a very small cost is fine, marginal improvements for a very large cost are not, and people who are incapable of differentiating between the two because they're stuck on the baseline risk treadmill (exactly like the hedonic treadmill, but for neurotics) will feed literally every scrap of productivity to the machine if they're not slapped down by the people who actually have to pay for it.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
7mo ago
expect the general public to have enough historical literacy to process this with any more finely-grained nuance
This is a cheque the current regime [and the fragment of the public that supports them] is inherently unable to cash. If you want to pretend the evil Nazi menace is everywhere, fine, but that approach has inherent costs, one of which is that you now have to be unimpeachable about not bringing things literally called "Nazis" in.
The public is not going to care (their faction has in large part seen to that) that "he's one of the good ones", even though that's obviously true, and so that faction has no other option but to cancel a military ally from a country they're trying to help because to do otherwise is just writing your own attack ads. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
Personally, I'm rooting for the father; a Communist foreign empire trying to unjustly impose its will on territory that empire considered a western province is not entirely irrelevant to recent Canadian history. Sadly, I don't think there's a Canadian political party willing/representing a public that would be receptive enough to actually pointing that out, but it would be absolutely hilarious if there was.
Why should I not simply open the gates of the city if I feel that the rule of my external enemy would be less repressive than the enemy that already rules over me?
(Alternately: if the women aren't putting out for me, what would the enemy fucking them change? If I don't fight, I'll probably survive; if the enemy is more enlightened than my culture so much the better for me. The women can defend themselves- they keep asserting they can anyway.)
This is the defining question of what a nation is. The fact that Western societies aren't currently at war with each other (mostly because they're American protectorates, but also because nobody's managed to onshore the resources and manufacturing know-how to be able to credibly threaten their neighbors) is ultimately what has allowed the vast majority of those nations to be consumed by what is, at a population level, husband vs. wife power struggles.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
6mo ago
In the end, it is likely that some arrangement between men and women will be reached.
Yes- this arrangement tends, from the perspective of the man, to begin thus:
"She was a bold-looking girl, of about twenty-seven, with thick hair, a freckled face, and swift, athletic movements. A narrow scarlet sash, emblem of the Junior Anti-Sex League, was wound several times round the waist of her overalls, just tightly enough to bring out the shapeliness of her hips. Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey-fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean-mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."
It is not an accident that Orwell managed to predict what the (emergent) tenor among young-men-as-class-interest would be when set against a small group of older men and a much larger group of young women in permanent bureaucratic control of a post-industrial country. The only reason this prediction is 40 years late is because the socio-economic effects of winning WW2 really did delay 1984 by that much.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
if this bill passes
I mean, they do have a majority right now (and it's not like the opposition is any different in this regard). Canada isn't the US; in fact, the entire point of the Westminster system was to make representation more indirect because it makes literally zero difference as to who your local representative is- if political activism is pointless, why waste your time?
I am generally in favour of criminalizing suicide encouragement towards a child
This is progressive-speak for "misgendering", interpreted as such by every court and tribunal, and you know that. Progressive causes such as the usual misandry will get a pass, of course; the entire point of this is to enable progressives to bully your children and criminalize their response even in the event they're ejected from the legislature (and also to make sure it's pan-Canadian, since every other province has been drifting towards the center on that).
It is probably worth noting that we haven't yet seen what a reaction to policy starvation against a Western Canada-based government looks like yet.
Do you think the average male zoomer isn't joining because he feels scorned for being a man?
Yes. This scorn need not be direct; indeed, to coddle a man (and stifle his growth, insulting his dignity as a human being doing) is to scorn him.
"I wouldn't want to get killed for that" mentality
Or to be more precise: "I'm already treated badly enough by society at large; insulted at every turn for existing, oppressed and emasculated by its shitty laws and taxed half to death in the name of some twisted self-serving morality. Why would I ever put my life on the line so that this society might survive given that, if they lost, the culture my enemy would impose on me is actually a better deal?"
Western society is overdrawn on its balance of white feathers.
It's worth remembering that Afghanistan is under Taliban rule today because pre-2021 Afghan society had no white feathers to give. No incentive to join the ANA, no reason to fight for a structure that can't pay well enough, and the society the Americans were trying to build there folded without a shot fired. Whoops, guess you needed men after all.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
It’s bizarre that 55% oppose non-essential air travel since this class is the most likely to go on overseas holidays, I don’t understand how this works.
You misunderstand; they're against air travel for you, not for them, and open borders against you, not against them (which is part of why the only free trade agreement for migration of skilled labor are non-immigrant visa provisions with 3 countries: Canada, Mexico, and Australia). In the same way, an opposition to private gun rights is not an opposition to the concept of armed private security (including police) outside one's residence.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
9mo ago
the rainbow flag isn't particularly American
The one with the black and brown is extremely American, given that grievance politics about the people who happen to be that color is a unique export from them.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
4mo ago
But I see no reason why conservative gun owners must force the population of Hawaii to accept a law which both doesn’t affect the gun policy of conservative states and is transparently deeply unpopular there.
This argument conclusively fell through about 1860. One population in a group of states decided that the other population in a different group of states was not allowed to have the laws their electorates broadly supported, so they formed a massive mob and... well, you know the rest.
The compromise (if you can call it that), hashed out as soon the average judge sitting on the Supreme Court had no living memory of that event (they would have been unlikely to have even been born to parents who had participated in it, and even if they did those parents would all have been dead by then), was formalizing this new way. (They would then proceed to give the Federal government everything it wanted- from "anti-war speech is like shouting fire in a crowded theater" to "growing your own crops is interstate commerce"- in the years to come.)
However, because this compromise is couched in the language of "enforcing the constitution", conservatives had a valid point in that incorporation should naturally include the whole thing (not just the parts progressive states like), and 2A happened to get incorporated just as the initial massive Federal government power grabs were passing out of living memory. That probably isn't a coincidence.
All that said, the steelman for incorporation is that it broadly limits how hard a society in a particular State is allowed to entrench its regional brand of corruption/bullshit if the balance of power tilts hard enough one way or the other (so one-party states like California, while powerful, aren't allowed to completely destroy the culture of everyone else unfortunate enough to live there by outright banning and confiscating them). In turn, it also serves as a way to keep State borders stable (i.e. not bisecting California into San Angeles and Greater Nevada) and it's done a good job of that so far.
If it becomes illegal to be a bad mom or dad
No, I'd say that being a bad mom or dad is actually required by the law. And... uh, it's required already in a good few places with CPS visits for the crime of letting your kids play outside and felony charges for having them walk half a mile, refusing to call them a girl even though they insist they are, etc. Basic 1984 stuff, internalized oppression begins at home after all.
As far as the gun thing goes... private firearms ownership by the 10-18 crowd was higher (and trivial to accomplish, just send the cash in the mail) 60 years ago yet the murder rate (and the rate at which they ran amok) was far lower, and I think the way society treats that crowd now (as opposed to what you were allowed to do in those years) has a lot to do with them deciding to act like this. They used to just bring their guns to school to go hunting afterwards in areas that weren't even that rural, but then again, you treat them more like adults when their biology demands it and you'll see better behavior.
Parents [and by extension, their kids] have been continually losing this battle for the last 40 years (with no indication yet they'll stop losing); it's not a surprise that prospective parents just adopt pets rather than have to fight the State and the demos tooth and nail for the right to parent correctly. Probably worse for the birth rates than the car seat thing, though data on how much isn't exactly easy to come by.
It would have been better had we simply banned daycare when society had the justification to do so in the '80s. But they didn't, so here we are.
Why is 'groomer' a bad word to them?
Because it's opposition to the concept that they have the legitimate right to change how your kid thinks about gender relations, just like how they freak out when you cut off the transition pipeline for children of non-progressive parents simply because it limits their political power (whether that will work as well as non-progressives think it will is, of course, an open question).
Then why should progressives not shame a father for opposing their child dating an older adult who opened their mind about the beauty of inter-generational sexual relationships etc?
Well, progressives already intentionally conflate men having sex with 5 year old girls with men having sex with 25 year old women, so provided that child is female they already act functionally identically to conservatives in this regard. If the child is male, that's a different story entirely; any negative effects are going to fall on the gender they already actively discriminate against so revealed preferences are that they're perfectly fine with advocating for this (the highest-profile cases of "children celebrated for doing sexually-provocative things" are male).
And... that's kind of the thing, isn't it? People tend to trot out "but that German academic experiment in the '60s proves progressives are pro-pedophilia" but that's a dishonest view of that; what that actually was, if you read the reports, were a bunch of evil women handing over boys (that nobody would miss) with the explicit intention they be raped by other men so they "didn't grow up to be Nazis". Same gender dynamics at play today, same justifications (with the occasional case of this expanding into underclass girls when the rapists pass a paper-bag test i.e. Rotherham).
The liberal counter to this is something seemingly-obvious but nobody ever brings it up for some reason: sexual attraction's a two-way street. "When demands for sex are unilaterally imposed in some way that takes moderate to severe effort to escape, that hurts kids?" That hurts everyone subjected to it, regardless of age or gender for reasons I really shouldn't have to explain. It's worse in this age category, since the number of group-unaffiliated people a kid will ever know is actually really limited, so the overwhelming majority of cases have the degrading "you should sleep with me because if you don't this will make things awkward with your folks/they aren't going to stop me from trying so I'll just constantly badger you about it until you give in" character that women rightfully complain about when it happens to them at work or other social gatherings.
The scenario where little Dan Savage successfully propositions his crossing guard crush, where tweenage self_made_human gets his milf, or any other scenario meaningfully-prefaceable by the words "Dear Penthouse," is arguably not on balance harmful specifically because disengaging from that if things go sideways is costless (which is the underlying assertion classical liberals are making when they claim casual sex is not actually bad, the room temperature for '70s sexual mores, why that view depends on birth control and no incurable STDs, why the double-standard exists between early male and female sexual activity, and why critics of this generally have nothing better than "but casual sex exposes society to dangerous [se]X-rays" as a rebuttal).
This is, as one other poster puts it, "tennis at a kid level", sex as a toy. Most people who manage it at that age, provided they're not lying on the Internet, seem to explain it similarly. No major cost-benefit analyses required, just yes or no. Sex-positive people, most of whom are men, tend to operate this way by default; their goal is to drive the price of sex so low as to inherently make all sex the kind of sex kids already manage with each other. Newlywed couples that are going to be long-term successful generally have this outlook on sex for at least the first couple of years, too.
What I am concerned about is that same kid whose parents intentionally deliver them into the hands of people who will sexually harass them (which was the justification for the original '80s panic about daycare workers, and part of why some people avoid public schools today), tell them they have a duty to give into the [revealed] sexual demands of their caregivers/family friends/family members (including and up to outright rape- usually associated with "Mom's boyfriends" and older stepbrothers), or whose parent tells them it's "stunning and brave" to be doing sexual things with people they'd rather not be in the first place, because that gets right back to the progressive genesis of "you should accept being fucked by people you don't want to be fucked by because man bad muh Nazis".
This is "tennis at an adult level", SaaS sex as a service. This is primarily cost-benefit (if the sex is pleasant is less relevant), be that for money, social status, social justice, retaining a significant other, friend, or other relationship, not being beaten, sleeping out in the rain tonight, or killed; or all of the above at the same time. Sex-negative people, most of whom are women, tend to operate this way by default; because they believe all sex is adult sex, their goal is to drive the price of sex so high that selling it once to a single man will set them up for life (this also squares with their assertions that women sleeping around doesn't devalue the sex they eventually plan to sell in this way, but most women aren't taking this to its logical conclusion).
(Which also properly explains how the feminist claim of "all sex is rape" is motte-and-bailey: the motte is that all sex is inherently of this type, and the bailey is that it's abusive that tops men don't just give bottoms women whatever resources they want for free. The claim of "sex work is real work" is the mirror image of this.)
But the modes of thought about this are important if any non-progressive actually wants to coherently unpack why what progressives are doing- which is the crime of imposing adult outlooks and an undue importance on sex onto people that genuinely shouldn't have to deal with that- is abuse. For the liberals, yes, you do have to accept the entire argument about sexual liberation; the traditionalists should probably keep in mind that this is why Biblical gender dynamics are the way that they are in the first place and re-emphasize that the entire point of getting married in the first place is that that is the best chance of having a relationship for which these dynamics no longer apply (even though they still do, it's a slower burn, at least).
Are The Kids Alright?
Yes.
As always, the problem is idiot parents (who are either too close to the problem or don't quite Get It) and adult in general with either a motivated or unmotivated case of Last Thursdayism where they are either forgetting on purpose, or unwilling to acknowledge, that they ever were a kid in the first place (they sprang out of the womb fully-formed at [age of majority + 7]).
You can see this effect on absolute full blast in the other thread this week if you know where to look. In fact, it's in the sibling comment to this one and most of the replies will be missing the point entirely: kids are on their phones 24/7 because, to a large extent, there is literally nothing else for them to do, and the people who will continue to comment on that thread are all young enough to know that. Thus the amnesia is either literal or motivated, which was the conclusion I distinctly remember coming to when I was a kid myself: social conditions haven't changed.
Anywhere from hyper-preferences for everything to be done via text/e-mail, to literally falling silent in in-person meetings because of inability to cope with (what I think is) base-line social anxiety (what I mean here is the general sense of awkwardness we all feel the first time we meet someone new).
The pathway to this is sublimely simple:
-
Pathologize/criminalize/trivialize any trait, like doing things for yourself, facing any sort of risk, etc.
-
Kids get the message, don't take any risks, don't do anything for themselves
-
Kids fail to develop that skill in the critical window
-
Adults now complaining kids can't do thing you intentionally prohibited them from doing
-
Clearly, it's not safe for them to do anything else -> look how incapable they are -> we need to protect them for their own good
-
Go to 1
And yes, in case you were wondering, this is how racism leads to a downwards spiral of capability in the affected group. The effects are functionally identical- the group acts exactly like you've incentivized them and taught them to.
But hey, we can justify it to ourselves by saying "well, they'll grow out of it and magically become adults once it is Safe (25)". I'm sure that is a great plan and won't backfire horribly- of course, moral hazard being what it is around every generation that succeeds yours, you'll never truly be held accountable for the pieces you cut off your kids so they'd be Safe. And besides, they'll find yet another way to fuck up the next generation anyway, so who can truly say?
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
5mo ago
as less people are having children society seems to have also become less accommodating of having children
American society is 50/50 on things like "12 year olds shouldn't be permitted outside the home unsupervised". 100 years ago, they'd be walking home from their jobs; clearly, modern children are defective and deserve how we treat them.
So that's the room temperature. It is not a surprise any adult would refuse to make themselves vulnerable- to subject themselves and their kids to an increasingly insane society, one where one's neighbors (and their collective corporate arm, called "government and bureaucracy") have basically totalitarian control should they deign to exercise it.
Just like a mass shooting, when you get the news of one kid arrested off their front lawn for the crime of existing in a place they had a right to be, you impose an utterly massive outsized chilling effect on everyone else.
Same thing with the Satanic Panic, which I'd argue should be more properly seen as a coup d'etat, where the matriarchy bureaucracy would proceed to depose and replace the patriarchy meritocracy that came before. Anyone having children after that time does not know peace from the mostly-invisible civil war; any child does not know what came before nor are they encouraged, nay, permitted to develop into a proper adult until the time for development has long passed (and their growth and standards permanently stunted as a result).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
Every American automaker threw in the towel on compact cars around '18, around the time the market really got used to real interest rates being in the negatives. And sure, the Civic and Corolla survive, but they're much larger than they used to be and a far cry from what they were in the early 1990s (partially because people in the position to own cars are richer now and expect more, and partially because it's functionally illegal to make small cars as the work required to get them to pass crash testing isn't worth it for a market that small).
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
3mo ago
France outlawed slavery in the 14th century
...in France. Not in its colonial possessions, which is where it actually mattered, until well into the Steam Age.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
11mo ago
If you don't have an affirmative case for why gun rights are more valuable than X dead kids per year, I hate to tell you, but you're going to lose.
Progressives have zero affirmative case for why their policies permitting violent vagrants to kill people are more valuable than X stabbing victims per year; they have yet to lose.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
4mo ago
but maybe the country has just decided "joke's on you, I'm into that shit".
Or perhaps more charitably, the only effective way to defeat crocodile tears in the marketplace of ideas begins and ends with ignoring them. If you're being interrogated in bad faith- whether it's by the actual police or the moral police- engaging in that context is literally never a good move; you make your case directly to the judge(s) only.
Somehow he's only increased his support as he's been found to have committed sexual assault, fraud, and insurrection
As opposed to what his opponents have been up to the last few years, perpetrating institutional-level assault (sexual and otherwise) by intentionally refusing to prosecute crimes based on skin color, defrauding the public with respect to the seriousness of the uncommon cold (especially financially- that 20% reduction in nationwide life savings was definitely worth the 0.0001 QALY that reduction ended up buying), and burning, looting, and murdering their little hearts out in every major urban center a few years ago.
It seems natural that the political faction responsible for those things should face electoral consequences.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
8mo ago
The students in question are "out" to their teachers and peers
Yes; the whole problem is that the teachers will punish the peers of that student based on how seriously they take being "out". This is the "I'm forced to tell a lie" problem non-progressives have with trans folks except (from the peers' point of view) they're literally forced to tell the lie (children don't have the experience to simply disregard teachers' punishments, and parents' jobs generally get more difficult when they start telling their own children to use their own judgment when dealing with authority figures, so reinforcing a child's tendency to obey teachers is completely defensible).
Just avoiding interacting with the problem or moving away from it is simply not possible in kid jail; it's even policy that the teacher is forced to punish the peer that won't tell the lie! (regardless of that teacher's personal politics).
By ensuring that students can't invoke that power unilaterally, and have to get their parents to let them do it, it doesn't stop the student from actually being able to be trans (and it's still backed up with force of law- the conservatives are just driving the speed limit here, and progressive parents are still free to grant their child access to the State power their faction currently enjoys).
But it does prevent 2 things: first, it makes sure a 7 year old boy does not need to insist that My Name Is Not Odessa Yarker if he displays some GNC behaviors and a progressive teacher overfits that into "clearly, trans with stupid parents", and second, prevents a student in a conservative household from tasting the trappings of progressive power if their parents also think the only reason their kid wants to do that is to have an excuse to bully others (and since conservatives think, not unfairly, that 'excuse to bully others' and 'out as transgender' are synonyms...)
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
10mo ago
I guess you could also code by voice, per the video.
The reason people don't code by voice is that it sucks so many levels of hell. Siri (and other voice recognition agents) can't even get normal text 100% correct right now, what makes them think that shitty voice recognition is going to work properly when I tell it to open and close 5 levels of brackets, use a bunch of non-words like 'var', 'const', 'LazyVStack', 'NSString', and expressions that have non-letter characters in them like '@escaping' and '$0'? Imagine trying to make a regular expression in that and trying to read in "^(+\d{1,2}\s)?(?\d{3})?[\s.-]\d{3}[\s.-]\d{4}$" over voice, or trying to browse the method names in a file like you do with the arrow keys when you briefly forgot what that call and its arguments were (again). Fuck no.
Even that Talon example sounds as incomprehensible as the mouth noises a Vim user emits when they try to describe how having to make 10 different keystrokes is clearly better and so much faster than just selecting the text with the mouse.
Now, this isn't to say that you couldn't do an IDE in VR- in fact, having infinite screen real estate means that you can more easily trace a program's logic down 5 levels where with standard monitors you can only fit 2 or 3 at the same time and the Vision Pro's ability to actually display readable text (I still question that they've actually succeeded- all other headsets except maybe the PiMax just don't have the resolution to do this because a combination of head tilt + low resolution per eye means that text is fundamentally unreadable unless it's so large as to be pointless- so I'd have to see a physical demo of it to fully understand its liimtations).
But considering just how much Vision Pro depends on being a bigger screen with a couple of interesting telepresence applications baked in I really don't think this is going to be as transformative as some might otherwise think, but industry and military applications where you need to keep track of a bunch of interacting systems at once are going to be interested in where this goes since this is kind of just a better Hololens (and those customers are who MS was actually marketing that thing to). I could see a store using these things for "where's this item on the shelf?", an factory providing an auditable inspection pipeline for guaranteeing the condition of a product before it leaves (provided they're dirt cheap to make and replace), and so on and so forth.
Humorously, this is also going to be a test of how well AI does when it comes to adopting a new language- yeah, Swift has some existing support, but the toolkits for visionOS and its UI/UX paradigms sure don't! I guess developers will be learning this one the old fashioned way.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
1mo ago
But the Focus is not sold in North America, and hasn't been for 6 years now.
Won't that lead to crackdowns on speech, and so forth?
Maybe, but maybe not. Non-progressives are basically going for something along the lines of the Fairness Doctrine or the Equal-Time Rule imposed on Big Tech, because over the past 10-15 years progressives have been quickly enclosing the commons (we didn't need a Fairness Doctrine in 1995 or 2005 because the liberals were still pretty firmly in control of Big Tech back then- the iPhone would ultimately break them). Once your enemies start saying "build your own broadcast spectrum" it's not a surprise there are calls to violently reclaim it (which politics is, by other means).
Of course, their being able to articulate that is another matter entirely. But the Supreme Court has overridden amendments before- indeed, that's why those two laws persisted- and I think a solid argument can be levied (at least against ISPs and services that offer DDOS protection) that the "spectrum" is scarce enough to warrant an overriding government interest.
Is that going to make non-progressives as safe as they hope to be? Well, no- there are several vulnerabilities in different places on the OSI model that could allow progressives to claw back control, especially when combined with appliance computing and the DMCA ("iPhones only talk to progressive-approved websites, and removing that restriction is illegal" is always a few months' work away from becoming reality- it already effectively is when you consider how bad the App Store already is- to say nothing of any number of other "please drink verification can" schemes). And it still doesn't affect AI, which is another thing entirely... though it would quite easily be possible to ban sales of high-performance GPUs to US companies that refuse to sell uncensored models much like the US already does with respect to China and doing that doesn't even run into 1A issues.
That's not to say anyone's actually thought about it this much and we're going to get a half-assed measure that still fucks up everything, but a Red congress could get it done.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
4mo ago
Refusing to censor an idea isn't the same thing as supporting it.
By Progressives' own standards (applied fairly), it absolutely is; I see no reason not to apply that bad-faith standard in kind when it's inconvenient for them.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
6mo ago
Kiwi farms was regularly facilitating actual crimes, though.
And Twitter was used to facilitate riots that caused billions of dollars in damage and a bunch of murders in the 2 weeks that passed between approximately May and November 2020.
I didn't see pre-Elon Twitter getting debanked, delisted from app stores, or facing advertiser boycotts.
Conservative normies doing conservative normie things don’t get debanked.
Controlled opposition is controlled.
ThisIsSin
Personal corporatehood
2mo ago
You're missing 5.: we manage to cut the fat successfully and take out the people who are currently kept in power by a combination of Boomer social standards (education spiral is 100% their baby- remember, their parents were GI Bill recipients) and luxury (natural resource development). There's a lot of ruin in the nation, but there's also a lot of possible reform, provided the people currently profiting from the ruin aren't able to keep a grasp on that power. And being that the countries most affected by this are the US (too well-armed and too large for DC to maintain order) and Canada (Laurentian Elite too strategically isolated to prosecute a Canadian civil war + 25,000 active duty servicemen not from Western Canada) they, in my opinion, have the best chance of any nation to turn out OK. All the US has to do is not get too dramatically wrecked as far as its economic inputs go (like, for instance, losing a war over Taiwan).
Problem areas currently include:
- Lots of land, but illegal to develop it (and the resources under it) due to luxury beliefs (environmentalism), Boomers not wanting their houses to be devalued (which might get worse in an environment of old age pension collapse), and government has a hard time giving land away that it'll never get back (it can enforce that now, but what about it having to compromise in order to resist rebellion?)
- Overeducation and excessive spending thereon. Education becoming more intensive but ending at Grade 10 (like we used to- insert obligatory Kulak "you had to be as smart as a university graduate in 2023 to pass Grade 12 in 1923" graph here) combined with technologically advanced tutoring programs (we already know they scale, it's just illegal to take advantage of that) would allow us to fire a lot of sub-par teachers and save on their salaries- hell, that's probably half a million dollars per person in government money right there (especially if you include the money it's not making in income taxes from the 16-24 demographic).
- Insurance costs, liability law, and safetyism make it difficult to explore novel business opportunities.
- Social services for the underclass. They're going to get institutionalized again, and jails are going to become vastly worse places (or they'll be disappeared to a concentration camp in the middle of nowhere to make those social services more efficient, and nobody is going to care).
It's noteworthy that all of these things are progressive goals; fortunately, as far as a peaceful transition of power goes, that group generally has a very hard time raising legions to fight for them given their politics are literally "you're fighting for your own oppression, which is right and just" (rather than along ethnic or religious lines).
This is more a "take stock of one's blessings" post than anything else, but other than what everyone else has already covered:
More options
Context Copy link