Workers need to earn those kinds of benefits by achieving record setting profits.

New teeth horror just dropped.

I feel seen

They can make it the new AF1, but they can’t do so securely. There’s a million nooks and cranies, moving parts, and it would be a waste of time to try to secure it all. And that’s before you even get to the software, which is its own nightmare.

Not that I’d be complaining if this lead to Trump and some of his cronies discovering the meaning of “Don’t Look Up”, but the whole concept is just stupid.

Congrats, we have a glorified FPTP and spoiler effect yet again!

Not quite. As you’ve just observed, this kind of strategic voting is risky, and self destructive. Which means that many would recognize this, and not use this voting strategy. Its a game of chicken, and lots of people prefer not to play such a game and instead support the safe bet, which means supporting those you genuinely support.

And as [email protected] pointed out, it isn’t possible to have a perfect voting system.

Then there is the fact that there is more to this than just voting strategies. There are the other effects to keep in mind. For example approval is far simpler to explain than RCV, especially when you explain how the counting works.

Another example is that approval is purely an additive process for counting, RCV is not. That means auditing results is significantly easier and quicker under approval than RCV. That leads to higher voter confidence in results than RCV audits.

Now, other election systems could also have strategic voting, but its less likely with, for example, RCV, since you can rank candidates.

RCV still can experience the spoiler effect just as FPTP, because it is in effect FPTP taking place over some number of instant rounds.

Approval and STAR are better anyway. Not that they wouldn’t find a piss poor excuse to ban those as well.

Seems a bit odd to not use a base 10 number of months.

And then when people complain because its an inherently worse service, they resort to “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” and “just start your own company even though you have no capital” type bullshit.

Good. I wish them luck. We need more space agencies out there.

Glad to see it. We need more coops.

Woosh

Yes, but coercion isn’t a binary option. For example being forced to do your car inspection isn’t the same level as being forced to go to prison.

Right now there are roughly 531 prisoners per capita in the U.S., one of the highest prison populations in the world.

Your plan could explode that out to 20,000 per capita.

And for the rest of the people, I’d say they’re being coerced too. Consent is revocable. And it sounds like they’d be under threat of prison if they disagree with the social contract, which is coercion. So you’d be going from 5 in 5 being coerced and 531 in 100k to being imprisoned to potentially 5 in 5 being coerced and 20k in 100k being imprisoned.

That is not an improvement.

A better message:

“closed due to trump taxes”

His name should be on it, and call it what it is, a tax. Conservatives like to foam at the mouth at the sound of taxes after all. It’s one of the few things they’ve been trained to do.

I wouldn’t even feel safe if I had a close electrician friend strip the batteries for use as a house battery.

Then you’re talking about potentially imprisoning quite a lot of people, potentially 1 in 5 people.

That sounds like quite a lot of coercion for a system aiming to reduce coercion.

Are you proposing prison for those that disagree with the social contract?

If that were true, then the mother wouldn’t be kept on life support.

I mis-read the title, ignore my previous comment.

This narrative that abortion bans have all the doctors scared and it ties their hands from doing anything involving a pregnant mother is false.

It isn’t.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/texas-woman-describes-ordeal-with-state-abortion-law-after-miscarriage

It’s already dead.

Must be nice to be able to go somewhere without needing a car, or 3 busses and 3 hours.

In most cases, we can assume that the people bound by the social contract agreed to the social contract as a condition of joining the group. In other words, they were not coerced into that behavior, and any penalties that they suffer as a result of violating the social contract are penalties that they agreed to as well (so long as said penalties are also outlined in the contract up front). It seems like coercion because bad actors typically resist the penalties imposed as a consequence of their bad behaviors, but it actually is not, because they agreed to all of it up front.

That’s fine if this is started from scratch, but if there was some revolution that overnight rid the world of capitalism, there would still be many who would never willingly accept any social contract. Pick any historical even you like, there is almost always some group that is in opposition. For the american revolution it was about 15-20% of the population who sided with England. If you want to get really depressing about it, in a 2011 CNN poll 23% said they’d sympathize most with the Confederacy.

Assuming similar numbers in our overnight revolution, what is to be done with those 20% that do not agree to join the group under this social contract?

Things get tricky only when we consider the case where the social contract is imposed upon people who did not agree to it beforehand, which does apply in the case of a society that is doing external policing, or arguably in the case of children - they are subject to rules that they did not choose for themselves. In this case, we are coercing them, and we have to admit this one exception

And when they transition from childhood to adulthood, if they find that they do not wish to agree to this social contract, what is the process for handling that?