Nah, he doth protest too much. I don’t expect women are appearing in his “fantasies”. Definitely finding Christmas presents if you catch my drift.

Same here, and I am hoping that as battery density increases I may be able to extend the range on mine when the car gets old enough for a rebuild.

This was a problem with government owned Volts, they reimbursed for gas as this was already happening for the rest of the ICE fleet but had no way to reimburse for charging. Would not be surprised if this trend is the same for many company fleets too. Fix that and you would probably see similar numbers to private ownership.

I don’t think those are inherently opposed, the whole point of libertarianism being about liberty. Power gained through free market principles is no different than any other power, and thus can and should be opposed through competing ideas/services. If I don’t like your service being provided, I or anyone should be free to provide a competing service that matches my needs/values.

Being a libertarian doesn’t require keeping Fountainhead as your Bible and worshipping at the feet of oligarchs instead of politicians/the State, and I would argue selling your soul to the company store is as antithetical to liberty as selling your soul to a centralized State. But as you’ve indirectly mentioned, there is a rather huge spectrum under the libertarian umbrella.

I won’t speak for other libertarians, as I know there are those that think do worship the oligarchy, and many of my views do probably put me on the left side of libertarianism. If I didn’t believe that government has a role is keeping free markets free and providing stability and peace for liberty to exist (most fiscally conservatively paid for by collapsing all social safety nets into an actual UBI requiring miniscule overhead, Universal Healthcare, and more Georgist tax codes), I’d probably be closer to the anarcho-capitalists maybe? Maybe some offshoot or flavor of Minarchist?

This may only be within the range of human hearing, and you can and do still suffer damage from excessive amplitude by frequencies above and below what is human detectable. ANC is not a protective technology for this reason, it is a quality of life technology.

That is because the “well regulated militia” part is neither the subject of the sentence, nor a qualifier for the rest of the sentence. It’s pretty straight forward English sentence structure. It explains a primary reason why the individual right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” is important, and like a comment line in computer code it doesn’t “do” anything to the rest of the program.

The federalist papers and the militia acts back up that “originalist” interpretation.

Yeah, let’s have a constitutional convention in this environment to update the entire Constitution, let’s see how quick the bill of rights gets tossed out for a complete police state and possibly a theocracy. The most fractious the country has ever been is a great time to remove and replace the foundation of a country. Or are you thinking more of a coup where only one political “side” makes the new constitution they want, and it just gets enforced on everybody else?

Since the entire union doesn’t work anymore and needs to be reworked from the ground up devaluing/depowering States, let’s be honest: there is no way the entire country re-forms whole under its existing borders. We will end up with at least 2 or 3 countries in what was once the contiguous 48.

I guess it’s been a while since there’s been a good civil war.

You seem to be confusing taking no action with taking positive action when compared to a negative action, conflating both to be the same thing under an “if you aren’t explicitly with me then you’re against me” view point. If the University we’re going out of its way to dump more money into new Israeli investments, then that would be the same belief but opposite. Not changing anything is by definition the only neutral action, and any change in any direction would be political. Not saying anything about what is ultimately “right”, just that there “is” an apolitical option and that is to do whatever would be done if this whole thing wasn’t happening.

Bees kill a number of people every year, yet people keep them in large numbers. Dogs do to, but we keep millions of them. This guy got unlucky with underlying health problems. Gila venom hurts like a son of a bitch, but is otherwise about as medically significant as a black widow bite. People keep those as pets too.

You are correct, and it is exacerbated by the cap on representatives. You will never really get it 100% perfect due to the land mass of the US, but uncapping it and making it proportional would go a long way.

That makes sense if the states were just administrative zones like the Canadian provinces and territories, all fully subsumed and beholden under the Federal Government. We are not. We are a closely connected economic and political union of individual states collected into a Republic, all of which work together and compete with different ideas. All powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government are each State’s to decide and manage. This allows States to try different things and see what works best, from tax strategy, to universal healthcare (Romneycare), to UBI.

The people have their focus on what is best for them personally. This encompasses differing things from worldwide events to their neighborhood, but it is still a narrow scope. City/county leadership is focused on how best to keep their city/county running for maximum benefit of their population. States have the same focus over all the cities and counties therein.

We only have a ruling elite because people tend to vote for the incumbents, and we have no term limits except for the Presidency. It is also relatively stupid to put everything to a mass democratic vote, especially for things that should be decided by experts. Water rights, mineral rights, pollution controls, regulations, revenue allocation, etc.

That is like saying that the division leadership in a company shouldn’t have a voice in decision making alongside the union and board of directors, just let the union make the decisions. You don’t need input from finance and design/engineering and human resources and warehousing and production and quality control, the people in those departments all elected their union representatives so we don’t need input from those department leads.

The Senate should go back to being elected by the State Government instead of by the people, the change to this brought by the 17th caused this muddling. The balance of powers with the 3 chambers should work, but making the 2nd chamber just a superior version of the 3rd throws everything slightly out of alignment.

“Well, that’s just like, your opinion man”. The constitution is still set up that way, and powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government are the dominion of the States. We are still more like the EU than other “full-fledged” countries. You may not like that, but I would bet that just as many people feel differently as those that agree with you. It would also take the adoption of a new constitution to do that, and the odds of the Country remaining united through a complete constitution change compared to breaking up into several independent countries doesn’t seem high right now.

The US is far more like the EU than it is like Britain or Canada, being a Republic of aligned States. We have a body representing the states themselves (the Senate, and each state is equal and gets 2 Senators), a body representing the People in those states (the House of Representatives, which has been capped for total size and is no longer equally proportional but serves the same purpose), and a body representing the entire Union (the Executive branch - the President, Vice President, Cabinet, etc.).

Minor correction: the Senate is 2 per state, so Wyoming’s 1 state has the same representation as California’s 1 state. The Senate is (supposed to be) the voice of the States in the Federal Government. The Senate wasn’t even supposed to be elected by popular vote, they were appointed/elected by their state governments until the 17th amendment. The change made senators into super-representatives, which changed power dynamics. Arguments can be made here for whether this was ultimately better or worse.

The House of Representatives IS the voice of the people, and should be proportional to population size (but was artificially capped because the Feds complained it was getting too big so now Wyoming has more representational power per person than California). This needs to change because it’s only going to get worse going forward.

With this breakdown, the Federal Government’s interests, State’s interests, and the People’s interests balance each other. These three bodies have vastly different focuses.

If Microsoft can’t figure out how to unlock the taskbar in Win11 so over/under monitor layouts can work (taskbar being bottom/bottom top/top), it will be for me. Drive me up a wall that the whole point of Win11 was a better UI, and basic fucking customization is dropped. I didn’t buy a Mac, don’t try and tell me how I am supposed to set up my desktops.

The chain of laws would be the two Militia Acts of 1792, then the Militia Act of 1795 which made 1792’s Presidental powers permanent, then the Militia Act of 1862 where they expanded every able bodied white male citizen to include black males, then the Militia Act of 1903 which made the organized militia officially into the National Guard and the unorganized militia of all other male citizens (and those who have stated formal intention to become a citizen this time) into the unorganized Reserve Militia, and then finally the National Defense Act of 1916 providing funding to the National Guard and creating the ability to draft the Guard for overseas service.

That passage on the makeup of the militia is from the 1792 Militia Acts, and is fully contemporaneous with the 2nd amendment being a mere 16 years after the Declaration and 9 years after the end of the war. There is clear continuity from before the founding to today that the militia is the citizenry.

Let’s throw out the “flowery language” since you dislike it, it doesn’t change anything. In plain English he wrote that the discussion was about and included all classes of citizens. I don’t know if you are speed skimming or just that biased in your comprehension of the work. His use of “a well regulated militia” was to say that it was an unreasonable expectation and counter productive, and the only expectation was that the people be armed. He is literally saying “give up on the whole well regulated militia for everyone thing and be happy that at least everyone, the people at large, will be armed”.

I don’t know if you are trolling at this point, just not reading the paper, or so biased that you actually think that “the experiment [the project of disciplining the entire militia of the United States], if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” is actually advocating in favor of only arming the disciplined [well regulated] militia.

Yeah, I made sure to capture the entire sentence so I wouldn’t be cherry picking/quote mining to skew it to my “side” of the debate. In 1776, planning a yearly exercise/drill for a town or city was something that would happen when everyone got together for traveling judges, organizing fire brigades, and all kinds of civic tasks.

If you want to start planning a yearly get together for people to have a training day with the national guard or reserves like CERT does for disaster drills, it would probably be a huge hit with the tacticool dads and gravy seals. Would probably get better turnout than the CERT drills that serve critical importance to first responders and make the civilians better at how to respond to disasters too.

You are glossing over that the Federal Government to this day considers every (male) citizen to be the militia. Your saying the equivalent of “Nader’s talking about specifically the Pinto, not cars in general when he says our roads are unsafe.” I’ll even conceed that your right that Title 10 does need to be adjusted to include women, because they already serve in the military and are fully capable to fighting in wars. You are also glossing over Hamilton saying that requiring everyone to be a well-regulated militia was unreasonable, so they would just need to rely on “the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens” being armed and equipped. That right there is the definition of “every Tom, Dick, and Harry”. He wanted to make sure that they didn’t neglect to be armed and equipped by checking every year or so. I would like to direct the request for critically reading Federalist 29 instead of just using bits to confirm your bias" right back your way.

If “expecting them to be trained as a military is unreasonable, but we can still rely on them to bring their guns and fight with the professionals with just a little training once a year” doesn’t rely on the right of all classes of citizens having a right to be armed, I don’t know what else it means. The Militia Acts say the same thing; every able bodied citizen is considered part of the militia, and as such can be conscripted at any time of need. When conscripted, the “every able bodied citizen” needed to show up with a gun, initial ammunition, bayonet, and field equipment.

We have the same system now, except it’s called Selective Service instead of reporting to your town hall when you move, except you do that too by establishing residency for local voting and tax purposes.

She committed the cardinal sin: stealing from the establishment. Steal from the working class with predatory financial practices and fees for being poor and they are fine with it; the powers that be have been trying to steal the working and middle class out of existence for years. But she stole from other companies, stupid lady. After a few handfuls of stores they won’t stand for it.