Redoubts

> I am quite well read on political philosophy and history,

consider reading beyond '39-'45. You might learn a thing or two

> the merge of the government and corporations

This is not plutarchy, the direction of control is going the other way.

This would be pointless to do for one person, and it would be very curious to see a government reject a massive funding stream from a swath of people like this.

Dude what?

Zhang, Yitang’s life at Purdue (Jan 1985-1991) T.T.Moh - https://www.math.purdue.edu/~ttm/ZhangYt.pdf

kind of a wild document to exist...

Ok sure. The Home Secretary just banned new asylum seeker housing near schools and nurseries, fyi.

> No one said anything about "relative to his wealth bracket".

Original post was "modest for a guy like that"

Arguably vacancy taxes are just Georgism with extra steps

> Just a reminder "gay panic defense." is still used in court today in the USA

Can you cite a case in the last 5 years?

Can you cite a case in the last 20 years where the jury didn’t roll their eyes?

referral bonuses from a few people via who's hiring

I mean the salary difference is a few hundred k, so this all just reads like cope.

Couldn't think of a more incorrect diagnosis if I tried. State government budgets have been ballooning for the last decade; but political leaders don't give a shit about tracking outcomes, only celebrating starting things and how much money they spend.

Ok, but me and my buddies think you use tenuous judgement to characterize words as violence, and enable people to use physical violence in “retaliation”.

That’s a bright line violence against innocents, so we’re closing all your checking accounts and preventing you from paying for anything without cash. And if people try to help you, we’ll say loudly in polite society that they traffic in blood money.

I hope you understand.

> In short, despite the article's somewhat negative tone overall, I don't think anything described is actually a negative thing

I think the main thing to criticize, is that

1. Banks are deputized as ersatz law enforcement, and will cooperate in ways you would otherwise expect to warrant a warrant, or do damage to people you would otherwise expect a court to gate.

2. Government has set up laws that on their face sound reasonable, but are extremely easy to run afoul of, and extremely easy to prosecute.

3. Banks have delegated decision making to private entities, which confounds oversight and is probably extremely under regulated vs anyone’s expectations

4. A lot of this power is wielded at the discretion of political actors at both ends

5. The main lesson of American politics since Nov 2016 is that we need more guardrails than “discretion”

I guess this case is especially interesting and novel because of how the government has deputized banks as ersatz law enforcement, and banks have delegated decision making to SPLC as ersatz compliance officers.

I’m not sure what the law could and should be in this case, but I suspect it’s woefully underspeced to the chagrin of most parties.

Hence, bank/wire fraud.

there were talks for the US government to take a large equity stake as part of a bailout, but those fell through

I’m really surprised I didn’t get auto-duped. Usually submission of the same url gets forwarded to the old post if it’s recent enough…

is it? it's insanely ugly and interactions seem bizarre

In a way it's really sad how many swings and misses Canonical has taken in its history.

Yeah, probably? The french revolution sucked ass for everyone involved.

We have rights and representative republics to restrain the will of the people for a reason.

There was a recent leadership change at the EFF