Zero hour contracts in the uk don’t actually have to have an actual contract so if your boss says that something is in your job description you can’t argue otherwise because there was never a contract that said what your job roles were to start with.
There were musicians far before passive income for creative work was a thing. And it’s not like the €0.003 per play Spotify pays is making bank for most musicians.
Government should found more art and research, also donation and crowd funding aren’t passive income. I believe OP talked about the Marxists bourgeoisie the class of people who live off dividends or rent and doesn’t need to work
Going by the traditional definition, UBI is indeed passive income. I don’t think it is as bad as other forms of passive income, but I would prefer subsidies over just giving people cash.
I don’t think owning your home is realistic in all scenarios. For example, let’s say because you needed to leave your abusive partner, so you don’t have the luxury of going through the whole process of saving money, then researching, and eventually purchasing a home. You need to get out, maybe live somewhere for a year or two to get your feet under you and save some money so you can purchase a home. If you couldn’t rent a home, how could you possibly get out of this situation if you had no money on hand?
If you move to a new city that you’ve never visited before, sometimes you want to rent in a few areas to find the areas you like before commit long term to a place.
I really don’t think buying a home should be your only option for living in a home. It’s just not what’s best for some people in some scenarios.
Government owned housing used to be a common thing in the UK and it’s how housing works in Singapore today, just because private landlords don’t exist doesn’t mean people can’t rent houses from the government
Lobbying in and of itself isn’t bad, it makes our politicians aware of issues and alternatives.
Unrestricted lobbying is the problem, I recently read that lobbyists from Amazon would no longer have access cards to the European parliament so they no longer could come and go as they liked.
I just wonder why lobbyists ever got that access in the first place…
Banning lobbying would mean no one would be able to talk to a politician/official about an issue. Not even writing your local officials, proposing a local ordinance to making bike lanes or spending money to fix-up/improve a local park. Because that’s lobbying. You’re asking a government to wield their official power and/or spend public money, for your (and potentially others’) benefit.
Even lobbying groups aren’t necessarily bad. The Sierra Club, EFF, ACLU. These are American, but I’m sure there are equivalents of these in other countries.
So banning lobbying doesn’t really work. Now if you’re talking financial contributions and gifts and nice dinners from those who lobby, yeah that probably needs to be more highly regulated or stopped altogether. Generally speaking, any kind of quid pro quo.
But just talking to a politician should not be made illegal. In democracies, talking to people, talking to politicians, and trying to convince them to align with your view is the name of the game.
Lobbying as in “bribery with extra steps” where companies give money to politicians, ask them to do something, then say it’s ok because it’s “lobbying” and therefore not bribery, but people are coming in and pointing out how lobbying technically just means talking to politicians, but that’s not what RotatingParts meant.
Isn’t the problem that the “extra steps” are loopholes?
And legal loopholes are like a hydra. Close one and the lawyers will open up two more.
I imagine the line is hard to draw. But of course, the ones doing the drawing of that line are also on the receiving end of the good stuff, so there’s incentives to not close those loopholes…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I’m sure there are ways to dial in the abuse, but what legislator is gonna vote for that?
I don’t think that’s realistic. Even the guy at the local market shouting “get your potatoes here” is technically advertisement.
What could work instead is to make both the company that advertises and the one that displays the ad liable for the ad itself. If it’s inappropriate, contains malware or is in any way malicious, the company displaying it should also be liable for endangering the customers. Also outlaw tracking for advertisement purposes altogether
São Paolo in Brazil and Grenoble in France completely banned outdoor advertising, various other cities and regions (Amsterdam, Bristol, Vermont) have heavily restricted them. Dare to dream bigger than policies which have already existed for decades 😝
This one is pretty location specific but I agree that US law doesn’t make any sense. Like, physician and pharmacist spend 10 years at university to learn all the details about prescription medication and then have to get yearly retraining, so how do you even do ad’s for that
Two ways: first, you go to doctors offices and hospitals and give gifts to the person responsible for picking which version of this medicine to buy/prescribe.
Second, convince patients to ask for your version when they see their doctor by telling them on tv that it will make their life better or whatever
I left the US to work overseas and when I came back the law changed and everyone was hooked on viagra, the “little purple pill” and everything else…it was VERY obvious what happened…after we sttled down we went to establish care woth a GP & I walked out of my initial appointment with 6 prescriptions.
Passing on the left in regions with LH traffic (RHD)
Since it is the opposite of Overtaking, it is typically called undertaking, especially if you try to undertake a large truck with limited visibility on the passenger side.
I drive a lot in the UK for work. I see it occasionally when younger and/or angry drivers get frustrated with overtaking lane hoggers. Sometimes I also see people do it very slowly and overtly for that same reason.
Generally, I don’t think people want to do it and are aware of the dangers. But it’s easy to do it without being caught, unless it goes wrong of course.
Apparently, and perhaps not surprisingly, the US allows it on highways. Which helps explain why their traffic related deaths rate per capita is almost twice the European average.
I’ve never seen anyone do it so I’m pretty sure it’s illegal in all countries were I’ve found myself on a highway. The US and Germany (due to their free speed generally quite weird autobahns) come to mind as countries that might allow it.
I’m turning left on a two-lane street, waiting for incoming traffic to clear, and some jackass pulls into the right-turn cutout to pass me. It’s both rude and dangerous.
What. So this “jackass” and all the people in the right lane should pull up behind you and wait for you to turn left? That is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. That’s partially why there are two lanes, so traffic can continue to flow instead of waiting for you.
Edit:
Hold up. When you say “two lane street” do you mean one lane on each side? Because that changes everything. Whenever people I talk to refer to a two lane street they mean two lane in your direction.
Because you can't get rid of guns completely. For one, the security forces of those in power will have them and second, those who intend to do bad things to people will have them.
Once the technology exists and is available to the public, one can no longer stop its proliferation.
Or you just ban it completely for everything but hunting and regulate that strictly (ofc with exceptions for police and military). This is the way gun laws work in most European countries and most of them are indeed very save places to live in.
Your point here is a typical American one and just not any good. Guns in self defense rarely help anyone and do way more harm when random idiots who suddenly feel a need to kill someone finds themselfs already with a gun in their hand. Not to say that it’s impossible to get your hands on a gun in (for example) Sweden but the price and complications that ce with it do stop a lot of people from doing stupid things.
Well yes, but Americans have that unpleasant thing called ACAB that likely prevents them from accepting any attempt at removing their perceived self-defense against the abuse committed by authorities.
ACAB is a global fact, not unique to America. It’s also a fact largely recognised by the same kinds of people who are opposed to the free flow of guns. The kinds of people who think guns should be unrestricted are also the kinds who, by and large, are supportive of police and believe police are on their side.
Governments, businesses, corporations and all of us just normalizing and accepting that the majority of everything we own or buy at affordable prices are all based on taking advantage of as many poor people as possible in our home countries and most of the time in third world developing nations where people are paid pennies for their work.
We complain about China, yet everyone buys everything from them. We look down on third world developing countries yet we base our economies on manufacturing a ton of stuff from them because they all hire people for as little as possible. In America, Canada and Europe, we have agricultural workers we ship in from poorer countries to harvest our crops because we don’t want to pay higher prices for labour to the people that live in our countries … we would rather pay poverty wages for imported labour that we don’t want to stay in our country.
Everything we do, buy and pay for is all based on exploitation … our entire economy the world over is based on it … yet it is perfectly legal … but if we are all so moral, enlightened and intelligent then it should be illegal.
Oh yeah, a lot of people die because they drink too much water. Don't forget how moch money is wasted because people break shit and beat each other up when theu are high on water.
Isn’t that more a social issue? Getting drunk and becoming violent isn’t a cause-effect. Someone that becomes abusive after drinking would be abusive without alcohol as well, that’s just a trigger for the behavior.
This is closer to an actual answer, though. It’s easier to remove drinking than to change drinking culture. It just didn’t work the last time they tried to ban alcohol (in the USA), so if behavior around drinking is the issue that is trying to be solved there are probably other ways to go about it.
Alcohol is popular because also improves your socialization, could be linked perfectly, but I’m not an expert to say it. And smoking cigarettes is also bad and isn’t banned, while weed is safer than those two addictions, and it’s still mostly illegal. There are reasons, and hippies are probably the cause, government wanted to criminalize them and their love movement. If alcohol keeps you down, and quiet, the government will not care to ban even if it’s bad for your health, they need the companies to keep winning money.
Ok, but there are plenty of other items that that do that as well. It’s not a call out of “all drugs, including tobacco and alcohol”. It’s not a callout of microplastics. So there’s something specific to alcohol.
Being widespread. One bad set of laws in bad place in bad time (propination laws in eastern Europe in XVIII-XIX century) caused untold suffering and is keenly felt to this day, showing how easily hundreds of millions of people can be fucked up by poisonous commodity.
I’m not for entirely banning alcohol, but only because it would be rather futile, but for restrictions in its selling and far going educational campaigns to finally get rid of it - and it is possible, even if not entirely, looking at the decline of consumption of other poison, tobacco.
Not only they are bad ideas, but the incentives are horrible.
I could see the point of prisons if there was “warranty”. If a person guess back to jail, the first sentence was useless and the prison should be financially punished. You’ll see then how quickly therapy and quality job trainings are implemented.
Flying planes. A few months ago, I got to do take-off and pilot a bit in a tandem plane. Being in a small, single-engine 1969 plane instead of the typical jumbo jet--I realized it was literally just a shitty old RV inside, shag carpet, rickety little passenger window, and all. Except for one minor difference: we were soon IN THE FUCKING SKY. That's when I realized humanity has no place being up there, with all due respect to John F. Kennedy, NASA, etc. And a little sidenote to those same scientists: a giant metal object ascending into the sky makes no sense--I don't think it can last. It's the folly of man. Oh, and you can just have a plane!? That's allowed somehow!?
You have no clue how rediculously well regulated aircraft are. However aesthetically displeasing the plane you flew in was, it wouldn’t be in the sky if it wasn’t flightready.
You have no clue how rediculously well regulated aircraft are
While I’m broadly in agreement with you (and am certainly not in favour of banning flying), I think recent events have shown us pretty clearly: they are not nearly as well-regulated as the industry likes to claim, especially with the large commercial aeroplanes.
Boeing has been having issues going back a lot further, since at least the 787 Dreamliner. It’s just gotten a lot worse with the 737 Max.
The problem is that the FAA allows them to use “Designated Inspectors” to ensure their compliance, which are Boeing employees, not independent FAA staff. And the FAA is still allowing them to fly despite there still being serious known flaws (being unable to run the anti-ice system for more than 5 minutes without potentially damaging the engine).
It’s also probably why their only real competitor, not being based in business-friendly safety-regulation-hating America, hasn’t had similar problems.
In a properly regulated market, the FAA never would have allowed 737 Maxes to be certified for use, or it at least would have grounded them once issues became clear. Instead, they treat Boeing as “too big to fail” and don’t want to upset the travel market in the way that grounding large numbers of planes because of a safety concern.
Tracking & profiting off it.
Forcing people to be tracked to use a product that they then sell that data should be illegal without your complete, informed consent, and you get to opt out and still use the product.
All tracking should be regulated. You own your personhood 100% and only you can make money off of that.