I really don’t see how you got that assumption at the end. It more seems like the commenter above is saying that if you would benefit from living in a rural area because there is less people and less possibilities to encounter nuisances, and that it would also be better for those people who are nuisances to also live in rural locations cause they would bother less people.

I think its also worth mentioning that with the way housing costs, and availability for utilities is these days, not a lot of people have as much freedom to live in a space they find 100% perfect. Like i love living in urban areas, but some cities design streets so poorly that people are freely able to speed loud cars down quiet residential roads. So, we either gotta get involved in our community we find ourselves in to make the changes we want, hope someone else does it, put up with it, or pack our bags and go somewhere else.

Now I love boiling down the pitfalls of modern western society into large statements like “capitalism bad” and “communism good” as much as anyone, but having dealt with a bunch of people dismiss good change as “that’s communism” has made me rethink how I talk about topics online and in person.

Now the accelerationist are gonna be mad about this for sure, but maybe you should start small, and discuss topics at a more local level. Then again the internet is world wide and everyone wants to talk about grand scale things.

Basically, I’ve stopped telling people outside of my direct circle that leftism cool, and instead talk about socialised medicine programs, pushing for support of worker owned productions and business, getting involved with coop housing. Lot easier when you don’t have to bump up against the red scare.

Idk maybe it’s cause I don’t live in as much of a two party system as the US, but essentially still a two party system.

I think there’s value in strategic voting. I don’t know what the equivalent would be in the US but strategic voting for the lesser of two evils at a national level and then voting more true to your convictions at a municipal and provincial level is still valid.

Again my opinions probably don’t work in the US electoral system, but voter apathy is a big part of how rights get eroded where I’m from. A party or political figure stays in power because of apathy and then they just keep getting away with shit. At least if you cast a vote it can be seen as you participating in the democracy.

I will say there is something to the act of not voting as being a part of democracy, but truly I think along with abstaining any functioning democracy needs a “none” option.

In life it’s been mostly pure luck, but one of the few things I really recommend is to keep in the loop about rebates, programs and services offered by my federal and provincial government. Stuff like rebates on first time home buying, electric bikes, and energy efficient equipment is nice cause I bet I saved at least 3000$ total.

In recent time tho the biggest one has been getting a bicycle. I got an e-bike but even a regular bike helped me stop paying through the nose for gas when I was just burning it mostly sitting in traffic.

I feel like most of the things such as dependency hell and at least some amount of data models and routing can be resolved by using custom elements tho. I can agree to a certain point that HTMX could lead to a simple markup based approach, but it’s still a matter of learning another library and all that junk. In a perfect world I feel like there should just be an equivalent to maybe the `` element that could on becoming visible makes an Http call to lazy load and plop in some inner HTML. I guess you’d still be missing the whole events driven by attributes part tho.

I don’t know if I think this whole HTMX stuff is silly cause I’m jaded, or don’t see a use case for it personally. So take my comment with a huge grain of salt.

I wish you the best of luck with your strategic voting, hopefully the lesser of two evils has some amount of representation for you.

I don’t really understand the US’ electoral system, but you guys seem really boned by the whole two party system. Like no wonder everyone is so grumpy and unsatisfied all the time when you guys seem to just have two big parties that span such wide gamuts of views and policies.

I wonder if they are banking on, to put it into meme terms, “Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point”.

And obviously I mean that in terms of a “great point” for the opposition.

I really don’t know anything about the parliamentary system of this country, hell I barely know enough about my own country, but this seems like at the best an interesting play and at the worst a huge miscalculation that will bite them in the arse.

Try to indulge me, as I try to humanize the people you are talking about in a way that might resonate with you.

Imagine you work 40hrs a week, getting paid minimum wage or next to minimum wage, the housing market continues to worsen around you as rent continues to increase but wages don’t. If you have a place already and are just barely scraping by living paycheck to paycheck, which a lot of people are these days. One small bad financial day from an emergency or unexpected cost and you’re screwed. You miss your rent payment and you get evicted. Now, if you don’t have a safety net of people, which we can’t guarantee everyone does have living family or friends that will take you in for a month while you get back on your feet, you become homeless. You get fired from work because you’ve taken too many unpaid days off to try and get your life sorted so you don’t have to sleep on the streets. Now you can’t get another job because most places won’t hire you without an address, and collecting unemployment becomes difficult because if you have no address and no direct deposit you can’t get it mailed to you to claim.

As for the drugs that you say they have chosen to ruin their lives with, a pack of cigarettes, a small bag of weed, some opiates, or alcohol costs a whole lot less than rent for a month or even a motel room for the night.

The financial and housing situation for a lot of people out there in the world is really fragile, and if you add on other issues that I didn’t list such as mental health issues, lack of education or job experience with any education you have, or existing addiction, it can really add up and make it so your going from sleeping in a small bachelor’s apartment one night to sleeping on a park bench the next.

I don’t fully ascribe to the concept of communism myself (it’s a good label for most folks but I’m too picky about nitty gritty stuff so say I like it when I would want to adjust a few things about it), but I definitely think social housing is how you fix homelessness. Cities and states / provinces waste more money dealing with homelessness the way they do now then just building them socialized housing.

I mean if you’re already using a Windows machine for work you’re not gonna have to switch.

I imagine unless you’re self employed, you are probably given a machine to work on with a predefined operating system picked by your employer. If someone is in a place where they’re forced to use windows and the employer is making them pay for this equipment and software out of pocket, then that’s wicked scummy of the employer.

I’m just saying this cause I imagine the original comment your replying to has some implicit context of “when possible” or “on my own machine”.

Also it’s a bummer your software doesn’t work on Linux, nothing worse than being locked into a platform.

You say “Rent Control” doesn’t work, but having seen locations with rent control, and living in a place without it I fundamentally disagree with that statement.

In any economic model, housing is a basic need for humans. While rent control isn’t a solution, I don’t think it’s ever intended to be one. It is a stop gap, or a step implemented in a larger plan. It’s basically regulations for combating price fixing.

If you live in a place fraught with renoviction, the act of using a renovation as an excuse to evict people and charge more for the same thing, then the person who has been forced back into the market does not have to become homeless.

To another point, I don’t think rent control would prevent development of new housing either, as landlords aren’t the only folks who buy properties, even though it’s almost financially impossible to buy a house in certain inflated markets these days no matter who you are.

No, you’re right. I’m saying it’s reactionary to write only “Capitalism is bad”, and nothing else. Mostly because in terms of a discussion it makes it hard to keep talking about why capitalism is bad with such a broad statement. This is just the opinion of one dude on the internet who thinks of comments in a very specific way, and I get that others agree probably fine with broad comments of that style.

I always look at people who jump to “Communism is the answer” just have issues with properly articulating what they feel and just jump to a reactionary catch all comment.

I myself don’t like a lot of flaws with the core tenants of capitalism, so I often find myself saying reactionary shit like “capitalism bad” sometimes too.

I think this goes for a lot of discussion on economic models. There’s a lot of nuisance to it, and I think so many folks range somewhere between knowing nothing and knowing enough to be dangerous, but lack the energy, time, patience, or skill to really get it across online.

Often we see people posting about stuff so frequently because of a frustration with the current system, so unless it’s like a bad faith argument I mostly just tune it out, or go “hell yeah” in my little monkey brain depending on if it’s something I agree with slightly.

I guess it’s a matter of semantics and if you’re an existing rich person, right? Cause from the perspective of the rich closing up those loop holes would be perceived as purely benefitting the poor.

For neutral rules to truly be neutral, you almost need to ensure there are services and programs to bring that opportunity to everyone, else it’s just appears more fair without actually increasing accessibility. Which to your point would be something like UBI.

Is there a reason why you chose to be reactionary on the internet today?

This isn’t Reddit, you can be nicer than this, and maybe discuss the point about libertarianism that you like instead of just jumping to a bad faith argument against another economic system that neither OP, nor the post has brought up.

Remember there’s a person on the other side of the screen. Unless it’s a bit of course, but you know better than to take the bait of bots.

I mean even if it was a public utility, there’s still laws around those in regards to what you can and can’t do with it. So depending on how the framework around it is set up, and if there was a proper system in place to enforce it, I don’t think it would necessarily even be a threat to it becoming or continuing to be a public utility.

I have to wonder if it’s a solution looking for a problem or a matter of people trying to just throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks.

I think it also probably has to do with the sheer number of people trying to create something that every one of them has to learn that just because something exists, doesn’t mean you have to use it. They end up just building it hoping that people will come to use it, but sometimes you gotta learn the hard way that it isn’t always the case.