Yeah it would require a significant redesign of some poorly planned areas.

Man, I guess there's no point in even trying to improve the system if there's going to be opposition.

I want Approval Votingand Sequential Proportional Approval Voting, but will support any electoral reform referendum or bill.

I will advocate to replace it when I'm in office and a Democrat, against the protests of some of my co-workers. As the other commenter pointed out, Newsom killed an anti-FPTP bill, but that means there's enough support in the California legislature to get a bill to his desk.

I hold no illusions that fixing one aspect of this flawed existence will fix all the other aspects of this flawed existence.

Fair fair!

I mean, I want to replace FPTP though. Any kind of proportional system is ideal, but Sequential Proportional Approval Voting is ideal.

Depends on if you get into barefoot style shoes or not.

You would probably have a small flatbed for your business, or rent one from a local, as needed. But it sounds like you have enough need that owning a vehicle would be worth it. I would imagine that, in practice, gaining access to a vehicle would be a business perk, kind of like how a lot of micro businesses will be generous with what they consider to be a business expense for tax purposes. Also, sure, in reality farm equipment would probably be exempt.

Anyway, society is filled with rules and design choices that create winners and losers. Right now, with the current motor vehicle standard, many people gain the convenience of having a car or truck for personal use. But it means we have to spend a lot on roads to carry all the extra traffic, lots of people die in accidents, we're polluting the air, we're dumping rubber into the soil and water (from tires), we're living more sedentary lifestyles, etc. Whenever someone purposes a change to society's rules, it is very common for people to only think of the current positives and the potential negatives, while ignoring the current negatives and potential positives.

Not that this proposal is ever gonna fucking happen.

The town planning and public transit options would be absurdly different, were private ownership of motor vehicles actually outlawed. The bus stop would be a lot closer. There'd be more buses. There would be dedicated, protected bike lanes that got plowed immediately in the snow. The sidewalks would be plowed by the city. Etc.

The US homesteading is not the standard in a lot of places. Loads of places put all the houses together in a little village and the farmers go out to the fields instead of living isolated at their farm. Also, you have to remember that if we actually did outlaw private motor vehicle ownership, commercial transportation would explode. Much, much smaller towns would have access to regular bus and train schedules. Furthermore, the business landscape would change and your standard stores would again be more accessible in smaller towns.

Would there be some disadvantages? Absolutely. Would there be some advantages? Absolutely.

I consider the advantages to be more than worth it, even in the more trying situations.

Honestly, personal ownership of cars should just straight-up be illegal. Commercial vehicles are fine.

A lot of those buildings were put in before the more strict zoning laws. In a lot of places, the good buildings are grandfathered in for mixed use or even just for existing. Besides, there's plenty of places that would benefit greatly from little micro downtowns built this way, but it's illegal to do so. Zoning that makes efficient housing and commercial development impossible is the devil.

"Why Civil Resistance Works" is a good book about why civil disobedience is the most effective means of resisting a regime. It's not an easy read, but it's still great info.

Which workforce? The Chinese? There's only one union and it's run by the government. Any non-government unions are illegal.

The US is gaining a new interest in unions, but we have our own anti-union laws to deal with. Not as bad China's obviously.

More like melted it down for scrap

As with all tools, there's good use and bad use. I use GPT tools for when I can't remember what the name of something is. They seem to be particularly good at that, and I always follow up with a real source. It's been wrong, but not often.

Oh, no, sorry I was speaking on the general concept that people remember wrong answers even when told they're wrong. Everyone here is so annoyed at "I asked chatGPT, here's a link, I haven't verified it" that I think they purposefully ignored everything else you said.

Except they do. That's how brains work. Wrong answers will stick in people's heads even when they know it's wrong. Then, later on, the "wrongness" fades and you're left with only familiarity for that answer, which is used as a proxy for correctness. Generally speaking, your brain primarily uses familiarity when assessing information, not strict logic or interrogation.

When given an answer, people will trust it, even when told not to trust it.