FaberOfWillAndMight

Your fellow observer and doer of things.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@rah_66_comanche @DJSnM Most likely 125 tons flat. TNT is not a unit of total energy output; that would be calories or joules.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@DJSnM Not even a comparison, New Glen had to be around the 120-150-ton range.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

The weights create a world model, which is pre-understanding. It would be akin to how the Human brain handles intuition and unconscious thought, which is then handed off to a narrower beam of attention within the left hemisphere, conventionally associated with "understanding." (where understanding implies intentional manipulation of data from the world model and from external information, both under the narrower beam.)

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@frenbilt @boneGPT Even more in the moving industry, but it's a little more involved.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@summeroff @tszzl "Illusion." Roon practically admits as much by assuming that our worth is inextricably linked to some cosmic specialness and that we require a defense against truth. We are the originators of worth, of status, and of dignity. Pills to cure it all would merely be man's suicide.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@AgileJebrim @alex_harte89745 @fawfulfan I don't know, man. The founders were an extreme group of guys. Honestly, this whole issue is secondary anyway to the actual constitutional violations of the Second Amendment.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

I totally agree with that sentiment, which is why I go to the Constitution and propose an amendment to change the laws legally, as the founding fathers intended. As the laws are currently structured, those who break them deserve their punishment.

Anyway, I enjoyed our conversation despite our disagreement. I cannot afford any more time.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

The right to own the land you purchase. Thats all i am talking about. Currently, you do not have that right. Your local government can take your land from you or levy violence against you to comply with policies and zoning.

Such an amendment would make it illegal for BOTH the federal and local governments to interfere in property rights.

I WANT THEM TO BAN THE CITIES 😂

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

That is exactly why I take pride in this constitutional republic. However, it isn't an excuse to justify bad policy. Our fundamental disagreement here exists in the concept of choice. If every single piece of land has a zoning restriction attached to it, people don't have a choice about being free of government oversight; they have a choice WITHIN government oversight.

Also, you think this would cause densification within your communities, but that is wrong. Densification occurs only as it does in massive cities because of the zoning afforded to the local population.

Your perfect community only exists the way it does because of anti-competitive practices where the government is levied via a monopoly on violence, to keep it that way. This is not to say there is no other means by which such a community could exist, but that your community's means are immoral.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

Actually, an amendment against zoning would fit in perfectly since it is a negative right. In other words, it restricts any government, local or federal, from infringing on such a right.

This would not prevent such communities from forming, since it is a negative right; it would simply make them more difficult to form and require more organization on the part of landowners.

I get your aversion to such outcomes, but there are more fellow US citizens than yourself. Many of whom would benefit from the simple right of landownership. I genuinely believe this issue is one of the major caps on our country's wealth.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

You cannot have a "free market" of municipal corporations if the state forbids individuals from opting out on their own, legally purchased land. If a landowner cannot build a duplex without the city threatening them with fines or asset forfeiture, that is top-down control, not bottom-up decentralization. You are demanding that the government act as your personal real estate portfolio manager, ensuring your property values only go up by outlawing the competition.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

I don't understand why you are arguing for public school purity. Public schools are among the worst-managed government institutions in the US. Sending your child to public school is already a loss. No amount of lipstick on a pig is going to change that.

I can't argue with the fact that mixed density would lead to some of the outcomes you mention, but at the same time, you are standing in the way of Human flourishing, with the addition of believing you have the right to dictate the usage of other persons' legally owned land. Why do you believe you have that right?

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@AgileJebrim @alex_harte89745 @fawfulfan The hard principle, being the right of a landowner that I just mentioned, advocates for being solidified in the Constitution. This is not "urbanism" religiosity; this is my sense of right and wrong in the world.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

Mixed density is exactly what I am aiming for as a solution to almost every cost associated with building, purchasing land, homeownership, and renting. Not only does mixed density solve the cost issue, but it also solves the traffic and transportation issue, as low-density mixed-use would spread traffic throughout a city.

HOAs remain a valid option for your exact need as a homeowner, perhaps with better drafting to ensure proper representation.

I agree that they did, in some ways, choose to build on zoned land, and that choice is reflected in how primary economic movers are now abandoning cities for those with freer zoning. Regardless, I do not think the people of a city have the right to dictate land use when it does not directly affect the safety of those people.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

It would be top-down government control in order to protect landownership rights. The fundamental idea being that YOU do not have the right to dictate the usage of another person's or private entities' legally owned property. I agree that what exists now is a form of self-governance at the local level, but I simply do not agree with it.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@AgileJebrim @fawfulfan I am saying that we should do something like create a new amendment to the Constitution to burn those contracts that are not traditional contracts between private entities, but top-down government control. (This is not equivalent to an HOA).

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@fawfulfan @AgileJebrim You see, there is no bargaining with these kinds of people. They believe they have a right to other people's land. This is why radical landownership rights are the only path.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

I do agree with that sentiment; technology should be integrated in a way that has minimal impact on its surroundings. However, I am not convinced that it is possible within the next couple of decades. Also, the data centers are not destroying the environment.

If you do care about large-scale environmental impact, the actual culprit would be power generation, specifically fossil fuels. Where the pattern I allude to exists most prominently. We need to burn gas and coal to produce the materials to make solar and nuclear plants. We need data centers to do everything quicker and with less impact. It's a tech tree, and you want to skip a branch when we are not capable of doing so.

[FaberOfWillAndMight @ApodacaHaracio]

@AffableLuddite @Mattershunt @garrytan That, along with every other technological innovation. This is the reason we have environmental regulations. None of this gets to the core issue: your distrust of technological advancement. The advancement of technology itself is neutral, but the people behind it are not.