Ironic, isn't it? The same people that will sing "They paved paradise to put up a parking lot", are also against any effective measures to prevent that turn of events.
You're inventing the image of a hypocrite based on very high-level stereotypes. When somebody opines, "The same people who...", it is in most cases a fallacious integration of things they have seen or heard into a single imagined type of human that is not highly represented in reality. Essentially a straw man. People can have different opinions about similar things without necessarily being hypocritical. In fact, declining to accuse "these people"/"those people"/"the same people" of this kind of hypocrisy is a great example of what is meant when we say that you should be "charitable" or "give the benefit of the doubt".
In this case it really is a case where people mindlessly advocate for more development but at the same time extol the virtues of Hawaii's natural beauty. Even in this thread there are people arguing for development while acknowledging the entire reason it's desirable is nature.
This is like proposing to dig a bigger basement to fit more flood water. No matter how much you dig, there will always be more water in the ocean to flow in.
In the case of New York, it will never have "enough" housing - what will instead happen is, eventually, it will become so overgrown that it will be unattractive for new arrivals.
Where it's the people that attract new arrivals, you may not want to move there, but there are plenty of people who do. Look at world class cities filled with skyscrapers (or even those not), they're still growing, not shrinking.
Yes. A home is not an economic asset like any other. It is the biggest link to one's community and people. Healthy communities cannot form from transient populations.
>Healthy communities cannot form from transient populations.
That sounds more like you're more against airbnb and other short term rentals rather than "Rich outsiders are buying up desirable property all over the world" or thinking that "I know that were born there could live there today" is some sort of wrong in and of itself.
A few tourists doesn't mean the community itself is transient. Even a great many tourists doesn't mean that, if the locals are mostly static. They form a community, and watch the tourists come and go.
Should it? Such liability inevitably results in only "verified" content getting "promoted" - an extremely vague term. First it's the home screen, then related videos, then 1st page results for searching "cleanse", etc.
Soon any kind of user content hosting becomes legally impossible without acceding to some kind of government-approved (it will be private, but require "good standing") censorship agency.
Pornhub now only allow verified users. It no longer allows any revenge porn, or porn uploaded without permission. In other words, it no longer allows illegal porn activities.
Payment processors and governments forced them.
Why not Youtube, Google, Facebook, IG, etc? Is one illegal activity more illegal than others?
According to the founder of the migrant sea rescue NGO Mission Lifeline [1], by importing more immigrants and giving them voting rights, to overwhelm the native population's vote:
If there had been enough immigration from abroad (e.g., by abolishing the visa requirement for Afghans and other persecuted people), and if these people had been given the right to vote immediately, (the German district of) Sonneberg would not be an issue today. Therefore: Open the borders! - https://twitter.com/Axel_Steier/status/1673019802523254785
> What's the point of having a system of shared values if one member goes "Hey, let's, umm, [stop immigration]!" and your system can't defend itself against such actors?
Corrected to better reflect AfD's position. To address your point, the goal should be to serve the people, not the system. A system that persists against its subjects wishes is, by definition, tyranny.
The trick is that they set up a decoy problem that needs fixed, that only they know how to fix (without providing a fix, of course).
"Chemtrail poisonings need to stop" would be a popular AfD demand [1].
The trick here is to use a popular conspiracy theory, so demanding stopping of chemtrail poisonings looks like serving the poeple from the outside, right?
Now, the AfD would never say "stop immigration". They say "stop uncontrolled excess immigration", so it seems like there'd be some "normal" amount of immigration, and the stupid government doesn't see that we're currently surpassing it, and that this is a huge problem that needs fixing.
They want to have a say who's a "valid" asylum seeker, and who's just entering with malicious intent. And this is where shared values are being overstepped.
Populists will tell you that they know how to weed out rapists, by looking at their nose, or skin colour, or if they have mobile phones on them when entering the country.
The problem arises when a critical mass starts believing that yes, indeed, 5G needs to be banned from our vaccines, and the people will be served!
I see. So the only allowed anti-immigration position is "we want to stop immigration for no reason whatsoever". As soon as a reason is given, like, "there's too much immigration, we want to reduce it to 'normal' levels" or "we don't like the kind of immigrants we're getting", that position oversteps shared values and is grounds for a ban, regardless of what voters want?
On the other hand, there are laws against false advertising and (in this case) sabotage, where the action is illegal regardless of what a plaintiff thinks. If I went around offices and sabotaged their printers, the district attorney could prosecute me regardless of what the office owners thought (assuming they wouldn't lie and claim they authorized my sabotage).
This case is exactly the same. Don't be fooled - despite HP's name on the printers, they're not HP's printers anymore - they sold them, and have no more claim to them than I.
Tangentially, and orthogonal to the issue of if settlements should be allowed, undisclosed settlements should be banned. The public has a right to know what terms are reached through the threat of and with the sanction of the legal system. Because in a democracy, the public is ultimately responsible for reforming or maintaining that system, and how can they do that when they don't know how it's being used?
First the example you mention confuses civil and criminal proceeding. Sabotaging people’s private property is a criminal act. District attornies bring criminal cases, not civil.
The government could bring a civil suit as plantiff, (like the attorney general’s office) but the government would have to show its been harmed. Perhaps for instance through cost of printers used in government offices, or if some specific statute was violated.
Also regarding any settlement. If it’s class action it’s public. If it was from a private individual plantiff, then they have a right to privacy you can’t just ignore.
> Sabotaging people’s private property is a criminal act.
That's what happened here. Refusing to scan without ink is sabotage.
> If it was from a private individual plantiff, then they have a right to privacy you can’t just ignore.
And the public has a right to transparency in the legal system. The rights are in conflict, and given the obvious risks of a black-box legal system, the right to transparency should prevail.
You have a right to my private contract with someone? Because that’s what a settlement is. What you’re saying is that all contracts need to be made public? That seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>> Sabotaging people’s private property is a criminal act.
> That's what happened here. Refusing to scan without ink is sabotage.
Breaking into someone’s office and physically damaging their property as in your example is different than a machine that disables itself. The machine can’t commit criminal acts. If you’re arguing that the CEO of HP commited a criminal act, that’s a stretch, as I have no idea what criminal law you’d say he broke. On top of which criminal cases have a much higher burden of proof, so civil litigation is likely to provide a better outcome.
And anyway, again, the proper venue for this, is to create better consumer protection laws in the first place. The judicial system isn’t going to magically police companies. We as the people have to hold them accountable and that means voting, lobbying etc, just as is being done with right to repair bills. The judicial system can compensate for harm, which hopefully will happen here, but it’s only part of the solution.
> You have a right to my private contract with someone? Because that’s what a settlement is. What you’re saying is that all contracts need to be made public?
I hear what you are saying, but a contract is only private while both parties agree that the other is not in breach. The minute you want to enforce a contract its contents are made fully public.
TBH, I don't think anyone who got a life-changing amount of money from a settlement would want to jeopardise that by breaching the NDA and forcing the other party to sue, making the contract open to public inspection.
