The protagonist being in a privileged position due to government seisuze of private property is certainly an excellent point. I just feel the state exercising power in the other direction, against productive ventures instead of property owners, may be a little too in vogue these days.

You show me a single home owner who’s enthusiastic about having a large multi-unit built next door … I wouldn’t be happy personally.

If you think capital has all the power look at TC energy’s keystone pipeline. Look at LNG facility approval in Canada. No shortage of capital there but those projects are dead.

If there’s demand for something (housing) markets will solve that problem you just get out of the way and let them. Capitalists would love to sell the same acre of developed realeatate to more than one person. Remember - they’re greedy.

Why is industry creating carbon? They’re building the things we need and generating our power. Probably 100% of industrial CO2 emissions are conducted for us. This is just our emissions upstream from the things we consume directly.

Also if you cut 100% of your emissions you’d be dead. Breathing emits CO2.

I like trains too. Unfortunately they rarely go anywhere I need to go where I live. In Toronto they also sadly win out in the homeless urine category over my car.

I’m actually not really. Here’s at least a logical arguments one could make.

Healthcare is a scarce resource like all things. Making it universal doesn’t exempt it from that fact. Removing it from a competitive market will likely make it more expensive and prevent innovations which will keep it affordable. Competitive markets drive efficiency.

Government provided healthcare rations service availability based on criteria they set. A private system rations availability based on the indivual’s ability to afford the service. If people can afford the service additional capacity can be created with that money. Under a government system extremely long wait times are the norm … With health this may mean late diagnosis of cancer and other suboptimal outcomes.

People are generally more wealthy in the later years of their lives and also in need of more care. Under a public system the costs associated with an aging population will be disproportionately placed on younger people who still pay taxes in their prime earning years. With the number of working people constantly decreasing when compared to the number of retired baby boomers this is unsustainable under a public system.

At the end of the day I think free markets apply poorly to healthcare because you have no ability to comparison shop during a medical emergency. Also US seems to have the worst mix of regulated private healthcare which has kept costs the highest of any country. I do think most social democratic countries are basically screwed over the next 20 years with the demographics being what they are.

https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

All aviation is 1.9% … Private would be a vanishingly small amount of that.

Everything is profitable if you raise prices. In a way you’re just offsetting a certain segment of the populations transportation costs to everyone else under that system. Maybe you could privatize the roads too and use the tolls to fund more buses which operate at a profit. Its fun think of insane libertarian free marker solutions to such problems :) Cars might be less appealing if people had to pay the associated infrastructure costs on a per km basis.

If you really want to you can structure your life in a way where food is close to home… did that through college. Paid for cabs for groceries … Walked and used transit or my bike. Was pretty miserable in Canadian winters and not very convienent. Plus pretty expensive… You can do it. Or just admit you like cars :) as long as most people secretly actually like cars and use them then society will be structured in a way to accommodate that. The world’s a big place and in order to have most of the things you need really close isn’t really entirely realistic.

You can agree with some principles of a work and reject others. What parts of her philosophy do you find to be lunacy?

It speaks against a system where political favour dictates your success as a producer over your ability to compete. If you feel land owners and intellectual property owners are gate keepers in a society where your can have your own ideas and buy your own property I don’t know what to say.

Well two of probably a dozen or more requirements a week right? Your solution is “pay someone else with a vehicle” and after a certain number of times that makes less sense than just having a vehicle. Also imagine being a single mom who works with like 5 kids… Trying to manage that with paying for cabs or trying to use a bus…

For non urban people like me you unfortunely need a vehicle to get everything. I vastly prefer public transport if I’m going into a major city because parking is a major inconvience and expense.

Public transport in areas with low population density is unprofitable and poor service … Too few vehicles so long waits between pickups. My town has literally a single cab … Better be the first person to call if you need a ride to work …

Like most things it’s balance … No one wants the ecological damage of the 60s again. I’d say the vast majority of the things people are buying are imported from less regulated markets… Lead in the kids toys am I right? If things are produced here at least you can take those companies to court when they do harm.

Good reasons being ? I’ve seen projects cancelled due to a few arrow heads and tool parts being found … Massive overruns due to turtle eggs. Private companies just don’t build here if they can avoid it. Building and producing things is never perfectly safe and will always cause some ecological damage. The things we consume are actually built overseas in the most destructive and unregulated way possible mostly … Are they not?

I never had a noticeable case of it either. I think I probably had an asymptomatic case

At this point probably everyone has had omicron or one of the later less harmful variants. The trend of becoming more transmissible and less harmful is normal for corona viruses. Im with most people in being apprehensive about getting additional boosters. Why do you feel there’s a real danger?

I’ll take what’s the definition of strawman for 500 Alex.

Yeah if you want to fix zoning to increase density that’s a local government issue. I personally like having a car and large house outside of the city. I’m absolutely in support of government fixing multi residential zoning … Would have loved better options when I was younger. I’m sure a lot of developers would gladly respond to those market forces if given the option … Do you think it’s nimbys preventing that or capitalists?

There’s at least a grain of truth in that book. Try starting a business or producing something.

Look at domestic attempts to mine lithium or building semiconductor plants. Try building anything here.

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them, but protect them against you. . . you may know that your society is doomed.”

Personal transport also has massive benefits. Try transporting a few sheets of drywall on public transport. Try moving a sick person to the hospital. Try living outside of an urban centre…

I like cars. They’re comfortable and convenient.

Go start a public transport company. If you’re right the market will reward you :)