There should be a state monopoly on violence, and that violence should be heavily regulated.

Sadly, neither of those statements are currently true.

The harm or less harm are thanks to Ordinal voting.

First Past the Post is the absolute worst offender, but every single Ordinal voting system will eventually devolve into a forced choice between this or that.

Thankfully there are Cardinal voting systems. Those always boil down to the word and. For example, I can say that I support getting ice cream, and sandwiches, and a slushy, and even just finishing the route, but not going over that cliff.

My support for any given item is counted independently of my support for any other option.

To see what option wins, you just look at total support.

Different Cardinal systems have their own little quirks, but the key in all of them is that ability to give multiple items identical levels of support.

I see you moved past communism and straight into Leninism,

That means step three is “lose an election”.

Turns out that anti-cracking tech is widely applicable, if a bit expensive.

A rare food based example of Carcinisation

Sure, but it’s easier to just add a pinch of msg.

The “hard” option is to just get rid of the hen that turned cannibal. It’s going to be just one, unless you’re running an egg factory level operation. Give the hens more space and actual yard time, and most will stop pecking. The one that doesn’t goes in the soup pot.

I can understand why someone would ask who the good guys were in WW1.

It’s a question that shows a childlike understanding of war in general, but that’s how war is often sold. A team sport with body bags.

That said, WW1 is hard to pick a “good” side. It was a mess of a war, but no side was particularly vile when compared to the others…

But for a US president, there’s only one valid answer.

A US president can admit that Vietnam was not a shining moment is US history, but the world wars? No.

I’ve been out of the military for almost 20 years and I can still march to a cadence.

Active duty? They could march if they felt like it. They did not.

There were free black people in Washington’s day. But yes, the first several presidents were all slave owners.

What they really objected to, a black woman.

I feel the need to add some context here.

The patriarchal push to erase the pantheon started just before the Babylonian Exile under the reign of King Josiah. He ruled from 640 to 609 BCE.

His son Ellakim (or Jehoiakim) refused to pay tribute to the Neo-Babylonians which resulted in 60 years of slavery for some 7000 Judeans.

It was only in 539 BCE when the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell that they were allowed to go home.

The Judeans come home, but their temple has been sacked and most of their sacred texts burnt, so they rebuild and recreate.

This is when Noah and Moses were invented, a long with anything before Solomon, and even much of his life as well.

Mark Rober already did that.

Tankies, the original meaning was to refer to those who cheered when Stalin sent tanks in to crush the Hungarian communist party because they wanted independence from the Soviet Union. The term was revived when China literally crushed a student protest using tanks.

There’s actually a somewhat brand new miracle treatment for cancer that uses individual atoms of actinium-225.

Each cancer cell gets a single atom, and then it dies when that atom decays. And since it’s an alpha decay, the cell gins some high energy helium. That’s it.

Well, the atomic nucleus of a helium-4 atom. Which then rips some electrons from whatever it collides with.

And then that happens a few times to produce bismuth-209, which has a halflife of 2x10^19 years. Which means it’s perfectly safe.

Anyway, this treatment, called targeted alpha therapy is specifically approved for Bone metastasized prostate cancer, and significantly improves survival rates vs placebo.

It’s not that good against solid tumors

Fun fact, Condorcet is the inventor of RCV, and threw it out because it almost never produces the Condorcet winner.

I’m an opponent of RCV for none of those reasons.

No, I hate it because it’s deeply flawed and provides zero of the benefits that proponents claim it does.

Rather than help third parties, it actually hurts them.

The inventor of the system, created it as an example of a bad voting system. This was in 1790.

There’s far more ballot spoilage when compared to any other system.

It doesn’t eliminate the spoiler effect, just kicks it down the ballot a bit,

It’s confusing to count, which has led to the wrong candidate being sworn in.

It requires centralized counting, which is a single point of failure or attack.

And finally there are better, simpler systems that actually do the things that RCV proponents claim RCV

I’ve also seen that economists never account for naked greed.

Vegeta killed Yamcha once, and Buu killed him a second time.

Technically it wasn’t even Vegeta, it was just the little green men that Vegeta and Nappa had seeds for.

Krillian was actually alive to see that death.

As for the death by Buu, that was being turned to chocolate and then being eaten.

Krillian still has him beat on number of deaths, picking up an extra death on planet Namak.

I’m still hung up on you “economically viable”…

So, because no one would be allowed to exploit the people for profit, it’s not worth making the world a better place?

Even in the current capitalist society we have, a co-op can make money, (which is then shared equally with workers).

If every company and business were, by law, a co-op, without changing any other factor of society, you’d see all of that excess wealth that’s normally hoarded by the few reinvested into making the economy stronger.

Because right now, under capitalism, we’re always on the brink of a massive recession/depression. This is by design. See, the super rich can’t buy up everything on the cheap, if they don’t crash the economy every few years.

And that’s your economically viable. Working more hours for less pay so that a rich asshole can buy yet another vacation home.