Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @lemm.ee

All of this user's content is licensed under CC BY 4.0

---

Read more

Posts

9

Comments

209

Joined

2 yr. ago

No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an "Assault Rifle" were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of "Restricted Firearms" (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an "Authorization to transport", to be able to carry a "Restricted", or "Prohibited" firearm, one must obtain an "Authorization to Carry" (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of "non-restricted" firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and "restricted" firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one's application, the prospective firearm owner's application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one's application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.

I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.

In addition to this, there is no limitation on the magazine size for rimfire longuns in Canada.

[source] With some exceptions, there is no limit to the magazine capacity for:

• semi-automatic, rim-fire long guns
• other long guns that are not semi-automatics

There’s no right to magazine sizes. They have a right to guns.

The 2nd Amendment specifies "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I would argue that to be able to functionally "bear arms", one must be able to be in possession of the means to operate those arms.

Give ‘em a bolt action with a 3+1 magazine. Still have a gun, right?

The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear bolt-action rifles, shall not be infringed". Instead, it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".

The 2nd Amendment specifically says "the right to bear arms", not "the right to bear muskets".

What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?

These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot -- imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.

These people are there from institutional failure, not merit or meaningful support if their citizens.

They are there because they were voted in.

I believe you may be misinterpereting "from each according to his ability to each according to his need". It's not about giving those with more ability more than those with less ability but instead to redistribute the fruits of labour, generated by those according to their ability, to those according to their need.

Would you mind outlining why you say that?

Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different

Libertarianism seeks to maximise freedom.

some people’s freedoms infringe on others.

Libertarianism does not, in any way, shape, or form, advocate the idea that one is able infringe on the rights, and freedoms of another without their consent. One should not be allowed to impart a cost on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.

I think you are possibly confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism does not make the argument that the state is well functioning without a central authoritative mediating body -- I point you to the model of a Nightwatchman State.

It doesn’t work for almost anyone

You don't believe that upholding, and maximising individual rights, and freedoms is a net positive?

hey just theorize a system that’s basically the same as a central government but with a private entity name stamped on it.

I don't believe that any informed libertarian would advocate for a corporatocracy.

Libertarianism just doesn’t work at all. It is not even a complete system from a logical sense. It falls apart when faced with basic scrutiny

Would you be able to give some specific examples to back up your claim?

Why do you say this? There would exist a justice system to protect individual, and property rights through tort law, just as there is now.

Indeed. I would argue that the free market, itself, carries no inherent morals. The morals, instead, lie within the consumers, and businesses. If the consumers are opposed to slavery, then, on moral grounds, it would be expected that they would boycott such a business. As such, a business would be inclined to not use such forms of labour since the public wouldn't give them their business; however, it seems that the populace doesn't care too much about those under the employ of a company as evidenced the rampant use of child labour, sweatshops, and poor human rights conditions by major corporations with foreign manufacturing -- if the public is not opposed to such forms of obviously cheaper labour, then the market will certainly make use of them.

I meant to say “I’m not saying”

Then what did you mean by "the both sides problem is reveling in political opponents bad health"? Taken litterally, that statement is saying that people are enjoying the fact that their political opponents are in poor health.

If constituents are supposed to be trusted in determining the competency of who they want to elect there should be no age limits at all.

This is the opinion that currently I hold.

President has a 2 term limit, so there is no reason Congress or Justices should not also be subject to predefined limits to how often they can hold an office, to say nothing of other elected officials down the line.

My argument isn't that of whether it's possible to make such rules, it is instead, from a point of principle, whether we should make such rules.

I'm not overly convinced that such restrictions are truly necessary at scale. When we are dealing with "large" populations, these sorts of edge-cases begin to become extremely improbable. While they would indeed remain possible, I would argue that if they were to actually end up occurring, that would be as a symptom of a much more serious societal breakdown which would most likely indicate an imminent collapse. That being said, if there was to be some explicit restriction, I believe that it is sufficient to state that individual must be, at least, a naturalized citizen. There could also be some other clause added for the sake of ensuring that the individuals interests are in that of the nation's -- like the natural-born citizen clause in the U.S.A; however, I personally haven't come to a decision on whether I agree with that, or not.

What do you mean? I’m saying saying most voters enjoy their own representatives poor health.

Yeah, that's what I just said that you said.

I think we’re done here.

I would very much like to understand where my misinterpretations are. I aspire to improve my conversational skills. I apologize if I have offended you in some way -- offense is not my intent.

I do think you would do well to understand what a coordination problem is.

Would you mind elaborating?

“Collapse” meaning what, exactly? Do you mean run out of storage from the volume of content, or that processing all the messages is too taxing?

Years back, I setup a Synapse’s server on my personal server (Yunohost). At some point, I joined the “big” Matrix room. Bad idea: RAM and CPU usage went through the roof. I had to kill the server but even that took forever as the system was struggling with the load.

But don’t just take my words for it:

https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/7339 [...]

It appears that issue is closed as per this comment:

This should hopefully be significantly improved in the upcoming v1.36.0 release. I'm going to close this for now, if people still see issues after updating then feel free to make a new issue.

So pehaps this issue that you are describing is now fixed?

How does it scale differently than Matrix?

[...] XMPP rooms are more conventional: a room is located on one server. That’s an “old” model, but it scales. [...]

This only scales so long as the single server is able to keep up with all of the requests. In the replication, as you have described, all the instances sort of act like load balancers -- they spread the individual requests, and concentrate them into single links between the instances.

And another reason is I may not want to be bothered by people I don’t know, regardless how much I could appreciate reading and/or exchanging with them in the Fediverse.

I think I see what you are getting at with this. Would it be like, for example, if your Lemmy account is also tied to Matrix, then someone on Lemmy could send you a request to talk on Matrix? Granted this could already be assumed to occur if one uses the same username for all of their accounts, but it could possbily be more of an issue if it was more directly integrated. That being said, I'm not sure how realistic this scenario would be since the Matrix protocol is completely independent of Activity Pub. The only connection between accounts that I can think of is OAuth.