I need to start by saying that wife and I realize we are fiscally privileged relative status quo and ethically act upon that truth.
We've have been much happier since we sold the vast majority of our material possessions. There's far less for us to worry about and slave to pay for. We've far more freedom to act morally and ethically in our choices.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
Every time the federal passes a law they're empowered at the expense of the states. The executive has been influencing and leading legislative efforts since Washington empowered Hamilton.
But, I think I understand where you're coming from. The federal executive has, since the beginning, also been also accumulating power primarily at the expense of the federal legislative. And, just like most everything else that sucks today, it was the Reagan administration that kicked it up a notch.
No reform of courts will suffice because the rest of the system is also broken.
ELI5, How does no term limits allow for impartiality?
ELI5 is for someone else to provide. I'll instead give you the answer an adult deserves.
There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. - MLK Jr.
Compare a SCOTUS justice to any legislator or the President: The legislators and President must act as their corporate donors wish or they'll not be re-elected. But, the fundamental ideology of the US (and prerequisite to a world I wish to live in) mandates that the minority be protected from the majority and the majority from the mediocre outcomes of democracy.
This role is never safe, politic, or popular. The lack of term limits allows SCOTUS justices to judge without these concerns. We hope they act for the People. But, we also risk of them acting as they do now.
The system is broken. But, the proposed changes make it arguably much worse as they limit the ability for the system to self-recover in the future. They appear at best to be kicking the can to future generations (typical boomer shit).
Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday... the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.
The lack of term limits exists to allow judges to be impartial. The President should explain the ideology of how the checks and balances of government will be effected.
US supreme court grabbing ‘ultimate power’, Biden reform adviser says
Hypocrisy. For centuries power has been concentrated into the executive branch. A member of SCOTUS called for ethics enforcement. The executive responds by proposing to further concentrate power.
He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
The executive wishes to constitutionally codify that future Presidents cannot present and cover up as poorly as Trump. Once Biden flubbed his lines the situation was at risk of a repeat. If the masses believe it's fucked then it's very bad for corporate profits. Profit maximization now requires a means to remove a President.
Modest home. Stone fruit trees. Nice big pole barn for projects.
My wife and I have been searching for community and reasonable housing costs. My data analyst self began mad research of all sorts for about a year. Then, we moved into a vehicle and explored for eight months.
Boots on the ground, we learned that everything is much, much better if you're at least 40 minutes from the closest Walmart. This is harder than it seems. It'll likely be an hour+ commute to a workplace with decent pay. But, it's been consistently true wherever we've traveled (US): No Walmart nearby means a solid community and cheap land.
We found a place we like. My wife accepted a job offer today. We bought a 14' enclosed utility trailer and will build a temporary home in the two weeks before we leave, avoiding rent and mortgage until we find the perfect piece of land.
The entire cellular network, particularly T-Mo 5G unlimited, would put it to shame. If one wants better then Starlink.
The way to do wireless would be to form a neighborhood ISP, put up a tower, then wireless P2P to each home. I've seen it in a few places. More common is citywide wifi.
I do know that AT&T has a fiber line that runs through my neighborhood, yet I can’t get fiber internet
The local exchange carriers (LECs) typically change from plain olds telephone system (POTS) to fiber at the neighborhood level. Coax carriers also.
Fiber to the neighborhood is already there. It's not hard to run a line across a neighborhood to connect whatever on either side.
The difficult part is getting from a neighborhood connection to each individual home. It's a flower pot install on each property, all connected together underground, and it can't fuck with gas, water, sewer, etc.
free market economy where private sector funds investment
If that's how it actually worked we might accept it. But, today there's little distinction between public and private: Corporations own our government.
We did the same for urban fiber. It's never materialized, either. And, the USDA has been providing funding and loans for rural broadband for quite awhile.
I need to start by saying that wife and I realize we are fiscally privileged relative status quo and ethically act upon that truth.
We've have been much happier since we sold the vast majority of our material possessions. There's far less for us to worry about and slave to pay for. We've far more freedom to act morally and ethically in our choices.
We combined dematerialization with the Vimes Boots Theory of Economic Unfairness: