In the United States, the Constitution states that in order to take your land for this purpose, you must be compensated fairly. Of course, “fairly” in terms of market value did not amount to very much, but compensation was paid and even dilapidated housing in so-called “blighted” neighbourhoods were still worth something and the cost does add up when you’re knocking hundreds of houses down and having to pay thousands for each one.

There is no easy way to withhold the taxes because the State of California never touches the money. Most of the federal tax revenue from California is remitted directly to the Internal Revenue Service by individual taxpayers.

I’m not going to pretend that I know the whole picture as to why this project is so severely over budget and behind schedule (there is likely nobody on Earth who does), but let me give some pointers as to why countries like China have built hundreds of thousands of kilometres of high-speed rail while California struggles to build a few hundred.

For one, the legal environment in China is one of the prerogative state. “Rights” in China are whatever the Government suffers you to have or deems it expedient to honour. So if you “own” a piece of land in the middle of the planned rail route, the Government will just kick you out. What are you going to do, sue? In the US, environmental laws, land rights laws, and legal procedural law mean that anyone who can spend $50,000 on a lawyer can cause $1 million worth of headaches for the high speed rail authority using the American legal system, which believe it or not, actually sometimes holds the State accountable to the law.

Secondly, in China, the Government has an unprecedented control over the economy that allows it to offer carrots and sticks to a degree that American politicians could only dream of. Yes, you have no say on whether the Government will order your house demolished to make way for an expressway, but in return, if you go quietly, you’ll get a flat in a high-rise in exchange and generous monetary compensation. Raise a stink, and you’ll be paid three strawberries and a steamed bun for your house instead.

Thirdly, under Chinese property law, all land in the country belongs to the State. Everyone else can only lease it from the State.

IIRC there’s still an ICANN fee that has to be paid by the registrar per domain registered

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall there’s an ICANN fee associated with registration as well.

Great idea! This will save the taxpayers literally hundreds of dollars in domain registration fees! That’s over 0.0001¢ per taxpayer!!

If you actually bother to read it (regularly, not just once or twice on selected columns that you saw posted online), you would not think that. The opinion column is very neoliberal with a hint of libertarianism.

The Taiwan issue has exactly to do with the fact that sending official diplomatic representatives to it means recognising its legitimacy and sovereignty. Even though most Western countries already believe this, sending the representatives would be to express that they believe this which is what upsets the Chinese government. China doesn’t care what people think as long as they keep it to themselves. It’s when they get “embarrassed” on the world stage that Chinese leadership thinks it demands action.

Especially not their opinion column but I’m just posting here because it’s interesting to see what the neoliberals think about it and it’s a good discussion point

Washington Post columnists said it would probably just capture the “Never Trumper” moderate Republican voters who currently begrudgingly vote Democratic because they understand that the Republican Party is nominating only yes-men and fascists.

The whole system of formal diplomatic recognition needs to die. Right now, “recognising” a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people. This is a very obstructive and unproductive system. It doesn’t matter whether you “recognise” a government and it also doesn’t matter what you decide to call your representatives to it. Refusing to recognise a government doesn’t mean that group of people doesn’t hold power or doesn’t actually control territory. It just prevents you from engaging with them in a constructive manner. It’s just a head-in-the-sand approach to intergovernmental relations.

If there’s a group of people calling themselves a government that holds power over a group of people or a piece of territory that you are interested in, it shouldn’t have to result in this whole game of charades. You should be able to send official representatives to that group without having to worry about offending everyone else. The whole concept of “recognition” is just nonsense.

Important distinction: it was cited 29 times [by non-parties to the case who filed amicus briefs carrying no legal weight].

It was not cited 29 times in the actual ruling.

This is a fantastic idea. The brilliance of the 47th president strikes again. Give them work permits, ensure they are paid a fair wage and the labour standards are adhered to, and it will guarantee that they become hardworking honest taxpayers who contribute to the American economy.

Wait, that is the plan… right?

Right…?

The party of domestic terrorism strikes again

I think one other factor that people have not considered is the monitor. To run all games at 4K maximum settings, yes, this type of PC might be required. But at lower resolutions, such as 1080p or 1440p, this is overkill and one would be able to run any game as maximum settings even with a computer costing a third as much.

That was already done weeks ago

What happened in San Diego and Minneapolis?

What are some examples of non-lip-service changes to national policy that the Democratic Party could be making right now?

Like the Republicans wouldn’t just get rid of the filibuster the first time it’s used against a major Republican policy objective

What policy are the national Democrats intended to be doing with their swanky majorities of -8 in the House of Representatives and -5 in the Senate?

This is part of what the opposition is supposed to do. They criticise, make fun of, offer legislative resistance to, and draw attention to the bad policies of the government.