Approval voting absolutely sucks. Not for any mathematical reason, it may very well give us the best results mathematically, but for psychological reasons. If you give approval to both the safe (popular) candidate and your preferred one, then you won't feel you have expressed your preference once the popular candidate wins. If you only approve your preferred candidate and an opposing (very undesirable) candidate wins, you again regret not voting tactically. In either case, you justifiably have no confidence in the results.

Also, as a candidate, how do you get people to not mark other candidates in addition to you? The answer is you don't run on your own positions but attacking opponents. Not very healthy for democracy.

I need to think more on STAR.

If you weren't so broke, you would know there is also Switzerland. ;)

You do realize some countries in Europe have federal governments (Germany for example), right? And then these completely independent countries are part of the EU which have EU elections. So you have federation within federation. Also, the EU has higher population than the USA. We don't even all speak the same language. We are allowed to move between EU countries whenever we like and have residence where we please.

I think its not Europeans that don't understand.

update: In case it is not clear, being registered automatically is the same as not having to register, which is what the post is about. Idk what that update word salad is supposed to be or why it is an update instead of a reply.

"But what about rich white kids"

Yeah, a great argument...

I would be very unhappy if I saw this spacecraft, that still has probably more than 95% chance of bringing me home safely if something happened, leave with no alternative in sight.

Again, brandishing is not an issue where I live.

If anything, I would prefer the attacker see me rack the pistol just for the psychological effect, hopefully avoiding having to fire.

More importantly, I live in a peaceful country. The chances I get hit by a car or suffer a heart attack are greater then that I will need to defend myself with a weapon. So if a paramedic needs to handle the gun when I am incapacitated, I would prefer there was not a round in the chamber rather than fearing the tiny chance I will mess up the rack in the tiny chance I will need the gun at all. (btw, I currently don't everyday carry at all. The neighbourhood I live and work in is so safe I don't see the point.)

Of course, if I had to go to Afganistan or Detroit, I would definitely want a round in the chamber. 😁

By this logic, I should either drive without a seatbelt or not drive at all... What is this brain dead logic... 😖

Like, you read that in a horoscope?

While I somewhat agree about the warning shot, I absolutely don't about the brandishing. Visual demonstration that you have a gun will always be many times more effective then just saying it. Requiring that you keep it holstered until the last moment is dumb. Not only are you loosing out on the deterrent but having to draw and load the gun under pressure is far more likely to lead to an accident. Or you carry the gun loaded which again increases the chance of an accident.

The thinking is that even considering pulling your firearm must mean that you are in a time-critical situation where it's the only recourse you have. The goal is to keep it from even entering the equation until the point where it's life or death.

But why tho? Does a cop keep their gun holstered until absolutely the last second? No! They aim at you at the first sign of danger so that you think twice before you do dumb stuff. Why wouldn't that apply to civilians defending themselves or their property?

By the way, warning shot is also not the first thing you are supposed to do in CZ/SK. If time permits, you should pull the gun, give two verbal warnings then warning shot immediately followed by another verbal warning.

Not a lawyer, non of this is legal advice.

As I understand it, you can mag dump as long as you manage to do it before the subject falls down, drops their weapon or otherwise clearly ceases to be a threat.

You as a civilian can't really shoot at a target you don't see, just in a general direction. This is endangerment of other potential people that may be in the area.

Cops shouldn't do it either but they are not punished in anyway for it.

As for how many point is Texas jury worth, and how many negative point does a Californian jury give you is outside the scope of my theoretical knowledge.

Btw, in Czechia and Slovakia, it is the opposite. If you have time, you are legally required to use a warning shot. To me this makes more sense since it is likely to defuse the situation without actually injuring/killing anyone. Although I admit it could escalate the situation if the warning shot causes bystanders/cops to get involved and misunderstand the situation. So I guess it is a matter of preference.

I strongly prefer GOG to the point where I often don't buy games that are not on GOG.

That being said, one reason to buy from Steam is steam workshop. So if I want a lot of mods, I may buy from Steam even when available on GOG.

My takeaway from this is aim for the head instead of warning shots. Ridiculous ruling...

PS: Maybe to clarify, there are now cases ruling that if you manage to kill the cops that don't announce themselves, that is legal self defense. But if you fire a warning shot, they can legally kill you. So it is far better to kill the cops than to give them a chance to kill you, legally speaking... Absolute brain dead legal ruling...

Netherlands? Switzerland? Norway?

Like sure, there always is some corruption but relatively insignificant amount.

Honestly, I can't think of an EU country that is anywhere near the US levels of "corrupted by capitalism".

If there's a top that someone could rise to, it isn't communism.

What? Top? What do you mean?

I immediately dislike calling it commerce for 3 reasons:

1. Most people will not know what I mean so I will have to explain every time
2. Commerce is an existing word that means something different so it will still be confusing in a different direction
3. I, on principle, don't like abandoning words because some dumb group(s) appropriate them and try to change their meaning

I think I will try saying "regulated capitalism" from now on and see if it works better.

Yeah, the terminology around this kinda sucks. I always have an issue with whether I should call it capitalism or not when I mean a heavily regulated version of it, including some social policies.

I just don't know a better word for it and it is difficult to concisely express what I mean without saying capitalism and hoping people figure out what I mean from context.

Sorry if it is unclear, I am saying CGB Gray explains how corruption happens in leadership structures and why it is so difficult to prevent.

The opinion that this is why capitalism can work better than communism is entirely my own logical conclusion. I am not trying to claim CGP Gray said so.

Again sorry for the confusion.

CGP gray very specifically refers to democracies as well and explains how things like farm subsidies are used to buy votes. Maybe re-watch the videos.

And yes, CGP gray also indirectly explains why Marxists kept pumping resources into the government, police and bureaucracy. (Clarification: CGP Gray never mentions Marxists specifically, he just explains why leaders have to funnel resources to areas that help them stay in power.) It is inevitable in a system where you concentrate power in a limited group of people.

That is why distributing power between large number of independent capitalists and voters is the system that so far worked best, although still very far from perfect.

As long as humans behave like humans and are in charge, the utopian communism is as realistic as wizards in flying castles.

It is the opposite. In capitalism, there is at least a chance a good person has some power because power is distributed, not only held by governments. There are multiple examples in the main post. Even better examples are European countries where the government and businesses hold each other in check instead of govt being bought off legally like in the US.

In communism, the way power is distributed ensures corrupt people raise to the top. See an amazing video "rule for rulers" by CGP gray for a simplified explanation how that corruption works and why a good person can't hold power.