I had waited a long time to have any kind of personal experience of God, and finally gave up. Like they said, the holy spirit was supposed to work in you, I prayed for it and looked for it for a long time. Since it didn't appear, no reason to excuse the problematic passages or shitty people.
Also being at a worker coop doesn't mean you have to sit in company meetings all day. For large organizations like Mondragon workers vote for representatives in an assembly, which then appoints a general manager.
Also also, an owner who cares is a single point of failure/leverage. If they fall on hard times personally or just want to retire, they can decide to sell the business out from under workers to a venture capital firm, or just to another business with a less benevolent owner.
You're right, private owners who care are better than private owners who don't care.
Worker owned and controlled companies are preferable (not just ESOPs where decisions are still not made democratically) because democracy allows for error correction. Even the most benevolent king still has a limited amount of attention, information and decision making ability.
Why do we never see centaurs with normal animal head and human ass?
On this point it makes sense people are eager to explicitly identify slave owning as the primary driver for secession, because it's the truth and there is still an active attempt to cover it up
The lost cause argument is something racist losers came up with after the war where they try to say it was more about states rights (and oh by the way slavery wasn't so bad, many slaves like being slaves)
Some schools still teach this, I went to a "Northern" school and still had textbooks making this argument.
Your post seems to echo this by saying the South's main thing was they wanted to be separate, even though that happened to include slavery, there were other reasons too. That's not the case. When they seceded the south explicitly identified slavery as THE reason why they were doing it.
I've seen you say a few places in this thread that reducing caloric intake is related to eugenics. That's a pretty strong claim to make without any evidence. Can you share any?
How is it seizing power?
There's definitely an opportunity cost. If you build a road or a parking garage that's taking space and funds that could go to something else. The same could be said of a park or firehouse or factory. And I'd agree that in many cases something better could have been done than car centric infrastructure.
But an individual owning a car isn't taking something from someone who doesn't own a car.
Besides, my point is that cars should not be prioritized over pedestrians, cyclists and public transit. Just that to displace cars we should try to understand what people see in them, contra the last line of the OP image
Gene Hackman!
You're right there are a lot of negative things about the U.S. And even if it became a biking/public transit utopia, it would still suck to be homeless. We'd still need to address wealth inequality.
I'm addressing the last line of the OP image, why do we hold up cars as a symbol of freedom? It's because they do provide personal empowerment. They provide specific benefits.
It's possible for a situation to have terrible outcomes without it being a conspiracy. Some people, like Robert Moses, did design certain places to be accessible by car but not by bus. But I'd argue the main reason the car is dominant in the U.S. is because individuals who saw benefit from their own car use pushed and bought into that system.
Imagine we're playing chess, we have to understand the pieces on the board, what their abilities are. I get it's a fun thought experiment to list all the ways a bike is great. I'm just saying it's useful to understand what people see in a car if we want to create an alternative.
You don't know about my thighs!
Jokes aside, it's one thing to say it's possible to recreate some aspect of car ownership with a bike. But it's making the individual responsible for something that requires a societal solution.
Suggesting impractical alternatives to what are easy benefits with cars isn't a serious alternative. And we won't fully replicate everything a car does. But understanding where the trade-offs are is essential to approaching the problem.
I'm all for a balance between public and private space missions. That said, this mission was run by a different company from SpaceX, and I'm not clear how this would be called junk while a government operated mission wouldn't be junk. The article also mentions this mission is in partnership with NASA.