Mercer

If the sewer line out to the street has any trees growing over it, get a sewer scope with your inspection.

Imagine the level of complete cowardice it would take, to work with this dude, and pretend he shouldn't be the one being arrested. Absolute cowards.

Same cop was being filmed inside a subway station from the track side of the turnstiles. He went through the turnstiles, kicked the person out who already to pay to be in there, then later went up to the street and assaulted/maced, arrested the person for filming. That's all on camera too. Turns out dude is a serial violator that the city constantly pays settlements for.

Permit Patty tried to open up the market for them, but failed miserably.

"Little Kids Charge $1.00 for Lemonade, Knowing It Disproportionately Affects The Poor" Up to 200 Americans per year die from complications brought on by dehydration.

"Health Care Workers are Profiting From Human Sickness & Misery" https://newrepublic.com/article/155013/greedy-hospitals-fleece-poor

This is so 2021 I should post it in that thread. Darren till banned for a joke.

You ever seen someone with one of those neglected parrots that go crazy, and rip out their feathers? Fuck those people. It's not even a domesticated animal, they're supposed to be free, or eaten, not held in captivity. Just saying, put that little neglected Thanksgiving turkey looking ass up before inviting people over so you don't look like a retarded psychopath. Fuck is wrong with people that have something like this, tortured, screeching in their house all day.

Fucking people don't have the decency to shoot you and get it over with, they want to take their time and get all stabby with it.

In an ancap utopia, I'd like to think the customers can choose between no defecation, or opt for a free feces coating on the house, with Prime™ membership of course.

What if she's still hot, despite being covered in her own defecation from the trip?

So my wife and I were ready to go out dancing for the first time together. I got super excited, and she decided to cancel out of nowhere. Fuck is her problem? It_was_a_shock_to_her-rewardingbluedesertpupfish.mp4

Pies veterans, they're not hard to spot.

Look, I'm just offering solutions here that don't involve coercive means of enforcement. You seem to agree something should, must be done. Then you go on pointing out how these solutions will also involve some level of sacrifice. All solutions will involve some level of sacrifice by somebody, right? So point taken. Here's my point, the asshole who lives 2 hours from the city, that can barely afford to commutes in every day might need to switch their shit up if this ends. Fuck em. Either move closer to work, or pay the actual costs yourself. I don't think failure at managing your own finances is an excuse to do whatever the fuck you want like live 2 hours from your job and waste your entire life commuting. The entire point here is changing this behavior, cleaning up what we breath, and I also happen to be presenting a solution that reduces the state's exertion of force. That's what I call a win/win/win. Bottom line is somebody is going to have to move, take the train, or find work closer to home if we're going to fix this shit right? So, if you agree behaviors need to be changed to fix co2 emissions, what's your better alternative to my solution of highway privatization? If can't come up with a better alternative, can you explain what actual good comes from the current system of government subsidizing this otherwise unaffordable, wasteful lifestyle of long commutes. The problem is you can't present a better alternative to increased energy efficiency, and reduced co2 without disproportionately placing the burden on the tax payer. This puts everything on the shoulders of the so called "working class" since the rich and poor don't pay taxes. Here's another random taste of reality, most actual "poor" people don't own cars, and those that do somehow still aren't benefitting much from "muh roads" subsidization because they're probably not commuting in from the burbs. So even if your goal is punishing the rest of society just to benefit the poors, you're really only helping a small minority of them, and certainly not the ones that need the most help. Long commutes into the city from the burbs is more of a middle, and upper class thing. Ending the subsidy means these people would see a net cost/benefit gain by dropping the current wasteful (crony capitalism) method fort funding roads. They could keep the tax savings, or just paying per use. To be fair, I think people commuting more, should have to pay more. A more common sense approach than continued idiotic class warfare. We've established that your objections only point out the obvious, there will need to be sacrifices by those currently subsidized. So I'll at least give you that. I also agree some people will be worse off. As usual, when I present a solution, people are quick to point out a negative consequence of this solution, but are unable to present a better alternative. I find this mildly frustrating always presenting my argument to be picked apart, but people here hide behind not presenting their own solutions/points of view, and arguments that support it. This isn't a personal attack here but I don't see you presenting any solutions yourself here. I mean do you even have one? Is pointing out road tolls cost money, and poor people have less money a win for you? Like most, you lean towards shaping society through state coercion. This means a solution sounds like pure nonsense to you unless it implies a certain segment of the population is disproportionately harmed. In your case, it only will make sense if you're fucking over the taxpayers. In a right wing frame of mind, the solution only strokes their confirmation bias if it fucks over those with less advantages. Both sides of this dichotomy are so stuck in this frame of mind, a non-coercive, common sense solution like encouraging people to drive/consume less by paying for what they use seems infeasible for some reason. I still invite you to explain what you prefer about our current non-action on reducing co2, or what you think would be a feasible way to reduce co2 so I can point out how it's totally invalid, or a "slippery slope" because it might be harmful to a small minority of the population.

Sure there is, if you pay per use, you'll use it less, thus slow co2 emissions. It's that simple. If it's funded through tax extortion, motorists, shipping companies, etc. get's unlimited use. Their true cost of doing business is distorted by this subsidy, while other businesses, and people who aren't conducting interstate commerce themselves are unfairly penalized. You'll be incentivized to buy local, goods and services will become less big corp, more localized. People won't be able to afford to commute long distances regularly if they don't take their tax savings and use it for tolls. I mean there's a long list of benefits for pay per use, but I can't think of a single drawback.