Amazon doesn't 'employ' drivers, but hired firms to prevent them from unionizing

> in the top few percent for income in the US, and live in California (one of the highest tax states), and I happily pay them.

Well, thats not surprising but at same time not default for most people. Universities have been leaning left since at least 60's and 70's . If all the people who attended university remained influenced by those ideas over the years. Most of the people with higher income and influential positions in society would be overwhelmingly left but that has not happened. It just shows a lot of people become conservative after leaving colleges.

Do you count the influx of homeless as residents? These people absolutely need healthcare, but they are a resource drain that can move in suddenly, unpredictably, and overwhelm a local solution with static resources.

Then you get a situation where the wealthy, even (and sometimes especially) the diehard leftists who voted for the situation, turn up their nose at what’s shown up in their backyard, and fuck off from California to Colorado or Texas. This reduces the tax resource pool, stressing the residents and businesses that can’t afford to leave further. This creates resentment.

Coupled with the overly dramatic and personal shitshow that is local politics, frankly I see local initiatives as a fantastic way to fail tens of thousands of times.

Fixes have to take place at least at the state level, and even that is less than ideal, because expenses have to be spread out (especially in regards to the wealthiest 1% that pay a huge chunk of income tax, and are not equally distributed across local towns) without creating an attractive hotspots for tax resource competition.

Reading what you wrote, I'm concerned that you may be suggesting that all disclosures of negative emotions to strangers are verboten.

I worry, because my spouse had a rough upbringing and it's taken a lot for her to feel comfortable expressing how she feels in a candid way. I strongly desire that people feel comfortable expressing how they feel without judging themselves as burdensome, inappropriate, needy, selfish, or out of control. This includes in my view, expressing themselves in public.

To be clear, if someone tells a child "Stop glaring, people will think we are bad parents" or "Smile or I'll show you what an actual rough time is like", I consider that to be emotional abuse. It teaches the child to deny their emotions and instead present the emotion the parent wants.

I don't see it as any less abusive when an employer (who holds power) tells an employee "Stop glaring, people won't buy our stuff" or "You need to smile more when talking to customers".

But further from that, and closer to your point, I see it as a problem when society tells people the same. This is a different matter than refraining from violence, yelling, overt aggression, etc. in public (which I would agree is preferable).

Perhaps this is because I believe that most problems originate in society. If a kid is beaten every day, and then blows up and hurts someone, and their neighbors knew, and teachers that knew, etc. Then they've really been failed. But more than that, if teachers in general create a culture where it is hard not to fail individuals, then teachers have failed. And if we've voted in and/or encouraged systems that permit or encourage that culture, than we've all failed. And of course this stuff will always happen with some probability.

But if people are in mass overworked, tired, and frustrated. Then I see that as societies problem, not just their problem. So if they are at the store and they are just standing there staring at the aisle and someone asks if they are okay, and has a short talk about it, that's what society handling it's problem looks like. Because the person that was overworked and the person that asked them if they were okay were both part of the problem. So for me, everyone's problems are everyone's responsibility (up to a point). Like even if it is intensely personal. Let's say someone is pushy in their relationships, and the other person is giving ultimatums. Maybe they are old, maybe they are kids, but society taught them how to manage their relationships. If alcohol is involved then it's society that gave them that too. If binge drinking is a piece of it, then society romanticized it and sold it to them. Yeah, they have their own responsibility, but they didn't do it alone. Even when people get illnesses - society told them they'd live longer; it told them to think long term; it told them to forego gratification for a more promising future; etc.

So to me, the perspective that all of people's emotions are their problem and they should keep it to themselves is a way of society avoiding responsibility for the way it influences the emotions of the people who compose it, and ultimately the consequences of its collective decisions and characterizations.

With respect to boundaries around emotional disclosure, my view also isn't incompatible with people feeling free to tell others they don't want to hear how they feel or asking someone exhibiting aggressiveness to go elsewhere.

Perhaps this can be summarized by saying that I think if people are not happy, that's a symptom of society, and having them smile in public will only succeed in hiding a festering wound. And also that I don't believe being decent is incompatible with authenticity, honesty, or emotional disclosure.

> courts then interpret them.

correct. They interpret what the law says, not what it "intends." If the legislators really wanted it to say something else, they should have written it that way.

"the vast majority of investors are not willing to accept anything less than "the highest possible returns legally achievable""

One important correction because they definitely aren't getting the highest return by those antics

Fixed: "the vast majority of investors are not willing to accept anything but the highest expected return when only considering easily quantified first order short term effects"

That's an important distinction that should not be left out.