Greenwashing is done with signs and advertisements, not with millions of dollars and heavy equipment investments.

The likes of "biofuels" and "renewable" electricity generation can involve vast amounts of money and plant. Yet be useless, even counterproductive, assuming a goal of reducing fossil fuel usage. So the idea that "greenwashing" cannot involve these is false.

The credible way out of the problem of burning fossil fuels is to replace as many energy sources as possible with renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.).

Wind and solar are not especially credible energy sources. Except for specific niche applications, possibly excluding this one. Geothermal and hydro require rather specific geography with hydro often being opposed by "greenies". With the most effective and most truely "renewable" option being even more strongly opposed by the "greenies".

It's usually easy to tell whether a driver involved in an accident was texting and the penalties can be stiff (including manslaughter or vehicular homicide).

Should there actually be special laws along the lines of "vehicular homicide" especially given that they potentially allow someone to literally "get away with murder".

if you want to save money and take a risk with a cab that doesn't have inspections, why should the government butt in? again, consenting adults not small children that need a nanny to watch over them.

On the other hand there dosn't appear to be much interst in regulating "school runs".

The fact that people aren't in the position to audit their books and look to see that they're in compliance with reasonable safety standards.

Are there no safety standards which would apply to any vehicle on Californian public roads?

Did they mention how many were women?

It's a publicly available document - if you seriously want to know, go read it.
There is quite a lot of restrictions on accessing this - generally it's limited to people who genuinely could never do so for themselves, and I've yet to encounter any South African (even libertarians) who have an issue with the housing program (though the libertarians complain that the recipients should get full ownership with title).

The much more important aspect is not that, it's rules like making evictions require a court order - so that power imbalances between rich and poor can be somewhat mitigated by judicial oversight into processes like that.

No. You're reading with Republican blinkers on. The housing thing is an entitlement not a right. What I said was that if you qualify for the entitlement the dignity right prevents government from giving you a new cardboard box and calling it "housing assistance".

The anti-salt propaganda has as much basis as the "wisdom" of drinking eight glasses of water a day. It became a thing everyone "knows" is true without questioning if there is any factual support.

Much the same is true of the various versions of "five a day".

Nobody has ever demonstrated a mechanism for how salt intake causes heart disease. All you ever get is a lot of hand waving and vague statistics collected from people who already have advanced CV disease.

Not just with salt, when it comes to CVD. Dosn't help either that many of the people involved have no excuse for not knowing the difference between a lipoprotein and a steroid either.

Well that's a different issue but officially here churches are considered non profit organisations though this is not automatic. They have to apply like any charity and comply with relevant regulations - including that they have to actually spend at least a certain percentage of their income on endeavors with no return.

The point about systems like anarcho-syndicalism is to avoid the scaling problem by... NOT scaling.

Why do we need to scale ? What's the purpose ? What value does it have ? Why do we need countries ?What does having a COUNTRY offer you that having a town doesn't ?

In an Anarchism where everybody votes on every law and you get more votes the more you are personally affected by the law (to prevent tyranny of the majority) - the ideal scenario is that the area covered by the law be only your immediate environment.
Not even a whole city. There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that good laws for Brooklyn will ALSO be good laws for Manhattan or Queens. As long as they can agree on some common principles for trading between them - why can't people in Brooklyn vote to allow something that people in Queens oppose ?

In this system the way you enforce a true sharing of resources without hardship or leaving people out is not by force OR incentive, it's simply by giving everybody a truly equal voice in their own governance. That will regulate the market, it will set a decent minimum wage (because the minimum wage earners outnumber the businesses) - so that wallmart can't pay people so badly that all their employees still get foodstamps (which just means they've shifted their labour bill onto the taxpayers - that is not a good thing and makes all the supposed "savings" they offer completely nullified - you're paying the same price just through the very inefficient middleman of the government). It will make laws against dumping toxins in the drinking water because the people who drink that water are making the laws and if you BREAK that law owning a business will sure as hell NOT keep you out of prison because the people who decide the punishment for the law are the SAME people whom you poisoned.

Communism has had a split between anarchists and statists right from the start. Hell Marx himself got into fistfights with anarchists at the 1st International. Right from the start a lot of the most important thinkers believed that communism requires the ABSENCE of government rather than it's maximization.
Unfortunately - the statists won out in the early days (and the anarchists never joined them - through the years the anarcho communists would frequently be simultaneous at war with invaders BOTH capitalist AND communist wanting to destroy them).

The most successful of those was Andalusia, which created an anarcho-socialist system in their city in the early 20th century, and managed to run it with a fairly high degree of success (it wasn't problem free and their implementation had some flaws - which people since have learned from but it was pretty good). Orwell himself described it as the happiest and most free society he ever got to visit - and praised how truly egalitarian they were - a city with no poverty or hunger or suffering at all).
They were still economically strong when they fell - despite having been at war the entire 20 years of their existence (state-communists from the South and capitalists from the north both wanted to destroy them) until World War 2 - the scale up of military power finally forced them to surrender.

The thing is - hardly anybody in academia or among (at least the educated part of) the left actually pushes for state-communism anymore, we saw what happened in the Soviet Union as well. The anarchists may have lost the original political battle for communism's soul but they were the winners in the long run because, today, they are the only ones left.

>You're confusing government-run entitlement programs, paid for with taxes taken from one person and given to another, with "rights." They are not the same thing.

That's a very American philosophical position - it's not a fact. Here - these things are constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I also did NOT make the mistake you made, our system is actually not that different from yours - but ON TOP of what we restrict the government from doing we
1) Give them a lot more they are REQUIRED to do
2) Have OTHER things they are NOT allowed to do.

For example - we got gay marriage legalized years ago - because the constitution prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. The constitutional court found that government not allowing it was discrimination and with a single court case the matter was settled for good.

Having a constitutional right NOT to be discriminated against on any of a long list of grounds is one of our best features. You add ammendments one by one for different types of discrimination you encounter - we gave everybody the right not to be discriminated against as a core factor of our constitution right from the start.

And seriously - America is not the greatest country on earth - in many ways it's the worst. In some others it's excellent - but the ONLY people who think it's better than any others are Americans who swallowed the kool aid. Nobody else will EVER be convinced because when your politics fuck up it hurts you a little and everybody else a LOT.

Well our constitution was written much later - with a lot of inspiration from the US - which is why our bill of rights and the US one is very similar.
However there is also one or two items from more recent sources (for starters the entire International Convention on Human Rights).

There is also a few liberties we've taken from things like the German constitution - which deal with the realities of countries that had experienced gross human rights abuses - such as a right to dignity.

The right to dignity for example has several clauses - such as a positive obligation placed on the government to ensure there is quality housing for all citizens and a requirement that evictions can only be done with a court order. Another impact is that it informs the right not to be discriminated against - here a business cannot deny service to anybody on discriminatory grounds. Recently a wedding venue wanted to refuse a gay couple the right to marry there on religious grounds and lost their case - the constitutional right not to be discriminated against on sexual orientation means that if you operate a business you MUST serve ALL sexual orientations. There's no obligation to approve of gay marriage, but you cannot as a business discriminate against it (a church could refuse to host a service, but a church is not a business).

Not everybody thinks these are freedoms, some people would say the above example reduces the business owner's freedom for example - and it's true that this is a trade-off but the right not to be discriminated against protects freedoms (such as freedom of association and movement) for many, many people - if a small minority has a very slight decrease in freedom (while making money out of the people they aren't allowed to mistreat) then this is a worthwhile trade-off in my mind.

In some regards the fact that our constitution is only 20 years old has been advantageous - it means that we have all the rights the US has - most of which were not in their original constitution (Everything with "amendment" in it) right in the basic document, and we still have the option of future amendments if we need them.

So you're just going to pretend that all those real world examples I gave never existed ?

It's not a very difficult calculation - our constitution has all the rights yours has - and a few more you don't :D

And good job guessing the country right :D