Nope.

Also nope.

The actual quote mentions a TYRANT. A singular ruler whose power relies heavily on personal reputation.
Misapplying that to a regime at best makes you misinformed. At worst disappeared.

A totalitarian government is NOT one that NEEDS fear and intimidation to rule. It's a government that already HAS you by the balls.
It does not need fear or intimidation. That's for petty dictatorships. A totalitarian government has CONTROL over rules and laws.
I.e. It does not need to intimidate you into not drinking alcoholic beverages. It just makes it illegal.

So, because it is aware of its own power, it is perfectly fine with letting you get your rocks off at its expense - as it knows that all it has to do is squeeze for your laughter to become a squeal.
And it also knows that if it lets you bark at it you will never get frustrated enough to bite, while it can dismiss you with a wave of a hand "proving its openness to criticism".
If you do eventually bite... well, you're clearly a mad dog. Just look at all your history of constant barking.

It's totalitarian cause it already has all the power and control. It doesn't need fear nor does it fear ridicule.
Only those who DO NOT have absolute power, but pretend that they do, fear laughter.

In no particular order... war, recession, genocide, ecological disaster, government prescribed religion, concentration camps, fascism, disbanding of social services, police state...

All far worse and clearly in a different category from "make people laugh at it".

The entire article could be summed up as "How our confirmation bias made us change the rules until the results confirmed our bias."

"See? When I change the rules of poker to be like blackjack, the game evolves into a game of blackjack on its own! Fascinating! It is as if evolution would like to avoid the poker altogether."

Capitalism is not a social system - it's an economic system. I.e. It is about making and trading THINGS.
You "win" by making and having more things faster.

Socialism and communism are social AND economic systems. Being SOCIAL they are primarily about benefits of PEOPLE AND/OR SOCIETIES.
You "win" by achieving a satisfied and happy society.

That's why it intuitively works for families and tribes - goals are common and simple.
And why it is a bitch to work in a larger society in which many smaller groups may have conflicting and complex goals.

He is also one of the two people who came up with the idea for the movie.

Morse.

It is a claim by an MP in UK Parliament, made back in 2005.

They got their number by essentially guessing. Cause there is no such number as "passengers per vehicle".

Except there is no such value as "passenger kilometres" for buses in the source as you can't use that for buses - cause they operate by "zones" and not by destinations.
Same price for one stop as it is for three or five and passengers keep getting on and off along the way.
A ticket price is not related to the of distance that a passenger WILL BE traveling but to the MAXIMUM distance ALLOWED to travel.

So, they rounded it down to the lowest common denominator.
"9 passengers average" might be stretched as technically not a "wrong" number - just factually completely inaccurate as an average, minimum or maximum number of passengers.

It's actually the minimum number of passengers a bus must be able to carry in order to NOT BE CONSIDERED a "not-a-bus".
If it talks like a bus, drives like a bus... then it is not a taxi, which CAN be used as a bus but it is NOT a bus.
So what is a bus? Anything from 9 seats and up.

Transport Statistics Great Britain, 2002, 5 Public Transport: Notes and Definitions

That "9 passengers average" is like saying that average number of seats for motor vehicles is 1 - because motorcycles.

Wouldn't say "actually" as always, but I would agree on it meaning "often". Or even "most of the time".

I mostly doubt their abilities to correctly asses the situation more than their motivation.
Incompetence trumps malice. And those willing to chance it on an alternative approach tend to be incompetent by definition.
Otherwise it wouldn't be an alternative approach but a tried and true strategy.
That, and that Niven law about fools and noble causes.

Even Hitler thought that he was doing the greatest thing ever for Germany and the human race.
Just like the Soviet block was later willing to sacrifice everything (that means personal freedoms and comfort too, comrade) in that last final decisive battle to unite humanity - it's right there in the song.
Or the way USA block was fine with whatever was needed to protect democracy and American way of life from godless communists. Even if that means a dictatorship or two, mister.

Idealism is a great starting point for any professional breaker of eggs. After all, that omelet is just within our reach... you can almost smell it.

No they don't.

They are GIVEN a shelf life of 3-5 years based on lab tests interpreted in such a way that the continuous chain of procurement of such vests by the police and the military is maintained AND so the producers of said vests could cover their asses in court in case it's needed.
"See, your honor, evidence shows that the officer Smith exposed his vest to higher temperature and UV light than what is written on the label. Ergo, it is his fault that high velocity round our client's vest wasn't ever designed for, not to say that it isn't the greatest vest out there, wasn't stopped by the said vest which is still a perfectly safe vest if you buy it brand new every 3-5 years."

Back in reality, you'd need to either soak it in strong acid or expose it to direct UV for hundreds of hours for the fibers to lose a significant part of their tensile strength i.e. bullet stopping abilities.
450 hours of direct UV will degrade 4500 denier kevlar to ~65% and 1500 denier kevlar to ~35%.
900 hours will knock it further to ~48% and ~23%, respectfully.

Even then, that only means that the TOP LAYER is degraded. Kevlar is not transparent. It degrades because it absorbs UV light.
And that's IF it was worn on top of other clothes, without any kind of a liner or protective or decorative impregnation.
I.e. If police were running around in banana-yellow ponchos for protection from bullets.

It's in the specs and real-life tests by people who are re-selling USED police kevlar vests confirm it.

It's plastic. The stuff that will take millions of years to degrade out of the ecosystem.

Not from US but it is obvious from the summary.

It used to be a subsidy in a form of an insurance to small business owners.
If your taxi job goes bust, you could trade in all your assets including the car and the license and be at "positive zero".
Small business owners love you and vote for you and don't want the rules to change.

BUT... once you can trade/lease something indefinitely and it is kept artificially scarce for the sake of the small businesses - it becomes overpriced AND artificially scarce.
Now it benefits large investors and brokers with a lot of money.
Who now don't want rules to change and they have money to lobby you to keep the things the way they are - so they can keep making money from the artificial scarcity.

You just did.

Expirable taxi licenses, granted by the government to anyone who passes a test and pays a fee would be government regulation and a part of the price of doing business.
The cost of the process would be transferred to the customers while the benefit would be reaped by both the customers, small business owners and in part general public through the ensured qualities of the drivers and their abilities which would be determined by the administered test.

Transferable, marketable, artificially scarce permanent licenses are a subsidy by the government to the rich AGAINST the small business owner.
A subsidy which started as a service to the public and a subsidy to small business owners cause it gave them the ability to cash in on their investment.
A sort of a government subsidized retirement plan for small business owners.
The cost is transferred to the tax payer, whether he/she is a customer or not and the benefits now go to those who can afford ever increasing prices of the licenses - large investors and brokers.

But that would be communism and everyone would have to start talking in Russian, drink cheap vodka and wear ugly winter hats with earmuffs.

No they don't.

The amount of goods a human can posses directly is limited by said human's lifespan and the amount of freedom he/she is willing to sacrifice to such objects.
You can posses many more pairs of pants if you put them all on at the same time - but you will have to sacrifice your freedom to directly posses chairs, cars or even the ability to procreate.