Yeah i think NASA has even been asking for exceptions to it and congress wont do it lol
Can't wait until NASA has to ask China to please go do deliveries to the ISS for them.
Don't wanna be a downer, and I'm not even in the UK, but i feel like maybe this needs to be less specific? Like ok ban cages and crates. Then they'll just find some other small object to put them in won't they? Shouldn't it be like ban keeping them inside of enclosed spaces below a certain size per animal or something like that?
Liberals will be like "The new Syrian government is not a US backed coup!" then read this and think nothing of the US making policy decisions for the Syrian army.
In practice the allowed tints on windshields are VERY light. Like so light most people don't even bother tinting it. It wouldn't cause night blindness. In my state for example you can apply alight non-reflective tint to only the top 5 inches of the windshield and the rest must be entirely untinted. Then the passenger, and drivers side windows can have only a light tint on the entire thing, then the back seat side windows can be a much darker tint. The law on it's very like specific and based on type of vehicle, which windows it is, which part of the window, etc.
I don't think it has anything to do with capitalism frankly. It's technology. The soviets grew faster than most capitalist countries, monarchies that still exist compete quite well with capitalist nations. Think the Saudis. Capitalism is simply the private ownership of capital. The organizational structure behind the econonomy. The thing that really did all this amazing stuff was the technology itself. As we get more advanced our ability to advance increases. Exponential progress. That could happen under any system. It is more true imo that the abundance and technological progress that occured in the last few centuries created the conditions for capitalism to exist. Rather than capitalism creating the conditions for that progress.
Also just reusing what we have. It's not like the new electronics use an insanely higher amount of gold than the older ones. We can just use chemical processes to extract the gold from old circuit boards, and refine it again to be reused in new ones. We don't need to go get more from asteroids at all. Not unless the population explodes or something. We all already have a phone. Theres more old laptops sitting around not being used in most countries than there are people who need a new laptop. Theres no reason we can't just reuse those same raw materials again for the new stuff.
I think we will see old landfills and wate disposal sites being literally mined for the old circuit boards we threw away over the past 50 years eventually. Theres so much useful stuff raw materials wise in old trash heaps. We just have to find better ways to process it. Which while not free to do is much cheaper than space mining lol.
Its important to note how these things build on eachother too. Originally the world was largely empty. There was more than enough resources for the few people in it, and little reason to try to take something someone else had already laid claim to. Why risk conflict when you could walk 10 miles over and find empty land ripe for the taking? Then eventually the world began to fill up, and you had the rise of imperialism. The Akkadians. They took from other cities to enrich their own.
Over time there were many methods for doing this. Rome sort of perfected the process. Growing to dominate the entire region. This happened all over. In India, China, Africa, The Americas, etc.
The issue with these systems for those in power though was they arent easy to maintain. Lording over entire populations that you have to live among is hard. And dangerous. They had their methods for preventing revolt, but they didnt always work.
Fuedalism perfected the safety aspect. The Kings and Lord live in great fortresses, and give their peasants a meagre amount of freedom while taxing them heavily. They get the benefits of the wealth extraction but can minimize the risks.
Once technology had developed enough though the next step was Colonialism. Once they could do so it was much safer to extract the wealth from far flung colonies rather than from domestic people. Especially now that castles were not as safe as they used to be. Cannons existing and all.
But to maintain this colonial empire rulers needed more and more sub-rulers. Private interests began to develop. This is how capitalism was birthed. A new class figured out that they do not need monarchs to benefit from colonialism. So they largely got rid of them.
This colonial system was not sustainable though, and as more colonies broke free from their control capitalists realized they must start extracting wealth once again from the domestic population. This was the rise of fascism. Colonial extraction once again turned inward. With all the new types of violence learned through their colonial conquests now used against their own citizens.
There is an order to it. You can't simply arrive at capitalism without all that came before. So when we see the similarities to fascism in older systems its because it has built upon those systems.
Communism is no different. We build upon what came before. Communism could not exist had capitalism not created a united class of worker. Who had a shared interest. When we speak of the dictatorship of the proletariet it is in opposition to the dictatorship of the bourgeoise we live in now. This is also why communism must be emphatically anti-imperialist. Since we are undermining the millenia old system of exploitation started in Akkadia.
We are forging a new path for the species. One where instead of taking from eachother we willingly share, and collaborate. A system where the very limited resources afforded to us are not allocated based on who has the power to claim them, but based on who needs them most.
I'd guess it would probably be an equipment thing too. When you've got a smaller group to equip you can throw more money at it. So normal soldiers get the standard issue stuff and those guys probably get all the fancy toys.
Rome was definitely imperialist, but i don't think it's fascist necessarily. Fascism requires a lot of stuff that Rome just didn't have. A big one would be like racialized nationalism. Rome was a slaving imperial state yes, but they enslaved anybody regardless of ethnicity. Anyone could be a roman citizen not just italians. Africans, Greeks, Gauls, Arabs, etc.
Its probably not a term that can be used on older nations since a lot of the concepts fascism is built on just hadn't been invented back then. Imperialism is old. Akkadia did it like 4000 years ago. Fascism is pretty new though. It was more of a post-colonial era thing as far as i know.
Correct me if I'm wrong does California give more money to the federal government than it gets back?