Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it's good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.

I think I'm confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there'd definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they're willing to take a chance.

Agreed. They depressed me as a kid, and they depress me now. Absolutely exploiting the most impoverished among us. Vimes' Boot Theory holds there IMHO: https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socio-economic-unfairness/

Not thought crimes. Marching in the streets with literal swastikas on flags. Their "set of certain beliefs" killed 17 million people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims) as part of their beliefs: and that's without counting the deaths they caused by starting a war.

It's not some clever gotcha to pretend this is a grey area. It's not folks saying to go after GOP members, people in militias that are dogwhistling, or even the Proud Boys. It's not folks that loudmouths on twitter are claiming are nazis. The issue here is literal fucking nazis. I actually have a PhD, and I consider it wise to chase literal goddamn nazis out of town with violence. Tolerating the most extreme intolerance is not a path toward a good future.

The solutions I've seen require a fundamental rethinking of the way housing works in the USA (and most places), where renting just turns into another way to build some amount of equity, and the property managers are under more democratic control. More of the process subsidized by the local government, in the same way that water treatment is.

Arguably it's renting by another name, but the central point is to strip the profit motive out of it (some salaries are needed, but in a system with more regulatory oversight) and to allow the renter to get some financial benefit so they aren't simply pissing money away.

Apologies in advance for that vague response: I'm not an economist or real estate expert, so I can't back up that general idea with any kind of details or evidence it's feasible.

Thank you for saying that: it's been interesting to see things from another perspective.

Water is tangible though. Clean, safe drinking water isn't cheaply and widely available (in the USA, anyway) by accident: it's a huge endeavor that requires tax money to maintain public infrastructure. See the ongoing crises in places with tainted water to see how challenging it is to maintain.

Housing is harder than water, but public water and sanitation systems are incredibly expensive, so I wonder what the comparison would be like against more public housing.

Can they murder people on their property? Or is there some limit to their ability to make rules?

Thanks for your best wishes! I'm lucky enough that the hour it takes a year to vote doesn't get in the way of the direct action I participate in the rest of the year.

Mutual aid isn't mutually exclusive with voting.

They didn't say it was, they were using what's called a metaphor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

Not everyone can participate in active resistance.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/24645

...as if Ukrainians don't have the capacity to think for themselves. Putin/Russian wouldn't give actual security guarantees on their end. It would also have required changing the constitution. Also after seeing the horrors of the war, they weren't ready to just roll over.

You just don’t realize how good we have it here, even if it means we have to work hard sometimes and get up early and spend five days a work working for someone else. That’s an opportunity millions of other humans can only dream of having.

Do you ever reflect on the fact that "we" have it good "here" because other people are suffering?

We are incredibly fortunate, but it comes at a serious cost. The cheap electronics and clothing and tchotchkes we drown ourselves in is made on the backs of folks less fortunate (not to mention the biosphere as a whole). We didn't sign up to be on the side of exploitation, and we don't want to live in ignorance of what supports our way of life.

Sorry, I took a more international route with the terminology: I meant state as in The State, not an individual state in the USA. Federal laws restricting the purchase of a firearm is IMHO the State interfering with the Second Amendment, if you're taking a severely strict interpretation of it.

So that's my question: is it OK to have the Federal restrictions on what you can buy (e.g. requiring a permit!), and from disallowing Felons? I'm a gun owner myself, but if you go back to what I opened with: the discrepancy between "The state can’t then come through and require a permit to own a gun" and seemingly OK with some Federal oversight is a hangup for a lot of us. If a handful of laws are common sense (no felons), why can't we enact other common sense laws?