It’s interesting how this is framed as a “bad deal” (being apart of a kinship society) without taking time to breakdown the cost of being on your own in Ghanaian society, especially when healthcare, credit harm and other emergencies are broadly unaffordable in individualist, capitalist American society.
Lots of buzzwords in your comment, but pointless. This is a complete waste of money, and a burden on the living to ‘show off’ their status. The ancient egyptian kings at least had the resources, power and wealth to build their pyramids..
You're talking about funeral costs; the author generalizes _a_lot_ from funeral costs to "kinship societies are bad". That's the leap the comment you're replying to is discussing.
I lifted or paraphrased the terms from the benefits that the author ascribes to kinship society; not sure how that’s buzzword-y unless you are referring to “individualist, capitalist” which seems like a pretty fair description of broadly held American societal values related to wealth.
Regardless the question still stands and I’ll put it more plainly: Do the lifetime costs and contributions(including the accrued funeral costs) to a kinship society outweigh the shared benefits? That would be my criteria for an overall “bad deal”.
And this is no shot at the author because I appreciate the exposure to another culture, but if the framing is the highest earners in a kinship society subsidize the lowest, there is also a question of the extent to which the high earners were successful in spite of or due to their kinship society membership.
You got some strangely negative reactions, but I agree; the article has not accounted for the safety net effect of a kinship society. It’s a glass half empty view, and there is a glass half full view too. The article is also not considering the country’s economics or the government or geopolitcal history, which others here are pointing out. It’s an interesting thought, but seems premature (and a bit sad) to jump to the conclusion that tight bonds are the cause of poverty, when there are clearly more forces involved.
There's also this strange suggestion that it's somehow wrong of family to ask a wealthy family member for money - your parents especially sacrificed their bodies and some aspect of their lives to birth and raise you, and your entire family supports each other. To hoard wealth in light of that seems not only abhorrent, it also seems diseased, like a disorder of selfishness.
I think the path to the values you allude to includes affirming when flawed leaders take a stance.
Else it’s a race to the whataboutism bottom where we all, when forced to grapple with the consequences of our self-interests, choose ignorance and the safety of feeling like we are doing what’s best for us (while inching closer to collective danger).
Seems like you need this when you don't have agency to go find your preferred online group(s) which might be tied to larger personal challenges in healthy communication and productive conflict. I don't know how tech solves that problem. The broad use case here would just create a new "respectified" category where members (assuming they have the attention span to be guided on comments) try to conform. I suppose that could be helpful in hyper-local or team-level contexts where there is a shared interest to conform around.
Citizens United, a few decades of subpar K-12 education and social media mis/disinformation have made this a tall task… not impossible, but a truly gargantuan challenge.
The top post is about property damage not flying over. This comment is in response to the idea that drone delivery is a democratically expressed need or want. I think it’s a corporate need advancing capital over labor in the name of convenience. Perhaps people only care about convenience but I’m not sure that makes it democratic.
Also I’m not a property rights lawyer but I’d contest the idea that you don’t even own an inch or a foot or several feet above your property, otherwise it would be impossible to build up. Please share a source on your “current legal definition” either in North Texas municipality where drone crash occurred or otherwise.
> The top post is about property damage not flying over.
No, it was specifically about property damage from a failure during flight, while attempting to traverse a property, with that temporary traversal being legal.
> Please share a source on your “current legal definition” either in North Texas municipality
This is the domain of the FAA. Municipalities have very little power in what they can regulate, because aviation and airspace is federally regulated by the FAA, as made clear, with many examples, in this FAA fact sheet [1]. Restrictions like minimum altitude, for the sake of reasonable privacy, would be ok. Extending that to 400 ft, which is the ceiling that drones can operate, would not.
But, none of this is related to a drone having a failure mid flight, which may caused the drone to dip belowsome local operating altitude restrictions. But, losing altitude from catastrophic failure is not "operating". And, anything related to safety, which is the domain of failure, is entirely regulated by the FAA, which municipalities have zero say in [1]. It was only a scratch because the FAA limited the speed and weight with that in mind.
> I’d contest the idea that you don’t even own an inch or a foot or several feet above your property
They regulate airspace for the purpose of flight. If you extend your house up, then it's no longer airspace that can be flown in. They don't own the space in the air, clearly. But you don't also own the right to that airspace that exists above property, for the purpose of flight. Start with the assumption that the regulations are reasonable.
And, this isn't a just a commercial thing. The drone you buy from the hobby store falls under similar regulations. For slightly relaxed regulations, that these Amazon drones operate under, you get a Part 107 license. Operating altitude limitations don't even change, with the exception that you can exceed the 400ft ceiling while traversing over a 400ft tall building (or 300ft building if local privacy minimum is 100ft).
I’m a bit confused by your reply. Pretty sure the rulers of the Dahomey kingdom weren’t trading with people of the “Americas” but with Europeans, before and after its abolishment across Western Europe. In the book Fistful of Shells, historian Toby Green argues the scale of the trade was only made possible by European traders flooding West Africa with cheap currency (shells which had little value to them but that could be collected in the billions from Brazil and the Indo-Pacific).
1. slavery in Western Europe had been abolished long before the transatlantic slave trade - the Europeans were intermediaries, but there was little to no slavery in their home countries. There were many court rulings in England against slavery.
2. not enslaving Christians played a role in abolishing slavery in medieval Europe
3. serfdom was a far better condition that being a slave
4. Slave owners in the Americas opposed the conversion of slaves to Christianity. they also censored the version of the Bible available to slaves very heavily.
5. The claim about mass slavery within Europe is misleading on two counts: serfs are not just chattel slaves (they had rights), and Western Europe was very different from Eastern Europe.
Or the taxpayers foot the bill for keeping the inmate in prison while private interests (including but not limited to private prisons and select contractors) take additional profit off the unpaid labor instead of passing savings to the consumer
Practically speaking, even the option to be home bound if you have a home, apartment, or willing caretaker could be a serious blow to the prison industrial complex, and the incentive structures that allow these guards to commit horrific abuse.
I thought about that too, but I don’t think your resources matter much once you’re in the penal system except to bribe or pay for protection.
Honestly I’m not sure how it would pan out but it does appear that the power to abuse is directly correlated with the number of inmates and revenue generated as a result thereof.
The UK is still blaming all sorts of stuff on the pandemic that are actually structural failures showing effects. It's a especially convenient time for cover considering Brexit happened in early 2020 and between then and now no major party has been willing to come out and say that Brexit has been damaging.
I don't even think it was necessary for Brexit to have been a net negative. There are plenty of ways the UK can thrive outside the EU, but the UK governments have basically done the square root of fuck all between 2016 and now to plan or execute on anything substantive.
That said, long-term problems included a lot more than Brexit, like the slow euthanasia of the industrial base and the parting out of anything but nailed down to the highest bidder.
Schools are not employers that can implement take it or leave it policies. You need coordination and agreement between school leadership, district leadership, staff, and most critically parents to put your foot down on anything while also working to ensure basic safety and decent academic outcomes.
Now that the ills of social media and screen time are mainstream knowledge, it’s easier to make a common sense argument without much pushback.
reply