the scrap value of the gold in flock camera is worth more than a catalytic converter

mig:  (grand) juries like thugs  ~a mig:  im all about that thug life:  helping out people in need is thug life apparently.  if law enforcement is using that ring camera to illegally violate the fourth amendment, then yes you should disable it.  (maybe you have a moral obligation to disable it?  maybe not).  I'm not sure why you need to bash the door in to disable the ring camera.  ~a if you have a ring can I bash your door in to take it out?  I’m afraid of my car being captured by it cuz muh rights? - mig a:  no thanks thuggery ain’t my style. - mig mig:  here is some local nova community action.  ~a mig:  /r/chaoticgood/.  we're gonna get you on our side eventually.  ~a the strategic petroleum reserve is the lowest it has ever been.  i don't think it will last until the end of the us/iran war.  i guess we'll find out what happens when it gets empty?  ~a paul:  notably no-excuse-voting-from-home doesn't require an id of any kind.  most americans are for that.  ~a paul:  "Because an overwhelming majority of voters want it"  it:  they want the "save america act"?  no this is wrong.  a majority of americans want some voter id law, that i will grant.  but more people are for no-excuse-voting-from-home than for proof of citizen requirements to vote.  i hope you wouldn't say that you would vote for the save america act.  it's pretty gross imo.  ~a paul:  change in faith of election integrity lol  ~a paul:  "faith in the integrity of our elections is fading"  is this even right?  or does it even matter:  did the faith of our elections fade after the 15th or 19th amendments passed?  and if the faith in our elections faded after they passed, would you care?  ~a a: Because an overwhelming majority of voters want it. Because faith in the integrity of our elections is fading. -Paul paul:  (i know you didn't say this, i'm proposing it as a conditional) if you blindly voted for it without weighing the potential downside, i would not vote for you.  ~a a: "then why would you make any changes at all" So if I was a legislator, it's probably not something I would propose, but I might vote for (depending on the wording). Why? Because I believe elections should be at least as secure as buying cough medicine. Because we could be wrong about the amount of fraud... -Paul paul:  i kinda wonder what your reasoning behind it being a benign requirement is.  ~a paul:  "benign requirement"  the changes would be huge.  ~a paul:  "I know it's solving a problem that is almost certainly not happening at any scale"  then why would you make any changes at all if the results are that the downsides to the change are huge (five states issue real ids that indicate u.s. citizenship)  ~a a: But I also don't really understand why you (and so many others) will argue so strenuously against what seems like a fairly benign requirement given how much more strict we are with ID in so many less important aspects of life. -Paul a: "you're trying really really hard to solve a non-problem because of a perception." No, I'm not. I've already repeatedly said I consider this a super low priority issue. I know it's solving a problem that is almost certainly not happening at any scale. -Paul paul:  "no IDs needed ever"  i would never argue that.  i would argue that voting is too important:  make (time consuming and safe and regulated and legal and carefully documented) concessions until you start having actual real-world problems.  perceptions are almost always irrelevant.  ~a a: But if I'm going into a school to vote.... then I just need to pinky promise I'm who I say I am. It's weird. -Paul a: Heck, my middle school kids are basically going to be required to have an ID to ride their bus to school. I have to scan my ID every time I want to visit them in school. They wanted to fingerprint me for volunteering on a field trip. -Paul paul:  we also once had a perception that women would just vote with how their husband would vote.  but we were solving a non-problem because of a perception.  black people couldn't vote because of perception:  non-problem being solved because of a perception.  ~a paul:  you're trying really really hard to solve a non-problem because of a perception.  and this:  this solving non-problems has always gotten us into trouble in the past.  we did once have a perception that landowners were the only ones that should be able to vote because they have a vested interest in how the nation will turn out.  solving a non-problem because of perception.  ~a a: If you want to have a conversation about no IDs needed ever, I'm open to that. But I just don't see how it can be justified to require photo ID for so many mundane day-to-day things but be completely verboten for something supposedly so important (voting). -Paul paul:  "So you're proposing a poll tax?".  no.  ~a a: "nobody is being prevented from traveling and you know that" Okay, then go travel internationally and don't bring a photo ID and report back. -Paul paul:  you can go to other stores.  also i'm sure you'd be able to shop in nyc grocery stores without an id.  also "rumors claiming that nyc's upcoming city-owned municipal grocery stores will require identification or residency cards are false"  ~a a: "you must complete the tsa confirmid process and pay a $45 fee" So you're proposing a poll tax? -Paul a: Or, going back to the NYC grocery stores. Why not just ask customers if they are allowed to shop there instead of asking for ID? That's a case of actually prohibiting people from buying food! -Paul paul:  "travelling".  you changed "flying" to "traveling".  nobody is being prevented from traveling and you know that.  ~a paul:  except when we're able to go out of our way to prove someone is who they are without an id.  did you know that you CAN fly without an id?  because of course you can.  you must complete the tsa confirmid process and pay a $45 fee.  in other words, it's exactly the same as voting.  prove who you are.  ~a a: "i can choose not to fly.  or travel without flying.  or choose not to buy beer." And.... you can choose not to vote? I would argue prohibiting somebody from travelling is at least as big a violation of liberties than prohibiting them from voting. -Paul a: "in the context of in-person-voting do you have any evidence to back that up?" I have common sense. Pretty much any situation where people want to be sure of somebody's identity, we ask for documentation instead of just trusting what the person says. -Paul paul:  i can choose not to fly.  or travel without flying.  or choose not to buy beer.  ~a a: I don't know for sure about Mom's. I tend to assume that crunchy organic hippies tend to be more leftist but obviously that doesn't mean they are a monolith. Also, I'm sure the MAHA movement has attracted some. -Paul paul:  "You can't seriously tell me you believe that signing a statement promising you are who you say you are is sufficient proof"  you think showing a "fake-id" is sufficient?  why not require a passport?  ~a paul:  "I think a photo ID is significantly more secure than asking somebody to sign a statement saying they are who they say they are."  in the context of in-person-voting do you have any evidence to back that up?  we're talking about very-few-almost-zero-cases compared to very-few-almost-zero-cases, so they (in general) seem equally concerning.  ~a a: If that's the case, why can't I do that for flying? Or for buying beer? "I swear I am over 21". -Paul a: You can't seriously tell me you believe that signing a statement promising you are who you say you are is sufficient proof. -Paul a: "nowhere in there did you say "id"" But how do you prove who you are without an ID? -Paul a: I think we have slightly different definitions of "prove who you are". I think a photo ID is significantly more secure than asking somebody to sign a statement saying they are who they say they are. -Paul paul:  "There's like 12 states that have no voter ID laws"  exactly.  all 50 states follow this:  (quote paul) "But it does seem like there has to be a way to just use that to prove you are who you are, and then cross-reference it with a list of registered voters" and nowhere in there did you say "id".  ~a a: Your link about state voter ID laws seems to support my point more than yours. There's like 12 states that have no voter ID laws (and those states probably represent like 1/3rd of the US population). A boat load of other states don't require an ID at all. -Paul xpovos:  yeah i think winn's situation is a bit less morally-gray than the flock situation.  (i can't get to your link but, i have read your words here).  it's a tad more morally-gray to go onto public property and destroy private property to protect the rights of others than to do shit to private property above your private property.  ~a paul:  "Otherwise how do you prove that you are who you are claiming to be?". "Virginia law requires all voters to provide either an acceptable form of ID or sign an ID Confirmation Statement at the polls." using Virginia as an example, you have to use an acceptable "non-photo" id or sign something.  ~a paul:  what makes you think they were gung-ho about masking during covid? fwiw moms sells raw milk: I've never been to a moms but think "kenedy-organic". "there was 'definitely no social distancing. We did not have any protective gear except for gloves.'" link. ~a paul:  here's the link again.  you have to prove you are who you are, but you don't have to do it with a photo id.  you don't have to do it with a real id.  you don't have to do it with a real id that indicate your citizenship (only five states issue real ids that indicate u.s. citizenship).  ~a paul:  "I'm almost positive this isn't true?"  don't be so positive  "You are saying presenting a photo ID to vote is required at all 50 states?"  you changed your language between times in material ways.  the first time you said "But it does seem like there has to be a way to just use that to prove you are who you are" and the second time you said "presenting a photo ID to vote".  these are very different from eachother.  ~a https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2026/08/moms-organic-market-bans-employees-from-wearing-face-masks-while-working/ I have to imagine this probably feels a bit like whiplash for the employees who I imagine were likely pretty gung-ho on masking during COVID. -Paul a: "yes, and all 50 states do this" I'm almost positive this isn't true? You are saying presenting a photo ID to vote is required at all 50 states? Otherwise how do you prove that you are who you are claiming to be? -Paul arguably ON his property, again depending on the height the drone got to/maintained.  So, now the question.  What's your opinion on Mr. Winn's actions, from a property rights perspective? -- Xpovos The safety concern is warranted (what goes up comes back down at roughly the same speed, and trajectory is rarely perfectly vertical, and even if it is--there's confounders like wind.)  But property damage is the real legal question.  He was ordered to pay Walmart $5000. Is that justified? No argument on the facts, the dron was Walmart's, he shot it. Normally that's open and shut: pay the $5000.  But the drone WAS over his property, and [..] mig: I'm put in mind of this "crime" from a little while ago. https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/crime/florida-man-drone-walmart-dennis-winn/77-4fa34cd5-9924-4c11-b7f5-68a42611cf14 Background: Walmart flew prototype delivery drones over his private property. Depending on the height, ad coelum  still applies. He used his legalley owned firearm and shot the drone down.  Crime was discharging his gun in an unsafe manner, [...] paul:  "But it does seem like there has to be a way to just use that to prove you are who you are, and then cross-reference it with a list of registered voters" yes, and all 50 states do this.  and certainly virginia does.  ~a mig: "if it involves destroying/stealing things that aren’t yours, no" ??? aren't there tons of situations where destroying and taking things that aren't yours is totally fine? surely if it was a live bear trap, or a tripping hazard, or a loaded gun, or bomb, in a public place you'd propose that destroying/taking things that aren't yours is fine. certainly, i propose that this is also dangerous for the people around it, but more arguably. ~a a: But it does seem like there has to be a way to just use that to prove you are who you are, and then cross-reference it with a list of registered voters. -Paul a: "only five states issue Real IDs that indicate U.S. citizenship" Then sure, the calculus might change if it's a harder ID to obtain. Still, I guess it does make a certain amount of sense given that having a driver's license doesn't mean you're registered to vote. -Paul a:  if it involves destroying/stealing things that aren’t yours, no. - mig