daltotron

No no, OP, you see, how will I transport four fully grown corn-fed american patriots around?

A normal car?

No, I need to transport these four fully grown corn-fed american patriots while also transporting a bunch of material that I can't have in the cab of my car.

A trailer?

Don't be ridiculous, it's too heavy, a normal car couldn't tow that.

A slightly better car?

No, that's insane, it's much too heavy, and besides, I need to transport three metric tons of stuff, all outside of my vehicle, which means I need a trailer and I can't keep any of it in the back of my normal car.

A beefy cargo van, with a covered cabin, and a divider?

No, see, you simply don't understand, all my loads need to be uncovered. I'm transporting, uhh, loose gasoline? Not in a barrel, just loose in the bed, and 400 2x4s, and, uhh, gravel. I don't want a semi, because you need to be licensed for that and I would rather pay more to have a personal vehicle which is capable of all of this at once rather than pay for a delivery. I also need good ground clearance, because I'm going into the unpaved american wilderness with these large uncovered loads. I'm not antisocial, I just need to transport this to my off grid homesteading compound in the middle of nowhere, with my four platonic corn-fed american patriot roommates, or my fifteen sons and daughters which I've already pledged to my friends' other fifteen sons and daughters. How do I pay for all this? It's all super cheap, I swear, I'm just an honest normal rural farmer, and I work a normal job as a military defense contractor, or running IT for some wing of some megacorporation, or maybe I just have inherited money. Everyone wants to be me, but I'm the only person who's allowed to use this truck and say it's totally acceptable because this is a totally legitimate use and I'm just exercising my normal freedoms.

This is all normal, and fine.

Unfortunately I don’t think threads are great for paved roads,

It depends on the type of tread, some are made to run on roads, some really aren't, or just kind of tear up roads. It's the same principle as running chains or studs on your tires when you're not in the winter or not in the mud. If you have rubber pads for contact on your tread, it could probably be better considering the load is spread out much more compared to the relatively small contact patch of a tire. The problem is that you're gonna outweigh that gain with the larger amount of emissions it's gonna take you to go anywhere on account of your treads not being as efficient.

The top bike is referred to as the "lady bike", as you've said, but for any external viewers, the top bike is probably a better choice for city bike in general. There's the point about not having to swing your leg around when mounting and dismounting the bike, true, but the bike also promotes an upright seating position as opposed to a totally horizontal, leaned down, motorcycle like position, which will be more comfortable for long ride periods for most riders, at the cost of aerodynamics. The bottom bike is extreme overkill for most uses, but it's also the bike you're going to probably see most often in the US outside of mountain bikes, since nobody tends to commute on bike here.

It's america, so it's not impossible

how much garbage do you produce on a daily basis that you need a truck to haul it hoo lee

I’d need a truck to tow it anyways.

Common misconception, but you do not, and a folding trailer hooked up to a car with a tow rating capable of pulling it takes up much less overall space when it's folded up than the truck will most of the time. You'll also probably get better gas mileage, which is a bonus, plus better pedestrian safety, less force going into a car crash which collectively makes everyone on the road safer, and makes it safer to crash into stationary objects, decreased roadwear, things of this nature. This sort of trailer setup is done all the time in europe, as another comment concurs.

I can distinguish the definition for each, which is why I'm applying the label. I'm just using a different definition than you.

To perpetuate supremacy and keep an in group and out group amongst all it's colonies and populations, something that they found necessary in order to be able to extract colonial goods and maintain property, they had to build a hierarchy. That hierarchy was partially based on race. The US was a colonial state and actively engaged in the genocide of the native americans, both before and after, so much so that hitler took notice and said, gimme a slice of that. This happened with basically every colony that England took, even their first ones, like ireland, where now a very slim population actually speaks irish. I don't really feel bad in calling that kind of behavior to be like, prototypically fascist.

Maybe if you were to define fascism as integrally privatizing other public goods, like mussolini and hitler did, then that might swing things a little bit, but america and england both went and did that later on and historically have had no problem with doing that. There's really not a good definition of fascism that I've ever heard that doesn't apply to america or england, other than "oh, well, those countries were super authoritarian", and then somehow they don't recognize, say, that america has 1% of the world's prison population and a massive police state, and the level at which we propagate authoritarian governments globally in order to further our own interests. The semantic argument that people try to hash out over definitions of fascism, it's not the real crux of the issue there, it's just a kind of obfuscation of the real talking point, which is that people aren't realizing the massive amount of bullshit the imperial core has been engaging in on a near constant basis for like the past couple hundred years, and precisely how bad it really is.

The ability to selectively enforce prohibition gives you ample opportunity to profit from the gaps in the system.

It's like 12 at night for me so this might be a little bit rambly and stupid, be prepared:

Yeah, that's pretty true, but I also mentioned that to some extent in my OP, that selective enforcement is the case with basically every law that has ever existed. I'm not really a stranger to the institutional fuckery that happens in the illegal market either, gary webb and allat, but also the classic uncontrollable mexican government drug cartel shenaniganery. I just also think, maybe to the core of what I'm getting at, that people shouldn't also be like, immediately snap judgement in terms of condemning illegal action on the basis of it's illegality necessarily. The black panthers collapsed and all the other civil rights organizations that were around at the time. MLK probably got assassinated by the feds, Fred Hampton definitely did, I think Malcolm X probably also did, but those organizations, or so I am told, didn't dissolve immediately, they just began a long process of ostracization and alienation and probably atomization as suburban poverty increases more recently, until they basically just became normal gangs, as they were engaging in illegal activity before, and selling drugs, or illegal property, is a quick way to make cash to fund ventures. I dunno I still need to find a good place to watch "the bastards of the party", I think that documentary has something to say about that. Also never heard of boardwalk empire

I was being hyperbolic, but, a famous part of the prohibition was the organized crime which was both kind of naturally occurring at the time and was created specifically to traffic booze. Illegal material can't be protected by legal means, obviously, and so in order to trade it, you basically have to create your own police force, your own privatized military. a gang, a mob. That's how we got nascar and shit, the rumrunners. If you made porn illegal, I'd imagine it would just be added as kind of another form of valuable property which would be traded around by gangs which would see increased power and are kind of inherently anti-institutional. So, turning to black market cartels is a form of resisting policing, it's a form of anti-institutional action, I'd say, as it gives more economic power to anti-institutional organizations.

I'd also say, you know, I mean, the hippies did go to wall street in 2008, so that's something. We had the big liberal feminist pussy hat shit sometime after that, which I'm not as familiar with. More recently we had BLM which was possibly the highest level of street marching we've seen basically ever, and then we've seen like two riots to try and overturn elections, one of which was successful. We've seen more recent campus protests which are still constantly ongoing despite a lack of media attention. I don't think it's as absurd as you think, that something kind of stupid like porn getting banned might be the tipping point, especially considering the pretty steady upward trend that we've seen with political action concerning other somewhat disconnected issues.

If that legitimately happens and makes it into law in a broadly enforceable way rather than a "this person who I don't like was caught checks notes watching porn! book em!", which is definitely what it would be like basically every law that came before it, I guarantee that the government would collapse within about three weeks if less. Which I think is maybe a good rule of thumb, that if your law would collapse society if it were enforced equally, it should not be a law.

Do not underestimate the power of the gooners when they are kept from the goon.

I mean, in this case, yarrrr. but in other cases, i think, probably also yarrrr. but like, physically.