CommodoreFlag comments

How do they get away with carrying out these economically illiterate policies? It's like their solution to everything is "free" money.

Another day, another America article with a record number of comments.

Love Kushiro - I go there every summer to escape the heat here in Tokyo. 50 years from now it may be one of the only livable places in Japan due to these hotter and hotter summers. Not even Sapporo is safe these days.

Two things can be true. There is more pressure on teachers today to deliver results for average kids than there was 10 years ago leading to mental health problems. But there are also a lot of entitled people entered the workforce who just do not accept that the work is the work and cry uncle over basic job expectations.

Yen recovery.

If you remember as I clearly do, Kyoto was crying, begging the government for help with tourism so low the city didn't even have money.

Kyoto was fantastic without tourists. The locals I met seemed so much happier during Covid. Like this massive 70 million tourists a year burden had been lifted from them.

Is overtourism really a thing?

Yes. It's when little things like riding the bus become impossible. Cities are designed with a certain population number in mind and when that bubbles over you have chaos.

Kyoto already has a 100 yen or so tax per night on tourists. Bump that up to 5,000 yen and you might have a chance at fixing the infrastructure problems.

According to whom? 

I've cited Article 21 of the Constitution time and time again. How is what Shibuya-ku is doing compatible with a stated right to movement and assembly? It isn't. And you have so far provided no evidence that both are compatible.

Of course not, your literal argument was that "he has the freedom to gather where ever he wants" the examples provided prove this is not the case. The examples prove the argument is obviously wrong, I never passed those examples as your argument, therefore no strawman. Study better your fallacies using them wrong refutes your own points.

You are not debating in good faith. You're taking a valid point about real social freedoms and extrapolating them onto criminal acts. Nobody is making an argument for the freedom to stop ambulances... That would not be in the spirit of a free and open democracy. The fallacy here is not in my argument..

Good, that means that claims about what google searches give as a results are not proof of things being true. Your claim is therefore still baseless.

This is not one of your better arguments.

And ordinances, both are still things that limit the freedoms you seem to think are absolute, thus proving this is not the case.

This "ordinance" was something they came up with out of nowhere and is not in keeping with the Constitution. As I said, it did not exist pre-covid years and your argument that "it is exists now" does not address the point that it is not in keeping with the spirit of a free and open democracy. As for your argument that no legal experts share this opinion, plenty do. Look to the covid years - a state of emergency is required to even begin to start encroaching on individual freedoms.

This is not a strawman argument

With respect, it is. You're making these analogies to obvious criminal actions that cause harm - not lawful gatherings covered by the Constitution. A hospital is also not equivalent to Shibuya ward...

It is with you, nobody else is making the false equivalence between having local ordinances about things in the public way and contradicting the constitution, that is all you.

I have yet to see any points made on how these conjured up ordinances are fully compatible with a constitution that guarantees free movement and assembly. You can't just make up rules that infringe on people's rights.

A quick google search gave me no such results, does this count then as evidence that the claim is false?

I guess people might also move to Shibuya for a bit of peace and quiet - but I can't find anything on google about that for some reason...

Do you have evidence to prove this claim?

A quick google search shows that many people are interested in moving to Shibuya solely due to the nightlife. This is surely obvious.. It is one of the reasons why many young people move to big cities.

It does not matter, wards can have ordinances that apply also to public property, for example you can't just smoke anywhere (specially in public spaces) no matter how much this interfere with your misunderstood freedoms.

Smoking is a separate issue covered by laws. If Shibuya residents want to change the law - then they have to go through the process. They can't suddenly whip up a hysteria and say "No, you can't come here or drink here because we say so". That's not how a democratic country works.

No, the only one thinking this is necessary is you, for rational people it is clear ordinances that forbid things even on public spaces in no way oppose the constitution (much less the imaginary Tokyo's constitution).

I'm saying what our rights and you want to make up rules here and there for separate fiefdoms within a country.

No misunderstanding, Shibuya has now an ordinance that forbids drinking in public, this can be suspended if an official event is held, the city decided not to do this for New Year's Eve, so the ordinance remains in place.

This is not how Shibuya operated pre-2016. We were able to celebrate an occasion by going to Shibuya whenever we wanted and having a can of alcohol on the street if we so chose. You're acting as though this "ordinance" was always in practice but it was not. Again this may be new information to you so i won't hold it against you.

But precisely because it is unconceivable that thousands over thousands of people with deep knowledge of the law and constitution have failed to recognize such an obvious way to refute it (according to you) is why it is so easy to see how invalid your argument is. 

I have no doubt that with time, this will be overturned as a gross infringement on individual rights. However, it is as I have said above a recent implementation.

Therefore the eve becomes like every other night in Shibuya, where it is not allowed to drink on the street.

My argument is that it's not up to them. They can have their police and hecklers enforce this but it is unconstitutional. Precedent from pre-covid years show this also.

It is when your rights infringe on the rights of the locals, which is exactly what you want to do.

The rights of the locals are the same as my rights. No more, no less. They also have the right to movement and the right to drink in public in any other ward. Neither you nor I can stop them - that would infringe on their rights.

For the purpose of drinking and have fun? not at all. Do you think for example that you can bring a few hundred friends and gather blocking a highway? the entrance to the emergency services of a hospital? at the door of a business? anybody with even a tiny amount of common sense would easily understand imposing your "freedoms" over the rights of others is not a protected thing in the constitution, specially not in the Tokyo's constitution.

This is a straw man argument and another flawed analogy and reminiscent of arguments used by actual police states. Blocking emergency services or a highway is a crime. Completely difference to meeting people and making friends in Shibuya.

I don't think your argument is with me, it's with a free and open democracy operating under a constitution of rights. So if you have a problem with that - or if Shibuya-ku residents have a problem with it - they should follow the legal process, act as part of Japan, and pass laws.

But sure, keep believing that a handful of officials and business interests somehow represent the spirit of the entire community.

Very good points, Jay. As Shibuya has had a vibrant nightlife for many years now, there most certainly are people who moved there for the social experience. Their views are being completely ignored by "community" organizers.

You're not rambling about freedom but selfish self entitlement.

Look up Article 21 of the Japanese Constitution.

Go gather where you live. You have that freedom.

Actually he has the freedom to gather where ever he wants as guaranteed by the Constitution. This isn't North Korea. Whether or not he pays residence tax to Shibuya ward has no bearing on constitutional rights.

You are as justified to impose your will over those rules and a visitor can impose his own will over the rules you put in your own house.

No - there's a difference between private and public property. You seem to think that Shibuya and its residents are entitled to a separate fiefdom that can act outside of Tokyo's constitution - it can't.

At least now you can understand they are suspending an official event correcting your previously mistaken concept.

I think you misunderstand. Just because it was declared an official event in 2016 does not mean that it was always just an official event. Groups of people exercised their right to assembly in Shibuya to mark an occasion such as Halloween or New Year's Eve long before then - though perhaps if you haven't been in Tokyo for long you wouldn't know that so just FYI.

Once again, how do you explain that if this ordinance is so clearly against the constitution nobody is challenging it? do you believe it is just you (and not a single lawyer in all Tokyo) that notice this happening?

Just because it has gone unchallenged does not mean it is okay, legal, or within the spirit of a free and open democratic country.

You mean the freedom of the locals to hold or not a public event? because the one trying to restrict that freedom is you by imposing your personal preference over what the locals want.

Again, they are not hosting the event - Fine. They do not get to restrict basic freedoms guaranteed under thr constitution. Implying that I or anyone else exercising their rights are the ones imposing our rules on Shibuya is absurd.

Your house analogy is all wrong because a ward is not a house. Their house is their house and they can enforce whatever policies they like in their house. Not so for a public place in a country that upholds basic freedoms of movement and assembly.

They can cancel an official event if they want but they can't dictate rights of movement and assembly with police enforcers and hecklers.

Don't know why you're so passionate about restricting freedoms.

You seem to think it means the possibility to impose your will on the locals about an event they are not interested in holding.

Again - it's not an event and it isn't up to them anymore than it's up to me or you. They are bound by the Japanese Constitution. It isn't "their house", it isn't "their rules".

Yes it is, as easily proved as they are going to do it without anybody expecting the will of visitors to be imposed onto them because of a terrible misunderstood of what means "freedoms".

Pretty sure I know what freedom means... Look up Article 21 of the Japanese constitution. A People's Republic of Shibuya would have to come up with their own constitution before enacting restrictions on basic freedom of movement and gathering. It's not event - and therefore they can't "cancel" it.

>

As long as that is what the people of the location want to do this is precisely what the government of the people would have to do

It's not up to them. If they want to declare themselves a republic, they can do that and make all the rules they want. Until then they uphold the freedoms afforded to everyone in Japan.

In the Halloween comments section, someone had a very good point about how much authority should be given to these individual kus. When you impinge on individual and basic freedoms guaranteed virtually everywhere else in the country, it's already gone too far.

Freedom to gather, and to move, and less essential freedoms like having a can in public are not up to Shibuya-ku.

You had something that developed over years in and of itself organically and then the police shut it down. There's something really oppressive about that. Especially given that there weren't any real problems.

 noise from big crowds during the Halloween period in recent years.

Laughable. They now have police screeching into megaphones and whistling all night long.

"as elections which are the very foundation of democracy are under way,"

Can't go distracting attention from the bi-annual megaphone-truck-shouting competition...

"despite sharp pay increases by large domestic firms"

Surely that's only a drop in the water though. 70% of workers are with small to medium companies here. When also taking into account the service industry and foreign owned companies based here, the shunto negotiations don't really tell us a lot.

Would be nice if anyone can let us know how many workers benefit from shunto negotiations.

Waiting for hotel prices to fall back to normal really. I expect this to happen soon as the US consumers buying up hotel space seem to have finally run out of savings.

They've already come down quite a bit from last year from what I've seen.

Saw it last night There was one joke towards the end that had the whole place in stitches laughing. Rare to see that in cinemas here.

The major factor behind the feeble yen is the wide interest rate differential between Japan on one hand and the United States and Europe on the other.

And with a rate cut extremely likely in September, we should see a stronger yen. Which is great for those of us long suffering yen earners.

We want our buying power back.

@Josh That was Fry not Bender, I think.

Went to the gym today after reading this. I do it on and off but probably need to make it more of a habit - as they say use it or lose it right?

I find lifting things to be pretty dull though. DOMS and chance of injury also put me off it. - I prefer running or swimming which I do pretty often but running in this humidity is brutal..

Perhaps someone more enlightened about monetary policy than me can explain - but don't these interventions erode confidence in the yen over the long term?

Don't get me wrong, I realize something has to be done even if it's just to postpone its descent over the short term while they wait on external forces to restore the exchange rate. But "speculators" aren't going to be exactly encouraged by these interventions right?

Would Musk being awarded the money mean that the lawyers who stalled the award lose their $5.6 billion claim?

What a tremendous shame that would be.