As opposed to the European solution, where you know there's explosives in that field over there but you only deal with the stuff that floats to the surface each year.
As long as you pay some minimal level of attention this shouldn't be a problem. 10s delays between stages won't prevent something with a minimum TWR of 2 and 4000m/s of combined dv from reaching orbit.
I think you're missing the distinction. It's not that bureaucracy caused the meltdown, it's that the bureaucratic reaction to the meltdown was the source of the damage.
The regulations that allowed for private warships and artillery?
Those gun control regulations?
If there are actual gun control regulations from the post-revolutionary period, I'm sure that they'll be used to defend NY's and CA's modern regulations soon.
There's two general reasons for a person to get a vaccine. One is that it makes them healthier, and the other is that it makes society healthier.
If the person gets to choose, then there's a natural counterbalance against things that are harmful to the person but good for society. Only an idiot would turn down a vaccine that has a 90% chance of saving their life.
If society gets to choose, then forcibly sterilizing poor single mothers/disabled people
/those of poor breeding/etc might be on the table again. (It's a health intervention that is bad for the individual but also leads to a healthier next generation)
It depends on perspective. We in the west generally have a "no innocent lives lost ever" perspective. But sometimes "minimize total societal damage" looks pretty good too.
Is it better to live in a world where 1000 murders happen a year and half the murderers escape punishment because they ran, or one with 100 murders where 10 ran and family members were killed in their place? That's a lot less deaths!
Nuclear MAD is an extreme example of this - it's very obviously immoral to kill a few million civilians in retaliation for the murder of other civilians. But that's what MAD is! And in practice, it's likely prevented millions of deaths due to war.
> Says who? I understand the core principles of absolute free speech. I just don't agree. This is a very absolutist (and americano-centered) view of what liberties encompass.
It should be obvious, but the people in power will not want you to say bad things about them. If given the power to prevent that, of course they will. (and they'll say that "politician X was found in bed with a dead hooker" is libel, regardless of the facts)
> Some political organizations should be prohibited.
But which ones? Just genocidal ones? Do communists count? How far do philosophies need to differ before a party is allowed again, and who (besides the individual voter) should be the one to choose?
"They're totally just lying about their beliefs" can be both true and not an acceptable reason IMO.
> prosecuted after intimidating opposition through violence.
Then BAN INTIMIDATING OPPOSITION WITH VIOLENCE. Ban ALL of it. But "these words are violence, this violence is just protest" isn't ok.
> Your voting rights cant be stripped away for small offenses.
Only being able to vote for people with governmentally approved opinions is itself a removal of voting rights. This should obviously be true for the limit case (only one candidate), but it's a spectrum.
Burning Kerosene emits as much co2 as producing it consumes, but kerosene is massively easier to transport and store in existing infrastructure. (It's literally jet fuel)
> Extended the definition of "time of war" to include a war in which the state is not a participant. This was to allow the Government to exercise emergency powers during the Second World War, in which the state was neutral.
Seems like Ireland lasted 2 years before (in practice) removing all constitutional limits on government power forever. Oh sure, it's only "if so resolved by both Houses of the Oireachtas" but that's slim comfort to me.