Isn't this just saying taxation should be optional? Should paying for the military, police or roads be optional? Or are you suggesting the amount you have to pay is fixed and then you get a choice to allocate it to different budget areas you favor.
Pretty sure this is just a PR exercise for the very gullible. Anyone who has seen a real operating theater and had experience of being outside will know this is nonsense. That tent is simply not big enough for one thing.
This should be a reminder that the U.S. cares nothing for human rights violations and whenever it voices such complaints it does so for other selfish Geopolitical reasons that are maybe not revealed. This goes for any of the other Geopolitical powers as well. Let's not be useful idiots.
>Presumably, if the CCP wanted to do so, they could put an end to the groups shipping this deadly substance into the United States.
Presumably, if the United States wanted to do so, they could put an end to the groups shipping this deadly substance from the China.
Just changed the wording a little to show the bias in this sentence. Why do think China would be more successful than the U.S. in prohibiting illegal drugs?
Guns in a home actually lead to greater dangers especially for women. Most people are actually murdered by someone they know, quite often a close relative of friend. It may not feel that way but you are actually safer not owning a gun.
But the U.S. accepts other things that are regulated, a couple of examples:
Speed limits: Speed doesn't cause accidents just people who go faster than their ability to control the vehicle. Many people are sensible and wouldn't do this.
Drugs: Many people can take drugs and enjoy them and not descend into anti-social and criminal behavior.
The "uninhabited farmland" is just an analogy for some area of the economic landscape that when you spend money on it, can absorb labor and return a tangible benefit that is equal or more than what you spend. Maybe for example repairing worn out infrastructure or creating new infrastructure.
>The vast majority of the money the Fed prints goes to financial institutions
You maybe thinking of Quantitative Easing. In which case financial institutions are just incentivized to cash in their Government Bonds, whereby they need to look for some place else to put the money, hence perhaps asset inflation. The Government doesn't just print a whole lot of money and give it away to someone.
>I don’t pay taxes to help other people. I pay taxes to protect myself.
Helping people in other countries does protect yourself. Having stable regional neighbors for example is very desirable. Any money used to keep things this way is very well spent. Trying to stem the flow of thousands of refugees or dealing with conflict is hugely expensive.
You seem incredibly naive. People who earn $1m+ salaries do not work long hours or make sacrifices. You will never be wealthy if this is what you think. Most CEOs that I've known are out the door well before everyone else.
>When the US supported South Vietnam, it's not that they condoned everything south vietnam did, but had to make a tactical choice between lesser evils.
But why get involved at all? The US didn't have to do anything.
Most of the reason the U.S. gets involved in anything has to do with geopolitics. If there are human rights issues or "freedom" issues then this is just a bonus for justification purposes.
I highly recommend the Ken Burns documentary "The Vietnam War". I'm old enough to remember all the propaganda we were fed, it is just amazing how much we were lied to.
Prices only go up if the demand approaches or exceeds supply. If there is capacity in the system all is good, more jobs. This is how Franklin D. Roosevelt brought an end to the Great Depression (spending money I mean not UBI)
If the economy is running at capacity and you wanted a UBI taxes would have to increase to prevent inflation. This would end up being wealth redistribution.