Of course it's my opinion. That's what we're doing -- sharing opinions. I don't think a flat tax is reflective of what the super wealthy benefit from society, as opposed to the poor. A progressive tax system is more fair ethically, but also it's more financially viable and better for society as a whole.
It doesn't matter what you raise the tax rate to. The rich are going to find a way to shelter it. Personally, I think a federal sales tax would be better than the income tax system currently in place.
Well, I'm not a scientist with a lifetime of study in the field, so I'm not super-qualified to give a detailed scientific breakdown, but more than just "climate change", it's the environment, as a whole. And the term "reverse" is a little bit loaded. But in general, the understanding is that certain things we do contribute to increased global climate volatility. Businesses don't care, because their end goal is to make money, so they do those things anyway, so it's the job of government to ensure that they don't. This is true of climate, but is also true with dumping poison in the waterway or anything else environmentally harmful.
This is usually the type of vague answer that people give. I haven't seen very many viable solutions to the issue. Most of them are ridiculous and silly. If companies break laws that are currently on the books, prosecute them.
Sure. Rights have limits. You have argued against this in some cases, but this law has been help up by the courts over and over again. BUT, those limits ebb and flow based on culture and technology. So, with speech, you can't threaten to kill someone. That isn't free speech. You can't incite a riot. You can't induce panic by yelling "fire" and causing a stampede. You can't just walk around naked. There are laws. And those laws change based on society.
In terms of the "right to bear arms", it's not really specific what arms mean. Does it mean any weapon ever invented? I would argue no. Can a civilian own a nuke if they have the means to acquire it? Of course not. Can they own a rocket launcher? Can they own a grenade? Can they own a machine gun? Can they own a pistol? Can they own a knife over however many inches? Are these right guaranteed no matter what? If you have a restraining order? If you have a history of mental illness? If you're underage? If you've not had a background check? If you've been convicted of violent crime? Your answer may be "yes" to all of these, but to me, the answer isn't "yes" across the board and that's a discussion I'm willing to have. Different parts of the country, different societal truths, different technologies call for an ebb and flow of those rights. So, my belief is that we have to do our best to understand the intentions of the law and apply it to today -- rather than to try to make black and white interpretations of laws written when the highest form of warfare was a musket.
Most of those things you listed are regulated and entirely legal to own. Also, I am entirely free to walk around naked yelling "fire" to cause a stampede. There are consequences to those actions in the form of laws. But there is nothing stopping me from the action itself. Same with firearms, generally it's illegal to shoot someone. So the first amendment and second amendment are already on equal footing as far as what is and isn't acceptable in society. Banning firearms would amount to removing someone's vocal cords to prevent them from yelling fire. Crime is going to happen regardless and infringing on my rights isn't going to change that fact. The overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners a law abiding citizens.
If you don't care what people think, then you shouldn't have a problem. When I talk about consequences, I think that you should largely be fully protected by the 1st amendment in terms of being arrested or facing government backlash for your opinions or actions. HOWEVER, it doesn't mean that people have to employ you, hire you, like you, etc. Those are the consequences. If you have shitty positions and your employer doesn't like the way it makes the company look you lose your job because the group makes it happen. I'm not necessarily FOR that, but it's a reality of capitalism. The customer is always right is a core concept, if you understand the intended meaning of that phrase.
It doesn't mean that at all and that's not the impression that you should get. What it means is that if Gina Corano wants to have a shitty worldview and say provacative shit about vaccines and the holocaust and election lies, then fans are going to think she's a cunt and Disney is going to send her packing. And that happened. She didn't get a call from Uncle Sam. She got a call from the Mouse. That's capitalism.
That's all fine and good. I'm sure she'll find employment elsewhere and if not, she probably has millions of dollars to hold her over. I'm talking about how it relates to regular everyday citizens like me and you. People are often assaulted because they hurt someone's feelings. Hell, how many people have been assaulted for wearing red Trump hats?
Hypothetical situation. Say random citizen#1 is walking down down the street saying lots of objectionable shit. Then random citizen #2 and #3 attempt to assault citizen #1. In the process of the assault, citizen #1 pulls a gun and shoots random citizen #2 and #3. Who goes to jail and why?
I'm not "some people" and would rather discuss my positions that positions that someone else in the world might have that isn't here espousing them.
Ok, does that mean that all words are okay to use? You might not want to ban the word retard but I get the impression the you are the type of person that doesn't agree with the word being casually thrown around. I might be wrong though.
Author