The government should protect our constitutional rights, provide security from other nations and represent all of us abroad. It shouldn’t build roads, (beachfront) housing, statues or plant trees. Thats up to the people that will benefit from it, whether that be a company, a worker or a town agreeing to do so.
Good comment, but this will get killed by libs. However you are too high with 30k. I think something like 3k should be plenty to finance our government, and affordable for all. If the rich want a more expensive program that the poor cannot afford then they gotta find another way to finance it, rather than from taxes. Our government is supposed to represent all of its people, not give preferential treatment to the rich, the poor, blacks or whites, retirees or students, renters or landlords etc. Its none of its business.
You are free to buy cars that meet your needs for yourself, such as multiple app stores. So it looks your standards are achievable if your willing to actually pay for it. This is more limiting freedoms and harming others, for example more expensive cars for me to satisfy one your desires. Or less innovation or competition because of higher cost of startup.
Negative interest actually, I sold my tech stocks early this year, while as an app developer the revenue cut we get are likely to increase after this kicks in. I am more inclined to explain the consequences and incentives of these actions rather than their intentions.
Voting for a ruler isn’t really the same as choosing what regulations and standards work for you. First you only have two or three possible rulers to select from. Second, they rarely change, for example every few years or decades sometimes. Third, even if you favorite ruler is eventually in power, you still don’t control their thinking or actions.
Monopolistic regulation kills competition by increasing the cost of entering that market, while established players have the capital and necessary connections for workarounds.
For example imagine a new company trying to build an iPhone with minimal app store, well guess what, now they have to also build support for third party store, developer tools, etc… which increases their cost to launch. Apple on the other hand will have all this taken care of. It will have multiple people making sure regulators are happy (or rich).
While I later found that this will not target small companies, so in this aspect this regulation will likely have minimal impact.
While I am in the camp of apple allowing side-loading, i am not a fan of monopolistic regulations like this. It opens all kind of questions, like
1. What devices have to comply? 2. Who decides what device has to comply? Should playstation open their system too. What about a niche bank transaction signing device that internally uses an android capable hardware. Is this illegal now?
3. What about a car infotainment system that can theoretically run linux.
4. What if a European startup wants to compete with the iphone? Now they have so many regulations instead of focusing on a great device for their niche.
This looks like it will kill competition and harm European innovation, while major players will find their ways around it.
And that’s not up to you or your glorious ruler to decide. I think we are still a free market somewhat. How about government workers get a mandated work from home. I think these jobs are not needed at all. Think how much oil our government and its employees burn.
You may also “control” the emperor by having your grandfather “vote” him in. And you mentioned democracy? Tell me where that place exists? I don’t see any country where majority of its population can decide laws, restrictions and other decisions?
You don’t get to choose the police officers, where you got that from? They are selected by the government to serve and protect them. Government pays them, gives them power status and protection. The second objective may be to appear helpful to the general population so they can justify their existence as ‘helping the community’. While they may help the community when idle to support their second objective, they will always protect the government first. Just pray you don't end up on the other end.
Yes monopolistic regulations are 100percent hurdles. Now free market standards that people can choose (if they want more safety net), or personal standards, well they don't affect everyone so those are fine.
Great elaboration. If the government kept small like the founding fathers envisioned, I am 99% sure an American would be able to live comfortably on one day of work per week today. They were able to raise a family with one salary way back, and with how much productivity has increased (and would have further increased if not for the government) today would be very different.
I don’t think people that want UBI are bad-faith, they are more likely naive. Asking for life to be cheap and efficient so people can live with little work if they want is spreading propaganda, while asking for the biggest monopoly that had killed people for war experiments, to get a lot more power is somehow being good-faith and responsible person? I’ll let others decide this one.
A bureaucrat decides whether to add a hurdle or not. Now once in a while they do things that end up positively affecting some of the population, but at what cost?
A bureaucrat has never created a solution, so thinking UBI would solve anything is naive at best. Why not go for something simpler, like make basic life cheap and efficient so people can live with very little work? Bonus point: no need to take (steal?) money from people to implement.
Not for me, but got some good news for you. If you just use services that meet your needs (offer customer service to your standard), you are already set. Don’t try to use the monopoly that is supposed to work for all of us against me and many others. That makes one a tyrant.