mintyfrog

I’m sorry that you expect each unknowing consumer to have the intellectual capacity to understand the geopolitical consequences of each product they by based on the environmental damage and human rights violations during its production.

It’s almost like you’re the fool for expecting such a flawed system to work. Saying, “well, you paid me to do it!” does not absolve you of guilt.

Source?

“It’s not our fault, we just produce cheap goods, the pollution is the fault of the people buying the goods”

If your products are cheap because you’re polluting, you are the problem. If you weren’t polluting, your products wouldn’t be as cheap. If your products weren’t as cheap, they wouldn’t be competitive on the capitalist market. If they weren’t competitive, they wouldn’t be bought.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Are you insinuating that the United States has criminally prosecuted individuals purely for their support for Palestine? Any examples?

Read those articles and explain how the US is violating them? Also, your article is in an unknown journal from a place without free speech.

Edit: Love the downvotes from people not bothering to check the primary sources.“US is bad so they must be violating international law with sanctions”

deleted by creator

No countries recognize a right to protest at any time and location. Imagine if someone could protest the government by just forming a human circle around the leaders shouting, “you can’t move us!” or by standing in a library and yelling constantly.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yep, if you’re a criminal making ghost guns to commit crimes because you can’t pass a background check to buy a gun (and then scratch the serial number off), then it’s already a crime for you to have that ghost gun because you’re a prohibited person.

Requiring a serial number changes nothing and only affects nerds, not criminals.

Untraceable for what?

Almost all of them still use metal parts that can be x-rayed and still have barrels that leave ballistic fingerprints on bullets. Serial numbers don’t make something GPS-tracked.

Untraceable in terms of ownership? There is no national firearm registry. Guns bought from FFLs require a NICS background check that is stored in an ATF database (of questionable legality), but private sale guns often don’t require NICS so the database isn’t an accurate registry of gun ownership.

And criminals scratch off serial numbers anyways.

And add on that any laws requiring serialization of privately-made firearms are only affecting nerds, not criminals. Criminals that are making guns because they can’t pass a NICS background check will continue not adding serial numbers - because they’re criminals.

You cannot trust a government to routinely create arbitrary standards used to regulate that same government.

This is different from a government enforcing your average law because this law applies to the election process itself and allows for significant bias. Where there is room for bias in this process, it will be taken advantage of. Look at gerrymandering.

What problem does your law actually solve? If people are willing to elect a candidate, isn’t that a sufficient measure of competency? At best you’re creating an elitist state controlled by those who set the bar for competency, and at worst you’re creating a one party state.

Most of what you’ve described would inevitably lead to the establishment of a single party totalitarian state.

Competency tests before you can appear on a ballot, with a commission that reviews the requirements to prevent the exclusion of minorities.

Don’t like the opposing party? Just make it part of the test. Today, one party could exclude the other by including questions that agree or disagree with critical race theory, voter fraud, etc.

No elected judges, with stringent training and yearly bias testing. Like a postdoc in judicial impartiality.

Same issue. Who determines impartiality? The party in power? Single party state.

Any person who is a position of trust and power who then acts contrary to the ethics of their role can never be elected. Or have power over anyone again.

Who determines “ethics”? Single party state.

Children must be free of religion until they are 25.

What is religion? You’re definitely banning several books, and possibly banning a lot more. Many books can be turned into a religion or contain religious aspects. The party in power decides what’s a religion and what gets banned.

USA focused: each state gets one senator, plus one per 2 million residents.

At that point, why have a separate Senate and House? The point of a two-chambered Congress is to balance state and federal power.