actuallyenlightened

On face value, it seems like a good idea to tax the rich but I'm starting to think that's not the case; except for consumption which they should be taxed the hell out of (+ high inheritance tax). When it comes to the uber rich, most of their wealth is locked up in investments and a very small proportion of it is spent buying stuff (yachts, private jets, etc). If Elon Must were to double his wealth, he probably wouldn't buy an extra jet but would invest it somewhere. Since investment, as long as it stays within the country, creates capital for new companies, and jobs, it's something that should be encouraged. If they were taxed heavily on profits from investments, the uber rich would only make bets with the highest margins and lowest risk at best. At worst, they would move their money elsewhere. This argument does not apply in countries where they get rich through corruption. Taxing the rich may seem appealing in the short term, given that citizens would receive more services. However, this could hurt the economy and lead to less wealth overall - leading to less taxes and a lower standard of living.

Raising the minimum wage is regulation, not taxation. I support that. Yeah unskilled immigration is a horrible idea. Easiest way to make unskilled locals' labor worth pennies. That's always been the case throughout history and would be for the foreseeable future. Urbanization and no religion are the main issues, but yes that contributes. No never nothing, always invested somewhere. We're talking about the economy here. You can't get those without a strong economy (except birthrate) So my point is if you have 500 million vs 50 billion, you would have the same lifestyle. By investing in industry, which they do, they better society. Taxing would make them do less of that. Tax won't solve these issues. If you do that, and you give money to people to buy homes, home prices go up and we're back to square one. Different zoning laws are needed here.

My point is that he's worth 184 billion. Yes there is X amount of wealth. But how do you measure it? At the end of the day there's X amount of goods and services. Just because the wealthy can buy billions of it, they won't because they can only use so much individually. And what exactly do the poor pay for? They pay in terms of their labor and that could be compensated with livable wages rather than direct taxation. The US consistently has 25% of the world wealth. Things can only go downhill. But they're still American companies and the profits remain in the States. I'm saying these large firms would delist and move to foreign stock exchanges.

I don't think the law should apply to him in this situation. That would cause a civil war overnight

If things get that bad you could expect there to be a revolution where the ruling elite die off (think French Revolution) with a new constitution being written. Inequality is dangerous in that way

It completely depends on who you are and how you act. If she thinks that she won't meet a better guy anytime soon she'll definitely be interested. A successful approach really depends on you personality but in general these worked for me: - Don't be nervous - Be reasonable - Be confident - Smile genuinely - Make an effort to connect - Be sane - Be happy - Don't try to impose your opinion on her - Don't be desperate - Have good things going on in your life - Banter / have fun These are things you just need to get an intuition for and can't fake for long. You could also go the bad guy approach but I can't say much given my lack of success there

@Bobby_2021 While I'm not Leo, I'd say the decimation of American manufacturing jobs.. Which was catastrophic for the rust belt. This also reduces America's ability to wage total war. And don't forget China won't be as strong as it is now if it weren't for globalism

obfuscation through technicalities

And they pick and choose where to be morally outraged.. it seems they are extremely sensitive to lesser evils by the powerful, completely accommodating when it comes to greater evils by the weak, and are completely indifferent to the needs of the middle class.

In civ 4 destroyers + other subs can see subs, so that might work

A combination of physical barriers and stringent vehicle checks absolutely would approach that. I'm ok with the few that get through via submarine, that's manageable. 1) They would need to be very athletic. 2) They would also have to be willing to risk it. The ones who try and fail might get harmed. Others see this and would wonder if it's worth risking it themselves. Not about justice. But about securing the border. Please make the distinction between illegal migrants and immigrants. Also you should visit New York and see what it's like. I'm all for legal immigration and would like to see a complete stop to illegal migration

Ok so with strong measures we can reduce illegal entries by 1/3. That's very good. Yeah, but what if we put barbed wire along the entire border. Or a wall? So if a parent is willing to risk their child dying at the border. What do you think they would do to survive if they made it into the States, and see that locals have it better than them (and aren't welcoming because migrants led to the degradation of their community)?

It is very effective. Many migrants can't just fly in since they need a visa and to pay a flight. Physically blocking migrants would prevent some (not all) from entering. The risk of injury will deter more. You're making value statements: "I would rather migrants avoid injury than securing the border." So you're basically making a leftist argument and want open borders in practice.

You can't make that argument when the dems in Washington decide to cut barbed wire that Texans put up. It might as well be an open border if it's that easy for a migrant to cross.

For a girl to keep me around she'd need to: - Be psychologically healthy - Give me enough alone time (I'm an introvert) - Have similar enough beliefs / things in common - Not do anything stupid that would make me wary of being around her Otherwise I'll tell her we lack 'chemistry' and aren't compatible. Feels like basically the same reason why women keep men around

Yes, and in terms of the justice system the purpose is public safety. Basically everything else is a cost. I'm sure it's rough. But do you really want to respect a dangerous criminal's right to freedom? I don't.

People seem to talk only about punishment vs rehabilitation but never about the aspect of preventing offenders from being able to commit crimes - which seems like the whole point of the justice system. Many people go to prison for committing crimes which involve the blatant disregard of others, then come out only to reoffend. I feel that the wellbeing of their next victim should outweigh their right to freedom, and thus it would be just to keep them locked away indefinitely. In this case, I'm advocating for life in prison not out of the desire to punish but to protect society from dangerous people. People often bring up the 'underlying societal issues' as a way to shift blame away from criminals to justify shorter sentences. My argument however, is not concerned with blame but is rather about risk reduction and enhancing safety. Once underlying societal issues get solved, then my solution would still hold, except that less people will end up incarcerated. I am also not against rehabilitation - but only support this option if there is a <10% chance of a former inmate reoffending. Life imprisonment for offences most costly to society: - Murders - Rapists - Career criminals (say 50%+ of their income is generated through crime) Exponentially increasing sentences for repeat offenders: ie shoplifting: 1) slap on the wrist. 2) 1 year (jailtime) 3) 2 years 4) 4 years 5) 8 years, etc. with a different curve for other types of crime with varying severity (white collar, violent, etc). These strict sentences would also act as a strong deterrent against the types of people who commit crimes only if they think they can get away with it.

Yes - I would pay for a safer society. There are also indirect costs to crime that everyone pays. For example, grocery stores need to charge extra to offset lost merchandise (or paying a security guard) due to theft. Victims of crime may become unproductive, paying less taxes and requiring more government services. So in terms of societal wealth, paying to keep people in prisons may not be as expensive as it appears on face value. In the long term, the costs should go down with less people committing crimes. - Offenders oftentimes go into a life of crime after being influenced by existing criminals in their social circle. People in prison are effectively excluded from socializing with outsiders. - Stricter sentences become normal and expected for people growing up in such a system. Committing crimes would become unimaginable for these people, or at the very least seen as taboo. Finally, deterrence is powerful when it comes to economically motivated crime. If the penalty far exceeds the benefit to oneself (theft or fraud or selling drugs, for example) many people would likely choose to live an honest life.

I get that too, and use DMT. I don't think that's a bad thing - just means that your body operates at a higher level and rejects unhealthy foods.

It seems like as a man, there's not way to eliminate the risk of an unwanted pregnancy - and that exploring my sexuality, and having an active sex life in general carries the risk of being burdened with an extraordinary amount of responsibility that I'm not ready for. It also doesn't help that I have trouble trusting people. I recently realized that this fear has been a major reason why I sabotage relationships and avoid having sex. The main issues: - Condoms aren't 100% effective. - Vasectomy's are often irreversible. - The girl can lie about being on birth control. - The girl can promise to get an abortion before sex then change her mind. - It's impossible to legally obtain a 'paper abortion.' If it were possible I would get the contract signed as a precondition for having sex every time. Better yet, I would want to contractually obligate a woman to get an abortion (before having sex) since it's not great for a child to be born into this world with either parent not wanting them. I just want to be able to enjoy having sex without the risk of huge repercussions and that seems impossible given how lopsided the law is in favor of women. Anyone here figured this out? Are my concerns overblown?

For Q1 RSD Julien said: "I don't drink, I'm perfect"

Proceeding given my satisfaction with the answers I got here. Thanks bro!

Poor alpha might be infertile

Not surprised, girl who feels shitty about sleeping with a PUA would probably be a lot more inclined to get an abortion

@GraceUnity730 If you're that sorry why don't you buy Leo's life purpose course as proof