I have grown to hate edgy comments that are like "Well actually now it is just a state's issue and Roe v Wade was poorly decided!".
You're not edgy & insightful. The impact of this decision isn't just pushing pieces around a chess board. It's scared women & girls around the country, it's women dying who wouldn't have otherwise.
There was no need to codify it into law, as it was already law! That's the whole point of a court ruling!
Roe v. Wade determined that the Constitution itself implied abortion as a right, meaning that there already was a law on the books which protected abortion.
It's not the job of the court to make laws. At one point the court decided that abortion fell under the 14th A, then they decided it didn't. Congress should have made access to an abortion a real law.
It's the job of the court to interpret the consequences of the existing laws.
At one point, the court determined that access to abortion was a right, according to the 14th amendment. Meaning, that the 14th amendment was, among other things, a law that granted the right to access abortion services.
Later, the court decided to override their precedent, and declare that the 14th amendment did not grant the right to access abortion services.
I think you need to define what a "real law" is, and how the 14th amendment doesn't qualify in this context.
I have always thought this. The fundamental way this is discussed today (taxation as a punitive measure) rather than celebrating the contribution to society titans of industry make when they pay their taxes.
I do not think that would matter as much as you think.
As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years.
He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
>>but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
One can have a morally consistent world view that holds that voluntarily submitting oneself to the state's tax obligations to be a moral good, comparable to donating to the state, while relying on the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state edicts) to tax the private income of people at large is an evil.
Yes there's definitely a negative feedback loop currently where:
- the loudest of society villify the rich regardless of whether they are fairly paying taxes or not
- a subset of rich laud each other for coming up with the most creative tax evasion schemes
Some sort of publisher should hold up the most honest, most successful tax patriots and put them up on a magazine cover.
It'd be important to have some separation of the recognition from the actual government (i.e. it should be a private publishing company) to avoid attempts to access government officials and to avoid it looking coerced.
It'd also be important to make it voluntary/opt-in as I'd imagine many would rather just be anonymous.
I think it's pretty reasonable to bet on people being incredible stupid and stuck in their ways; concluding that we have a better chance of innovating out of it than changing human behavior is a pretty worthy hedge.
This is stupid af because there are plenty of other countries with similar incentives & similar levels of corruption who don't have this problem. This sort of low-effort "lol everything bad" adds nothing to the discourse.
