I do not believe at all that most executives are criminal, nor do I believe that the criminality of a few is more important than the benefits of getting rid of cumbersome regulation. Imagine, if you will, having to check in weekly with a parole officer and document what you have done during the week, even though you have committed no crime. Is the likelihood of a decrease in crime worth it?
The question is balancing interests. At this point, the environmental groups have a knee jerk reaction, and don't care about costs, either to the tax payer, or through unfunded mandates. Additionally, they want to lock up so much land that is ripe for mineral exploration, or is used for grazing, that they have a quite adverse impact on the local economies. (Much of the West is tied up in federal land). Ultimately, it is an example of environmental elitism, since few people can afford or are interested in the sort of wilderness activities that they pursue, or care so much about aesthetic considerations over jobs.
The next platform for military activity is space. We are in advance of any other country on that, but we must proceed to keep that edge. We will start with modest goals, but who knows where we will end up?
The rich pay most of the taxes, regardless of a tax break. The bigger question is whether individuals making decentralized decisions are preferable to the legislature in allocating most resources.
In respect of complexity, and the value of an array of voices, I agree with you....... |
