US does same for very small child support debts (I think around $1000) as well as larger tax bills. Of course when I cross to/from Mexico by land at small crossing I've noticed most have no passport and just beg for forgiveness which usually works.
Yes the US has a more insidious "hidden" law that I'm amazed Trump has not used to his advantage. It's a felony for the younger illegal immigrants males who are eligible to not register for the draft (most visa and legally visa exempt tourists are exempt, but the exemption falls off if you fall out of status). Almost none of them do, meaning almost all undocumented military-age-males are actively committing a serious crime.
That was also true of much of the feudal or monarchist European wars in the centuries before WWI. In the near term before the "democratic" era around WWI wars war largely seen as wars of the aristocracy and armed forces. Merchants could usually ~freely come and go between countries at war and you could generally pass to a country you were at war with without common people seeing you as an enemy. Wars also tended to be less "all or nothing" where the other side was evil and had to be destroyed and were seen more as property and rights disputes of the elite where armed force was a negotiating tactic or strategic use to assert some particular right.
It wasn't until the scam of 'democracy' fooled people into thinking war was against the actual people of the other country that they not only scammed everyone into having such buy-in and stakes for the war but also to view the other countrymen themselves as the enemy. People started viewing the nation of themselves because their laughable miniscule influence of their vote somehow means the government is of them. (Note this was a resurface of course, there were times in history where war was seen as against a peoples rather than of the elite).
Stop reading Curtis Yarvin's pseudo-history. Like 8 million people died in the Thirty Years War before modern democratic states, and there's plenty of other examples.
Well women are the rate limiting factor in having more men produced for war fodder.
It probably makes more sense to ban birth control at the same time men are required to die for the war machine as both would then be playing out their slavery-induced biological role in ensuring survival of the nation. That is if you're down with the whole slavery for war thing.
That’s essentially what the commenter is proposing when talking about banning birth control. This would be equivalent to compelling women to reproduce (or forego sexual relations, which in reality most people won’t do).
Most actively wars are over long before the replacement rate starts to matter, and women that get pregnant or raise children will in all likelihood get an excemption from frontline duty.
The tax code is inefficient on purpose. A simple uniform system is politically infeasible, due to the fact our political system relies on pretending to give special favors to every tailored interest group individually (making the tax code even bigger every time).
We arent at a loss of what to change to make it simpler/optimal. We're at a loss at how to make anyone proposing that not lose the election when everyone else is telling each group they'll lose their special carveous and how about I sweeten the deal some more.
That part of it doesn't seem like the problem. If you want to make a carve out for some group and you're using a consumption tax then you just don't tax that thing or lower the rate (with the cost of having to increase the general rate on everything else). This is occasionally even a good thing, e.g. have a higher tax rate on petroleum than other things to price the externality, or a lower rate on groceries because they're a necessity.
And many of the carve outs are stupid and we shouldn't do them, but that's a separate layer of complexity/inefficiency on top of the mess we get from trying to pretend that "progressive marginal rate structure" and "means testing government benefits" are useful things to have at the same time when they're the mathematical inverse of one another, or that we want an "income tax" even though we don't want the major disincentive for anyone to have savings or make productive investments rather than immediately spending all income on hedonistic consumption.
Most of the world that did convert to Islam, did it out of pragmatism. That goes for Catholicism as well. Though a special part of my heart goes out to the pragmatic Quakers of the early US, who largely seem to have done it just to have a chance to thumb their nose at the government.
I would note ISIS put out some high res, professionally edited video of burning a (Jordanian?) pilot to death while inside a cage. Quite savage, but the propaganda effect is more profound than about anything else I've seen.
Yes, after that video it was clear that Daesh and everyone in their little caliphate would be hunted down. And it was, they were. They were attacked everywhere they tried to return to. From minor girls returning to the Netherlands to 45 year old men (trying to) return to South Africa, all were persecuted, and that one video had a lot to do with that happening. After that video, even muslim nations started hunting these people.
And yet, they are still around, made famous and split into separate groups, still actively fighting on multiple fronts all over Africa. And if the Iranian government falls for sure they will be coming back with a vengeance in the area.
If the pilots are recovered we probably won't hear about it from either side for hours. Iran will want to get them a mile underground before they send out the B-rolls. If recovered by the US, they will want them out of theater before anyone knows better so they can't be targeted.
There should probably be some kind of elected position, independent from the three branches, who's sole task is to veto presidential orders to the armed forces. The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
> The president having war powers without authorization of congress is probably desirable since congress is too slow, but some quick in the loop sanity check would be useful.
I disagree. The decision to go to war should always be slow and deliberate. I can't think of a single case where the President deciding to send troops on a whim without consulting Congress or getting their approval first ever worked out well.
I suppose the devil is in the details of "getting their approval" but it's worth noting Lincoln prosecuted the Civil War without seeking a declaration of war with congress.
That's because the United States official position in the civil war was that the south was a part of the US that was in rebellion, and not a sovereign state that we were at war with.
I don't see how that negates the action of sending of troops for combat. You're just arguing an excuse as to why congress wasn't sought to to declare war in this "case where the President decid[ed] to send troops." There is always some excuse for that nowadays, quite conveniently, so you're in good company.
Civil war is always an exception because of the special circumstances. Its not an act of war but a state of emergency which has it's own protocols regarding presidential powers.
The 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War by NATO did not have congressional approval and while it was not perfect or troops, I'd put it ever so slightly on the side of "well" vs the current debacle.
You mean like the ancient tradition of the Roman Censure. Someone who “monitors” the legislative branches and may “veto” any governmental action determined against the public good.
A lot of government would be improved by making elected positions be very specific roles.
Why are we deciding military strategy from a guy that was elected to fix labor rights? Should the same guy running the school system also be in charge of selecting Supreme Court justices?
Also, the founding fathers had it right: An independent electoral college should decide elected positions, not the general public. Hiring decisions should be left up to people that are expert at hiring, not random people.
The only role the general public should have in government is deciding their representative - it's literally in the name!
And executive branch isn't supposed to be a representative. It's only role is to execute laws created by the representatives.
Gen. Claude sometimes misjudges things and hallucinates but that’s alright, because the president said the enemy is bombing their own girl schools with tomahawks so it’s ok to grab them by the meow.
Something the president practiced for years on a far away island. Trust the process.
reply