The same arguments are used against the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery in an effort to stop it too.
And women's suffrage.
And interracial marriage.
And segregation.

Certain things are too important to be left to popular vote.

Anti sodomy laws were already struck down as unconstitutional in Lawrence vs Texas.

Though several states or municipalities voted to keep them on the books, they are unenforceable due to the ruling.

Banning slavery would have mortified a large segment of the people who wrote it too.

Good thing intelligent people can remember that the Founder's were fallible men, and they knew it too, which is why they gave us a living document able to change with society.

Ummm. No.

Regardless of whether the State -should- be involved in marriage....it already -IS-.
Specifically there are certain legal statuses and protections as well as financial benefits granted to married couples.

As long as those benefits are granted one class of married couples (heterosexuals) they must be granted to -ALL- married couples, and to not do so is an explicitly clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

there is something to the idea that if a company is too big to fail, its too big to exist, and should be broken up.
those megabanks and financial institutions should be broken up, and restricted from activities they allowed to spread into through deregulation.

But that pain you mention also means misery and suffering for large swaths of the public dependent on them. the companies and rich folks can weather that a lot better than regular folks can. in the Great Depression there were two classes of people that were largely unaffected: the very rich, and the very poor. and also in the great depression, that wealth from the loser who did lose everything didn't really spread back out to the public; it was absorbed other powerful entities.

As for the bailed out auto companies, they not only got back on their feet, but returned a profit to the American taxpayer. There is a big difference between the megabanks that were bailed out and the car manufacturers. Chiefly in the number and type of employees they have. keeping them operating meant keeping people employed, people who spend large portions of their income (the more money people make, the less they contribute to the overall economy as a percentage of income) which keeps money moving through the economy, slowing (or even arresting) its collapse, just as the social safety nets do, and for the same reasons.

the Kmax is a converted heavy lift manned helicopter.
that's not what he's referring to and you know it.

and if he killed someone? or his drone, not being hardened against smoke and fire, crashed and ignited another fire?
you're an idiot.

an intelligent society eliminates risks -BEFORE- they cause harm, not after. your "logic" (and that's being generous) is the stupidity that says we shouldn't regulate food producers based on the theory that if they poison and kill someone "the market will punish them"....but meanwhile some is still dead.

how likely do you think is that birds hang around a raging wildfire?

"Less than 10 kilos"...22 pounds.
How many birds do you know that weigh 22 lbs?
One of the most common birds involved in bird strike incidents is the common Canadian goose. They weigh ~10lbs. And they manage to damage aircraft. Particularly if they strike the engines, which is a serious threat. And they're made of a lot softer material than drones are. Metal and hard plastic into a turbine is bad news. You are an idiot.

Seriously, what fantasy land are you living in?

"rental" includes the homes that are being bought up at above market prices, creating another housing bubble by the way, in order to be rented out by these investment groups repacking the revenue streams from the rent as securities on the stock market...again...just like they did with mortgage revenue streams...which you may recall eventually led to the crash in 2008?

People have to have a place to live. As such, much like medical care, rent is one of those things that people will tend to try their damnedest to come up with, even when the "perfect rational economic actor" would abstain from taking the deal.

this isn't a perfect theoretical market with people actually willing to walk away from any and all unreasonable deals. instead people find the least unreasonable deal they can, and then get a ton of roommates or three jobs, or whatever. the market is somewhat distorted by the fact that few people are willing to walk away from the transaction and be homeless.