Probably be like the high seas. Pirates are usually dealt with harshly even if they're in international waters.

Aren't you being backwards? Personal taxes often come from corporations, if the personal tax rate goes up, then corporations will need to pay more to employees to maintain the same take home pay and not only that but startups, smaller businesses and such will be hit harder as payroll has to be paid whether a company is profitable or not while taxes on profit only has to be paid if the corporation is successful.
The idea that it is better to not tax corporate profits is a lie pushed by big corporations to stop competition from forming and lack of competition leads to higher prices and worse product. If Amazon one day was the only online seller of goods, they could jack up their prices secure in the knowledge that no-one else can afford to enter their business due to payrolls being so high as only personal taxes would have to pay for everything including the infrastructure that Amazon depends on to do business.

If it is tax on profits, it'll allow more competition as new companies will reinvest in their company rather then pay the tax leading to growth for the new small company.
Free market works best with lots of competition.

What to do about corporations wanting "Yhay Free Stuff funded by Taxes" when they don't want to pay? Do you think that you should pay for the infrastructure to make Amazon more profitable?

Not if it is good PR or if it is too avoid a law that would mean paying even more taxes.

I know that my government is not that representative, as an example the ruling party won with 38% of the vote, not including those who didn't vote. So 62% of voters voted for others. This government has consistently tried to override basic rights and keeps getting smacked down by the courts.
An example is that they are talking about prosecuting people who call for boycotting Israel due to the Israelis targeting civilians. In a democratic society I believe that people should be able to peacefully organize a boycott and probably the courts will agree.
In countries such as America, due to the influence of money in the election process, choices are limited to the ones that big industry wants rather then the choices that are most in agreement with the people.
Democracy is flawed, just seems better then the other choices as long as there are some checks and balances.

So true. Just because someone was booted into the ground does not mean that they should be helped up. It's their fault that they got booted, should have picked better parents.

Single people have the right not to have to support other people just because they married or parented someone. As a married father, I have to ask, why do single people have more rights? Too much of my meager income goes to supporting others and I get supreme shit if I go out partying or even if I work late without reporting in.

Quebec? OK not English speaking or common law. And in Canada a priest etc can be certified to do legal marriages and can't be forced to do a marriage against their religious beliefs unlike a government employee.

I happily ran OS/2 v3 on a 386/33 with 4MBs of ram for quite a while. Had to use an alternative shell to the WPS and be careful about your config.sys and how many sessions you opened, at the time I ran a lot of DOS and Win16 apps but it worked pretty well though I was sure happy when I upped the ram to 8MBs. The big difference between Windows and OS/2, OS/2 was more modular and you didn't need to load everything and could even have a simple full screen text session much like DOS
On the other hand, my brother bought Warp v3 and installed everything on a 4MB system. It was unusable so he gave it to me.

I think that a representative democracy needs parts that can't be simply fired so they have some independence from the mob.

Probably depends on country but here in Canada a priest etc can be legally certified to perform marriages and further when our Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage has to be allowed, they specifically said that priests etc can't be forced to perform a gay marriage while government employees such as marriage commissioners (how I got married) can be forced (actually fired for refusing).

When the mother of my child was in hospital giving birth, I was allowed to visit at anytime. Others were limited to certain times. In that case marriage didn't matter but would have made it simpler for my claim as the father.
If my now wife was in hospital, I'd probably be allowed to visit at most any time and the marriage would make it easier but if only common law I'd expect it to be similar though the marriage documents make it easier to prove that you're extra close family.
Really it was the hospital that decided with the government only formalizing the relationship. For a gay couple the marriage document would probably help more to prove that they had more of a right to visit at inconvenient times. Your visitors were probably visiting during visiting hours.

The Canadian Supreme Court considered this and decided the negatives of allowing polygamy outweighed the benefits.
Having lived close to Bountiful BC where the polygamists who brought the suite are based, I have to agree at least in that case.
The negatives included that the standard practice was to force 13yr old girls into marriage with 50+ yr old men and what it did to the other single males in their society, eg kicked out so they didn't compete for the young girls. Quite a few of the witnesses in the case were victims of the Mormon breakaway sect.
If the case had been about equals agreeing to a multiple marriage the result likely would have been different.
As for the tax breaks part you brought up up the page, traditionally it was based on dependents. Is it fair that I pay the same taxes as you if I'm supporting two other people and you're only supporting yourself? I do agree that basing it purely on marriage isn't optimal though and if you had to support a younger sibling as an example should allow you to have tax benefits as well.

When the Judges are appointed by a democratic process such as the elected legislature appointing them.
In common law based societies (most countries descended from England) the judiciary has always had the power to make law in the absence of legislation. The legislature and/or crown/people can always override the judiciary as well, though sometimes it is hard. eg, in America if enough people agree it is possible to even get rid of free speech.
Someones got to decide what things like "equal" mean. And there are always edge cases.