If I'm unable to (legally) get something I truly need, then yes. And I don't think the prices in the stores would increase all that much - other countries would be happy to sell food to the US for less than it would cost to grow/pick it with legal US workers.

Pay me enough and I'll work in the fields.

Why are the laws of supply and demand suddenly forgotten when it comes to paying workers? If you're having a hard time getting someone to pick your crops then offer more money.

Correction: They are performing jobs that others don't want AT THAT PAY. Offer 100$/hr to scrub toilets and you'll get plenty of candidates for the job.

And I'm sure the Native Americans were thrilled about being able to set those immigration laws.

It's the capitalism we've got. The theoretical perfect capitalism would function without bribes, but then so would the theoretical perfect socialism.

There is another problem here - auto translation. The people talking to the bot could have been thinking they are reading the computer translated text of a human.

Does China currently have any incentive to buy the cleaner technology? Upgrading would cost money and even for new factories the new tech is probably going to be more expensive then what they currently use.
In fact implementing this tariff could be the thing that convinces them to start buying the cleaner tech.

Population density (/sq mile):

China: 365
USA: 84

Sure the average US-ian produces a lot of CO2, but there are so many more Chinese that they still come out ahead when it comes to the area they cover.

Unfortunately that wouldn't work against lasers. By the time you see a laser it's already too late.

Again, you're free to do all that with your money. You just shouldn't be allowed to offer to donate that money to a Congressman/Senator if they support your position. AKA- You can bribe the electorate, not the people that get elected.

So what are your alternatives if your power and gas companies decide to raise it's rates by 10000% during winter? Sure you have the choice of freezing instead of paying, but it's not much of a choice.And the companies earn enough money to keep them going for the next century, by which time everyone they offended will be long dead and they can repeat the process on their grandchildren.

But I do agree that government has gone overboard with regulation in some areas while ignoring others. So their influence should be leveled out, not increased or decreased.

If the Build-a-KKK-Statue PAC has the same number of voters supporting it as the Don't-Build-a-KKK-Statue PAC, then yes. Why should the donations matter in a democracy? It's supposed to be one man one vote, not one dollar one vote.

She's free to donate as much as she wants, Congress should just be prohibited from giving her position more attention then Joe's just because of her donation.

That's true.

However it also works for the other side : the more power corporations have the more they will be corrupted. And unlike the government you don't have even the theoretical power to vote THEM out of office.

Congress should be free to listen to all special interests, but on the basis of the number of voices they have (voters), not on the basis of the size of their 'donations'.