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.
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'.
I was going to suggest the judicial branch. Make the questions check both the exact text of the law (to see that they actually read it) and their understanding of the application of the law in strange sitations. If all the lawmakers agree what the law means, then you don't make the judges interpret it. And if they don't agree you get to make them go back and write a more specific law.
Not just read out. The Congressmen/Senators should be forced to take a quiz about the contents of the bill afterward. If they are unable to pass it with 100%, they are not allowed to vote for the bill.
Both of those results sound fine to me.
The talks with psychiatrists etc are there to break up the monotony of solitary confinement, as well as giving the prisoners something to think about during solitary. Plus starving the prisoners of human contact is probably the only way to get them to actually talk to a psychiatrist.
Have a first time offender spend about a week like this (let's say it feels like a year for him/her), Do you think that person will be more or less likely to re-offend then someone that spent a real year in general population, breaking the law just to survive and being forced to join a gang for protection?
The number of acceptable deaths in this scenario is the whole of humanity-2 (or even 0 if we have machines that can keep the colony functional while growing the next generation of tube grown humans), since the scenario otherwise is the extinction of humanity. I'm not talking just about the situations where Earth survives as a planet. There are things out there that could destroy the planet itself. In that situation no amount of caves will save anyone there.
As for the quality of life I repeat, volunteers. People are willing to do many crazy things if it means they get to do them first. And why do you suddenly forget about caves when it comes to other planets (or moons)? If they can live in caves on Earth then they can live in caves elsewhere. That helps with the whole radiation and no children bit, so the situation suddenly becomes not so pointless.
Again your plan only includes the fairly benign disasters that could happen, and even for those you're wildly optimistic. Exactly how many shelters do you think humanity is likely to build? I'd be surprised if we even reach enough for a million people to survive for a few months unless there is a clear indication that something is going to hit us (and by that time there is likely to be no time to build anything new). Just look at what such relatively common disasters as tidal waves or hurricanes can do and how well humanity is prepared for them. (BTW how would you decide who goes into these shelters, since you're so worried about discimination).
The point of the offworld colonies that they can function as shelters for humanity without that being their primary purpose. They can be built as research stations or even eventually for profit, but still save at least some small number of humans in case something very bad happens.
Who said anything about a life boat? I'm suggesting we don't stick to only having one one ship. The colonies won't be empty all of the time and just waiting for the chance to save the highest bidders in the event of a disaster. They'll have their own populations. Hopefully high enough to be able to sustain humanity if the population of Earth dies.
As for who will be 'allowed' to go live there - whoever volunteers. Life there won't be as easy as that on Earth, so I'm guessing the population will be mostly made up of those that are underpriviliged on Earth. And they'll move there a long time before we figure out that something is going to happen to the Earth.
BTW how does your plan(living in deep holes) deal with your complains about saving only some of humanity and being racist/culturalist about it?
Settling space doesn't imply abandoning Earth. It just increases the chance that at least some humans will survive in case something takes out Earth.
1) My guess is that declaring the woman partially nude in that case would cause her a lot of problems with other laws. Would it even be legal for her to be partially nude in public?
2) Her privacy and dignity are not important in this case unless there are laws that protect them. And there don't seem to be any in this case.
3) The police don't have the best record of knowing what the law is. Most cops are not lawyers and even those that are don't have the right to decide what the laws mean.
Why blame the court and not those that wrote ambiguous laws? Would you like it if the court decided that yes, she was partial nude so the photographer was sent to jail, if they at the same time convicted her for indecent exposure?
The laws governing secret photographing. The court found that they do not forbid upskirt photos. And the blame for that should fall on whoever wrote the laws and any latter politicians in power that did not change them to include upskirt photos.