We live in a dangerous world. We continue to face grave security threats like terrorism, cyber-attacks, and nuclear proliferation that our intelligence community must have all the lawful tools it needs to address.
This basically saying "life is dangerous, you NEED us to protect you". Sadly, the average person these days seems fully willing to submit to law enforcement in the name of safety. I really think people have forgotten what freedom actually is, in that it implies some level or risk or danger, as you don't have anyone in control of you. I think that is too much for people and the cozy modern lives we have afforded them.
The only explanation I can think of is that it's good business for them.
How about the majority of doctors are people, and would feel very uncomfortable sitting in front of the family and telling them to go home and die. I've been in the same situation and have family in health care - there's always the possibility additional chemo rounds can extend lifespan, and while it's the doctors job to present the choices, to most stopping treatment feels like "giving up".
"No, really, we both know that is a low-ball value, try again"
You extol the values of learning to negotiate, but your example is one of poor negotiation. Anyone well trained in negotiation knows all the power is in first offer. See Anchoring. Amazingly, if most people just learned the cognitive power of first offer and how to craft an effective one, there's few other skills needed to become a good negotiator.
But as a hedge, index all incomes to inflation to eliminate any inflation tax. Indexation guarantees purchasing power does not decrease.
You say that as if the government can easily step in and control the economy like that, even if we wanted it to.
Always remember: the law is 100% logic, 0% common sense.
I totally disagree. There are many, many places where common sense shows up in law, perhaps more than any other profession (esp. the sciences). You have something like jury nullification, or even just read any court decision. The judge will look to apply a common sense reading of the law to the actions. When laws are written and read down to the letter, what they are looking for is clarity and a lack of ambiguity, so we can say for sure those specific actions are what we intended to prohibit. Sure, laws are passed which dictate certain ranges of responses from judges, but that's just codifying justice and I don't see how that makes it "100% logic".
Another concept you're probably confusing with that of logic is strict liability.
enacting laws to protect businesses that donate to Elected Politician
Isn't that a sign the US political system is worked as designed and intended?
Pardon me as I wasn't raised there and maybe we were taught incorrectly about the founding principles of the US, but I thought it was along the lines of "individual freedom first, the almighty dollar rules all"...
"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard