Even the WBC has some standards and morality.
I'm sorry, but you lost me there.
like those automatic soap dispenser advertising that then you don't get germs from touching it.
I'd think that normally you touch the soap before you wash you hands
Either way, the next thing you touch is the tap, then again after you've washed your hands. I can't fathom what practical purpose those automatic soap dispensers serve, besides extracting more money from clean freaks.
And these are federal crimes, so they'll probably spend it in a federal prison.
Doubtful, unless the US tries to extradite them from the UK. Despite one of the targets being the USAF they would still face some opposition in the face of the McKinnon debacle.
Would you also include independent candidates in this? If so, where do you draw the line?
If you ban campaign contributions entirely (which I would probably support) you would also have to limit the amount of money a candidate is allowed to spend on campaigning, so that the richest candidate doesn't win just because they can afford the best PR. That limit would have to be either very low, so that pretty much anyone could be a candidate, or the state would have to pay. Neither of these seems feasible.
Bribery, to me, is more about paying someone to do something they shouldn't do, or that person demanding payment to do what they ought to. This might include letting a parking ticket slide, voting against the wishes of those one is supposed to represent or blowing some rich old geezer (I imagine).
I don't see a problem in supporting the campaign of a candidate whom I believe will do a good job of representing me, though I deplore the need to do so. However, when a business does the same, that's quite different; governments should serve people, not legal fictions. I'd be very much in favour of banning all but private donations, and open to the idea of limiting those severely.
I will pay the TV tax today if you let me access iPlayer. Here that BBC? Here that Populace of the UK? You could let us foreigners pay your TV tax and have that much more funding or lower the tax on yourselves.
If you lot start paying "tax"* you'll get odd ideas about having a say in how the money is spent. That didn't end well for us last time, and that was before the Kardashians.
Thanks, but no thanks.
*FYI it's not a tax, strictly speaking.
So it is OK to shoot down a plane just because it doesn't have a person in it?
That depends, are there a lot of people under it as well?
Also, what happens if the country in question falls apart and someone decides they want to give it back to you later in the form of a dirty bomb?
I don't think there are many vitrification plants in Kreplakistan. It's far more likely the waste would be sent somewhere like France or Canada. Are you really that worried about the Canucks?