This is why Mike Dukakis lost the 1988 presidential election to George Bush. The 1986 federal tax law change led to a one-time surge in state capital gain tax revenue. Dukakis (Massachusetts governor at the time) pushed a bunch of ongoing spending increases through the state legislature; next year when the one-time revenue surge disappeared, Massachusetts was left with a very large budget deficit that sunk Dukakis' reputation as a capable governor.

The sane thing to do would have been to either pay off debt or fund backlogged infrastructure repair and maintenance.

Not quite. What is taxed is the value, not the gain. Taxing the value of real estate to fund local expenses tracks reasonably well, because many town expenses attributable to the property and its use track reasonably well with with property value (police, fire, road maintenance, etc)

If we were really taxing unrealized gains, then you would get a basis adjustment each year, and the tax would be based on the year's gain, not the total value. Each year's tax receipts would swing wildly based on the local real estate market. Also, in years where the property value went down, you'd get a refund.

None.

Private firearm ownership does interfere with the modern left's policies of increasing government control over the people (such as extensive licensing or permission regimes for some professions, forbidding some people from doing business with certain companies), and leniency towards criminal behavior (such as looting, public assistance fraud, vandalism). Can't let the serfs have a way to protect themselves.

GameStop has $56billion? Given their turn-of-the-century business model I'd be surprised if they had $56million.

I'd build a solar+battery powerplant plus a backup (natgas, oil, something that can be trucked in if necessary) for when there's a run of cloudy weather, and sell the excess back into the Kenyan grid. If the grid can cover the shortfall I'll use that, but I'd still want the backup in case of a grid outage during a storm.

Violence doesn't work for political causes, if your objective is anything other than an authoritarian dictatorship.

What does the Constitution say?

Per the Interstate Commerce clause, the Federal government can regulate cross-border transactions. It can require any particular warning labeling that it deems necessary when Roundup is produced in one state and sold in another.

The Constitution does not give the Federal government any type of general 'require warning labels on potentially dangerous products' power. The Tenth Amendment leaves that to the states.

States can require any particular labeling for products sold within their borders. They cannot distinguish between locally-produced Roundup and Roundup imported from another state. They also cannot require that their preferred labeling be used for products sold in any other state.

You don't need a missile. All you need is a shipping container aboard a cargo ship

.

I bet this could be defeated trivially by anyone with a sautering iron and a fairly steady hand. The plans will be available before the cartridges ship.

"Don't drink and drive" doesn't help when the government is trying to get these (or ANY other type of device with remote-disable functionality) put in all cars.

Production equals consumption plus investment in an ideal economy. Investment has a multiplicative effect on the productivity of labor (either labor decreases holding productivity constant, or productivity increases when labor is constant. The actual result is somewhere between those two endpoints.)

Socialist policies actively discourage investment, either through taxation or outright seizure, and as such act as a brake on improvements in the standard of living of the population as a whole.

A light bulb is a reverse solar panel:

Solar panel: absorb light, produce electricity.
Light bulb: absorb electricity, produce light.

If it's such a shithole country, why do so many people want to come here that we have to build walls to keep people out?

Housing only exists because someone else created it (used their labor).

Saying "Housing is a human right" is the same as saying "I have a right to the result of your labor". This is slavery by another name.

The proper counter to misinformation is true information, along with the tools to tell them apart objectively (experiments I can perform to tell which is true and which is false, without depending on any authority figures).

Censorship is not the solution, censorship is the problem. I have to trust not only the censor's motive, but also the censor's competence. I can't objectively verify either of them.