Op orders and planning is what OCS is for. If you don't assume the enemy is armed or booby trapped a house prior to a raid, how's it going to end? You should watch the documentary on how the SEALs killed Bin Laden. They assumed everyone was armed, assumed stairwells were trapped as well as walk-ways. Because of that, they acted accordingly and lived to tell the story. An officer always makes assumptions. If one doesn't they are not fit for commission.
Government of, by and for the people can keep that in check. Problem is when big money coopts that system.
Originally the American Colonists were anti regulation. The era of regulation evolved after the Big Crash on Wall Street in 1929.
We don't have to put a lot of homeless people in jail as long as they'll behave themselves if we help them get their dope and give them a warm, safe place. Some, of course, will be unable or unwilling to behave themselves and will end up locked up.
Rule? I don't think so. Not in our system. They want to be perceived as doing something proactive and beneficial so that they keep their jobs. The problem is that they're faced with a hostile electorate and a hostile congress who will make too grandiose a solution untenable, so they work within their limits and go for easier solutions that will at least give a good impression in the short run. I think there just ends up being a lot of this and a lot of can-kicking in our politics, so we get these half-baked solutions without meaningful and effective policy changes.
I see and it makes sense. I lack actual xp with American politicians, I only know what I read, but I doubt they are any different from the regular ones. If true, yours do a little more and have good intentions for others not themselves, so you guys are truly lucky. But I doubt it
I prefer prohibition to the propaganda and controls placed on tobacco. Truly a national disgrace. I can understand how people with dodgy dealers or no dealer at all would want legalisation+regulation. I do not fit into that category. It is far better to be a cannabis smoker than a tobacco smoker in today's Australia. An ounce of cannabis on the free (black) market costs the same as a carton of cigarettes on the regulated (dramatically unfree) market. As a consequence, I support prohibition and want it extended to tobacco and alcohol.
Controls? It's not unreasonable to insist smokers not light up in a public place. Otherwise, they've taxed the hell out of tabacco which is just short of prohibition. I'll be in Australia in October--Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Cairns. I don't think any of it should be illegal or extremely expensive. Tobacco is a bit different because it's use requires large quantities that creates health problems years later.
I would gladly back prohibition against busy-body moral do-gooders who use government to command and control their neighbors and claim it ot be the for the "good of society". But then, what would we do with them all?