I want to give every politician on earth a plaque saying "have you tried not banning it?" It won't solve all or even most political problems. But the number and importance of problems it would solve is horrifying.
When they don't ban it, they'll mandate it. And when they don't give it huge subsidies, they'll give it huge taxes. Also, I've seen otherwise smart non politicians suggest doing both, giving a huge tax to balance a huge subsidy (result net small tax).
-
-
This is less stupid than how EU agriculture worked for many years. There politicians tried to reduce huge over-supplies caused by subsidy by giving people a different huge subsidy *not* to produce. People who can speak full sentences came up with this idea.
-
Pretty sure the US does something like that too. Robert Heinlein put an account of that in a novel (Time Enough for Love).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.