The tax would be used to fund maintenance and repair related to tourism use such as trails, public attractions, etc...
Furthermore its an optional tax for cities with high tourism to decide to implement. The tax yield wouldn't leave the local community.
There's not a single mention of law enforcement.
Beyond a diverse sourcing of information one could consider sources which present their bias up front.
An analysis seated in a well communicated philosophy is better than one with its motive hidden behind a mask.
Furthermore, information being factual isn't enough to be unbiased. Bias also applies to the selection of information being presented, or more importantly, not presented.
I would say "like dissolves like" but that would be an insult to the toxic chat lobby.
He appoints and directs the head of the department who, in turn, can more or less do so. They've been blatantly ignoring status quo and legal authority for a while now, so unless the supreme court gets the case and disagrees, they're unlikely to stop.
National Forest Service is a part of the Department of Agriculture, part of the executive branch.
All governments at some level run on the honor system. When the whole government colludes to not honor the system, you get this.
Sure regulate it then, effectively, and cut out any international trade which allows for the procurement of goods through a non-regulated system. Find a common agreement of what regulation is and find a way to ensure no one has an incentive to break that regulation. Find a way to ensure that a capitalist cannot accrue such wealth as to influence politics (or skirt whatever law you want against it).
The only people I've heard who want NO regulation are AnCaps and yeah lol no - (and also they still want property rights ig).
People just want a better system than what we have now. Which is laissez-faire capitalism. Beyond that there's the political philosophical aspect that "capitalism" can and does effectively mean rule by the wealthiest.
Lot's of people would be happy with a market system in a socialist society. Lots of people want Anarchism. Lots of people want Communism(the good or bad kind depending on who you ask).
Your example is fine. It's not an option for most people to be able to source everything they need where the supply chain doesn't rely on exploitation of labor and resource extraction somewhere along the process. Whether it's in the materials used by the producer, the logistics in goods transport(oil & gas, shipping, warehousing, etc), or manufacturing of goods (labor, production house, etc...), the chain relies on exploitation somewhere along the way.
Buying the apple from your local farmer still relies on the oil industry to run farm equipment or transit of the product. By and large this is minimize when buying local from independent producers. Those, however, are often more expensive.
The consumer is the last step of exploitation. Where the profit stems from. Again, your local farmer probably isn't extorting you, but your local grocery store probably is.
So complete justice system reform, cut the police force, strong wide reaching unions, and strong social welfare.
Twist-erase 3 is bae
No. Traditionally you just stockpile and artificially generate scarcity in the market until the demand rises again.
Original article
It's a mix of bokmål and nynorsk so autotranslators may have a little trouble.