Presuming and Assuming when it comes to a death investigation is often the start of how innocent people go to jail

It does not take much for a motivated medical examiner to rule a death a suicide, their are plenty of examples where clearly not suicide was been rule suicide in history.

Then there is always the movie "The Shooter" where they had an arm contraption purpose built to force someone to "commit suicide", The device itself is plausible

If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.

While I do not agree with the OP on insider trading being good.... I also think short selling is a net negative and should be banned right along side insider trading

Was to regulate, as in to make regular...

It was not to expand to allow regulations to apply to any commerce that happened to cross state lines... like your example of shipping a package.

The movement of the package may then trigger federal regulations but those regulations should not move up stream to the Person that packed the box, as that activity was wholly intrastate. The employer and the employee was both in the same state, and the transaction for the labor was enclosed into a single state.

The transaction from the consumer to the company may be interstate and that may be regulated by the Commerce clause.

now over the centuries bad judges making terrible rulings (see Wickard) , and a few poor amendments (17th being one of them) have allowed the federal government to expand well beyond its original limited powers.

Thankfully and mercifully the current Supreme Court seems very willing to put the federal government back into its proper constitutional box... Amazon I am sure is looking to leverage that... As outside the terrible expansion of the Commerce Clause in Wickard does the federal government have any authority to regulate employment in any state... No where other than a massive liberal reading of the commerce clause is that power found in Article 1 Section 8 from which all congressional and federal authority is derived.

Allowing the government to use taxation for purposes other than public finance has been and will continue to be an avenue for abuse, and authoritarian control ultimately leading to tyranny

My parents provided shelter, basic food at home, and transport to school and official functions...

If I wanted anything beyond that like access to a car to go out with friends. Or to buy a new game.. or go to a party etc. I hade to fund that with my own money

My parents were terrible at personal finance. They were not savers nor did the schools teach me anything about saving.. investment or compound interest so I did not start any of those things until my late 20's.. I failure instill regret....

That said my parents never asked me to contribute to the household finances.. and now today as one of my parents has no retirement they now live with me and I do not ask them to contribute to the household finances...

Yes there is "kids get off my lawn" but to just dismiss all of the data and problems as that is ignorant and dangerous

Most college graduates likely could not pass a 8th grade exam from 100 years ago, the social cost of that is immense.

is it is always a bad idea to ear mark a tax for a specific purpose. Especially if you desire to use the tax as a punitive measure to reduce that which you deem bad for society, if it works now you need to come up with the money for the thing you funded elsewhere because all government programs are permanent

Look at smoking, all kind of things were funded on the back of smoking taxes, and when those punitive taxes worked to reduce smoking the revenue dried up but the budgets for for those programs did not so now the money had to come from somewhere else....

Using the tax code to punish or reward behavior is always bad

I disagree, and history has shown that free markets absent government control doe not instantly become monopolized, and infact through out most of history monopolize form when the government regulates the most

Look at todays market as an example, the most competition is present in markets where the government has the least influence, where markets like energy, healthcare, etc which are the most regulated are also the most monopolized

I only called sick a handful of times, never was late, and did my job to the best of my ability. it is called work ethic. I started at $0.25 above minimum wage, as we given several raises, and position changes by the time I left at age 18, why because I was one of the most reliable teens they had, and they did not want me to go to another employer.

Some parents instill work ethic in their children even teens, sadly we do not have many good parents these days it seems like

and for the record, walmart never asked me and I never did work a single second off the clock...

First and foremost, states do not, and cannot "create free markets" the existence of a state to regulation a market makes is de-facto non-free

This is also a very rose colored look at unions, while simultaneously demonizing businesses. In reality it is completely possible to have an exploitive union. At the end of the day, power corrupts, and the more power a person or group has over another person or group the more corrupting that power is.

Thus in a very large union you will likely see just as much employee abuse, as in a very large company.

The sweet spot has always as well always been in Medium sized organizations, or unions, above 300 employees, under 3000 employees. Anything larger or smaller and the risk of abuse and poor conditions go up considerably even if you are represented by a large union