I don't see how higher education for the rich isn't already a thing, and is a problem.
I like history, however I also have to eat so I majored in CS and am content with reading books about history. If some rich kid wants to get phd in Classical Greek History or English Civil War era history and not be able to use that degree to get a job, let him. It is no difference than if someone wanted to buy a lambo. The rich people can buy it if they want to show off, but the government shouldn't subsidize poor people to get lambos. Some degrees are luxury goods.
I can probably get the same knowledge as any of those "luxury" degrees by my self via free books or videos online. Them going thru the motions to get the degree, which there are few jobs for, is therefore a luxury and should not be subsidized.
To play devils advocate to prevent this place from turning into an echo chamber:
You say "put principles over the profit of a few constituents", and that is a very widely held slogan or catch phrase.
Whose constituents? I, as a constituent, very much like not having a war going on where I could be drafted and sent to die for some people I do not know or really care about. I, as a constituent, very much like not having to pay 5k for a phone or 10k for a computer. I, as a constituent, like the cheap products that trade has allowed me to buy.
Whoes principles? America's manifest destiny principle is to take everything you can take and then fight weaker neighbors to take some more. Is it fair that we, Americans, got to do our dirty work in the past and make our country whole while other countries have to be plagued by a civil war?
The only actual principle that maters when it comes to countries is might makes right. The US was mighty so it could crush the Indians, the Mexicans, the Spanish and take what was "rightfully ours". The US was mighty so it could crush the CSA during the civil war. The US was mighty so they could use the threat of force to protect Taiwanese independence or de facto-independence. The UK was mighty so they could crush China and take HK. Now that China is (questionably? maybe?) mighty, they want to take back HK, they want to take over Taiwan. Now when other countries are mighty, the rules of the game suddenly change so that it is no longer might makes right but human rights and democracy and peace and sham pretending about principles?
I like human rights and I would generally support people being free (whatever that means), but is it not hard to see the hypocrisy in it all? Where were the principles when we beat up the Indians and Mexicans and grabbed up all of California? Where were the principles when we beat up all the LATAM countries who tried to have democratic elections. Where were the principles when we drone striked every adult man and called them all combatants since they were within the age range?
I think, on a cynical take, that Lithuania only is able to do it because they have nothing to lose. Their trade with China is small so even if it is cut off, then it will be almost like if nothing had happened.
My take on the whole China issue is this: no country actually cares about humans rights or any of that stuff but only about their national self interests and that most people do not actually care about humans rights, but only about their own personal self interests.
China is a rising power in the world and wants to at least be the primary power in its region (maybe the world, who knows), and the USA as the primary power in the world and the region wants to keep its position. The US and China also have a symbiotic relationship, China would not be able to be in the position it is today if not for American purchases, and Americans would not have the quality of life they currently enjoy if they did not have Chinese manufacturing.
Both countries know they cannot be openly hostile to each-other without huge ramifications so they use proxy conflicts to try to secretly bludgeon each other and propagandize their own populations. Americans can propagandize their population with HK, Taiwan, concentration camps, no freedom and Chinese can propagandize their population with drone strikes, Century of humiliation, US Imperialism... Nobody, except the misled population (who are being propagandized) or extremely dim-witted subsets of elites (who are doing the propaganda, and go high of their own supply so to say) actually care about these issues.
I do not think this will be as hot as the last cold war since the US and China are way more interdependent than the US and the USSR and the way to make sure that this semi-cold war will not turn into a hot war is to not trying to break the interdependence, but to strengthen it.
You might be content with living like a pre-industrial peasant but how many other Americans or Europeans would be? I would wager very few. People care about their own immediate needs (or what they perceive to be their immediate needs) first and things like China, HK, Taiwan do not even register in their minds. I would bet that most Americans would rather live in a vassal nation than to not have any of the convinces of modern day living, and I quite frankly, would also. When gas gets over 4 dollars a gallon, people get mad. When lumber prices jump by 25%, people get mad. When steel prices jump by 10%, people get mad. How do you think people would react if the next iPhone cost 5k or the BigMac cost 10$, they would vote out the current government and replace them with a new one.
I think you are being a bit too idealistic and have quite honestly drank the Kool-Aid and forgot about the original purpose of why America dislikes China. They are a rising power seeking to disrupt the current one. Good playing American jobs have been cut and Chinese jobs have sprang up in their place. People who had those jobs are now experiencing a reduced quality of life.
Algorithms in their current state can only do so much and even the best ones can accidentally flag a picture of a cow as human breasts or mistakes a human would never make. In practice algorithms would probably heavily handily flag stuff with humans to deal with the appeal requests
who in their right mind would hire a content moderator for 60$ an hour? It would most likely be the work of some off shore English Speaking Country like India and they would get 6$ an hour, AI would first flag or not flag things and then the human moderators would intervene, just like how Facebook and China does it.
I agree that Kyle was in a place he should not have been. As to causing trouble, I agree with that, thought may others might not. It must also be stated that the people who engaged with him were also in a place they should not have been in and were also in the process of causing some mischief.
All of this just leads me to believe that no one of "good quality" shows up to those events with the idea of causing excess trouble (outside of peacefully demonstrating). How else could it be that the three people who he shot had vast criminal back grounds (which don't apply to his self defense because he did not know about the criminal history when he was shooting them) being that of a child molester and domestic abusers and Kyle himself was on video beating up some girl.
When bad situations happen amongst a crowd of people, the "good quality" people see themselves out and try to leave while the "bad quality" people get hype and try to instigate further.
When the CIA bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Chinese people were mad and going around in pro government/ anti-US riots and tried to storm the embassy/ consulates in Beijing and other cities. The government shutdown the subways and public transportation and enacted some degree of censorship in the state controlled news. (This was in '99 before widespread adoption of the internet)
Would allowing nature to take its course and having them die really be that bad? It is better for society for them to not exist (in a peaceful manner ie not outright jailing/ worse) or for them to exist and harass innocent bystanders? Think about it this way, if they did not exist, and you had the power to create them, would would willingly/ purposefully create them? They are taking up resource that could be better spent else where such as investing in education or infrastructure or even tax breaks for the middle class
Does that not encourage people to then become baby factories? If you know you get 8 months paid leave every time you had a baby, why would any man or woman go to work again? They would just sit at home and breed.
I don't think your analogy is a good one. Women go on maternity leave, not men. So if one group of people are the only ones who get hit by busses, and are in-fact expected to be hit by busses, who in their right mind would hire them?
It is inconceivable that earlier scans did not pick up the defects. She made her bed, she gets to lie in it, but now she is trying to drag other taxpayers into it with her. Some people, I would argue the vast majority of people, do not understand that actions have consequences.
I like history, however I also have to eat so I majored in CS and am content with reading books about history. If some rich kid wants to get phd in Classical Greek History or English Civil War era history and not be able to use that degree to get a job, let him. It is no difference than if someone wanted to buy a lambo. The rich people can buy it if they want to show off, but the government shouldn't subsidize poor people to get lambos. Some degrees are luxury goods.
I can probably get the same knowledge as any of those "luxury" degrees by my self via free books or videos online. Them going thru the motions to get the degree, which there are few jobs for, is therefore a luxury and should not be subsidized.