Just about the only hard shelled reptile eggs are crocodilian, some turtles, and a few outliers like some geckos. Very few of any of those would be confused with chicken eggs. There also are (hopefully still) wildlife experts as part of border patrol who can and do make those determinations.

That said, there are endangered bird and reptile species that we don’t want trafficked and smuggled eggs get rescued by animal control portions of border security unfortunately all the time and they should keep doing their job.

With the concentration of wealth and thus power being the ideal state, you appear to be arguing in favor of a landed aristocracy who are inherently better at ruling than everyone else because of their noble character. The peasantry would not know how or even want to wield power, and need to be guided by those with the right to rule. In this case it is the right mix of sociopathy and exploitation that defines nobility of character instead of strictly bloodline and Devine Right. This is a very interesting take.

I personally feel that along broad scopes, any human is equally capable of the desire and capacity to wield economic power. It is nurture and not nature that derives this. I would then argue that a level playing field with the Government enforcing strong anti-trust laws is a much better driver of economic force and growth. Healthy competition with no artificial barriers to market entry will allow the market to produce the best results.

Preventing monopoly, duopoly, and oligarchy will constrain the scope of inequality along with taxation without any need for a planned economy. I favor something like a land use tax, but there is much discussion to be had on that front.

Humans are semi-eusocial creatures, so greed must be properly channeled and cannot be allowed to run unchecked. Inequality at certain levels is expected and can/does increase drive for success, but must be tempered for optimal results.

Some people don’t think it be like it is, but it do.

Yeah, I agree, but the problem is that there is never a 3rd option and so option 1 has gone over decades from getting just getting a purple nurple to getting shot by airsoft, then to a BB gun, then a pellet gun, and now a .22. Everything only ratchets one direction.

The Two Party system and game theory has put us in this position, the elite class has captured both options so they are fine no matter what, and the majority of lawmakers on both sides object to voting methods that will allow the possibility of third parties to emerge.

The question becomes which option 2 is “not bad” enough to risk allowing when the opportunity is taken to break the machinery behind option 1 and replace it with something better? We have no guarantee that anything after this will constitute a better opportunity.

The Republicans should do the same, take this chance with Trump having hijacked the whole system to jettison it a remake a functional conservative/center right party without the likes of McConnell. Break the party, replace the politicians and make reforms like ranked choice or STAR voting so everything isn’t zero-sum.

He didn’t say anything about exactly the same, just that they both suck. Dems want to shoot you with .22 caliber rounds in the extremities cause it’s not lethal, while the Trumptards want to shoot off your arms with explosive .50 cal to get the “necessary amputation” done quick. One of those is 100% objectively worse, but some people would ideally like an option that doesn’t involve getting shot at all. Pointing out that getting shot sucks regardless of who is pulling the trigger shouldn’t be all that controversial.