With the Affordable Care Act, you are now obligated to purchase something from a third party simply for being born in America or residing in it. Never before has anything like that ever happened in the US or any so called free country that I know of. After a few shootings, the democrats are trying to take constitutional rights (guns) away from people. Whether you support gun control of not, it doesn't stop shootings, just look at Chicago and DC. They have some of the strongest gun control laws and criminals still get guns and still kill people with them. Just last week, 13 people were shot in Chicago.
Yes, we're going to turn into a communist dictatorship, like Canada. Or Norway. Hellholes, I tell you!
Corporate paid shills? Sure, probably. But what corporation would pay to have someone bash the tea party? Corporations love the tea party. Corporations are where the tea party gets its money.
The "tea party" isn't a philosophy. It's a bunch of idiots and corporate patsies. At one point it had an underlying philosophy which, while fundamentally flawed, was at least consistent. Now it's just a bunch of reactionary Obama haters.
And here I was under the impression that everything in science was always up for grabs. This is just the mag trying to silence dissent. I happen to agree with evolution but I have no problem debating it with people who do not. Nor do I believe evolution is settled science, we continue to learn a great deal and there is always a possibility of some groundbreaking new development to come along and rock the whole foundation.
Groundbreaking new developments come from research, not youtube comments. The people posting troll comments about climatology and biology are almost universally unqualified to be making the statements they're making. If someone tells you that if you drop a rock it will fall upward, why do you need to give them the time of day? The fact that millions of people may believe very strongly in "intelligent gravitation" or some bullshit doesn't make it right. Some things in science are not up for grabs, at least not by random laypeople and corporate shills trolling on the internet.
Couldn't find it. Also, when I tried to dig up actual numbers, they seem to indicate that the article was wrong, so definitely don't quote me on that unless you can find some way to confirm it.
...that more people are running CyanogenMod on their Android phones than are using Windows phones. And CyanogenMod isn't a picnic to set up if you're a layperson, either.
It is not my problem if the wealthy do not choose to give to help those in need.
This is the primary issue with your philosophy. "It's not my problem." Poor are in trouble? Fuck them. If they worked hard, they wouldn't be in trouble, because the world is just and all poor people are lazy.
Young child has poor parents who can't afford to put adequate food on the table? Fuck that kid. Not my problem. Should have been smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. I donate to charity (interestingly, Internet libertarians must be an incredibly generous group, since they all donate to charity even though poverty is Not My Problem).
Someone gets cancer and loses their job and health insurance? Fuck them. Not my problem. Dude should have been smart enough not to get cancer.
Charity alone has never solved these issues, no matter how much you really, really want it to. And yet, there are other civilized first world countries where everyone has health care and enough to eat, even if they're dumb and lazy enough to be born into a poor family or get cancer, because their governments can and do deal with these issues effectively.
Truth be told, I just take the standard deduction. I'm not sure what kind of deductions I'd get if I itemized, so I can't be absolutely certain that I take the maximum -- I probably don't. I doubt it's a significant difference, though, and I didn't get into it because it's beside the point. Whether I happen to be a hypocrite by your convenient and warped standards is irrelevant.
And the answer is, yes, I give a significant portion of what I earn to charity. The thing is that I DON't make assumptions about how other people use their money because it is THEIR money.
You sure as hell do:
So, since you believe that your taxes should be higher, I assume that you do not take any deductions when you file your income tax (or only those that bring your taxes down to what you think they should be)?
Actual statistics contradict your bogus claims about abortion deaths.
As to taxes, since you take the maximum deductions that you can, what you really mean is that you think other people should pay more taxes and you will take the risk that you will have to as well. Basically, you think that you, through the government, can make better use of my money than I can. I do not favor higher taxes because I believe that I can make better use of my money to help others than the government can. The fact of the matter is that I think that you can as well. Whether you choose to do so or not I will leave as up to you. I do not think that I have any right to force you to help others and since I think I, and you, can do a better job of helping those in need with our resources than the government can, I see no benefit to giving my money to the government in order for the bureaucrats to take a cut of money I would rather see help those in need.
I get to state my own argument. You don't get to make it for me. Much like I said above, how one person happens to allocate their funds means precisely jack. What I am saying is that this is everyone's responsibility. That includes yours and mine, but it is not, as you imply, limited to you and me.
Also, while we're making assumptions about how other people use their money, I assume that, since you seen to believe so much in private charity, you donate a significant portion of your money to charity in order to help people in need? What portion? Who knows, really. It's just like arbitrarily saying that because I take tax deductions, I'm a hypocrite.
When taxes on the wealthy go down and assistance programs are cut, charitable donations never go up enough to make up the difference, so honestly, your whole point is complete bullshit, even on the off chance that you do donate a significant portion of your money to charity as you imply. Yes, I believe that tax funded government assistance programs are more effective than private ones, precisely because they have an adequate budget to make a difference.
It's interesting. The people who bitch the most about affirmative action are the same people who feel very very strongly that discrimination by private companies should be legal. Here's a thought: make discrimination illegal, and then maybe we can talk about getting rid of affirmative action.
Discrimination kind of throws the whole "personal responsibility" thing right out the window, doesn't it? Hey, look at me! I was born white and wealthy, but I got where I am with hard work. If other people worked as hard as I do, they'd be right where I am. The fact that it's harder for minorities to get jobs even when they have the same qualifications doesn't enter into it, right?
I believe in personal responsibility. We have a personal responsibility not only to take care of ourselves if we're lucky enough to be able to do so, but also to take care of others who are not. Again, it's time we started admitting that this warped view people have of the phrase "personal responsibility" where it means "take care of me, and fuck everyone else" is a serious moral issue with American society.
So, since you believe that your taxes should be higher, I assume that you do not take any deductions when you file your income tax (or only those that bring your taxes down to what you think they should be)? If such is not the case, you are a hypocrite and what you really believe is that MY taxes should be higher, even though you are willing to pay more as long as I am paying more.
No, I believe our taxes should be higher. Not taking deductions myself will do precisely jack squat. The difference is that if I just do it myself, nothing will happen. There's no hypocrisy there, and you know it.
As to your point on why abortion is legal, it does not seem that making it legal has helped the problem of people dying from it (google Dr Gosnell if you do not know what I am talking about).
Just to clarify, you're saying that the fact that this one guy exists and was arrested for this proves that people still die from abortions on a massive scale?
There's also a word for a person who only cares about him or herself: sociopath.
There are real slaves in the world who have to do what they're told 100% of the time and make no money. Paying a portion of your income in taxes doesn't make you a slave -- you are still free to choose what to do, and you are free to choose not to do anything at all. Your misuse of the word slavery is pathetic and laughable.
Ahh, dogmatic capitalism. A bunch of people at the top take money from everyone else, exerting coercive power in various ways, but that's okay, since they're all only hurting people a little bit individually, you can't say that the specific actions of one person caused a specific child to starve. That child probably would have starved anyway, right?
Meanwhile, back in real reality, those of us who understand statistics have figured out that you can't just take a couple of data points, draw a liner regression, and assume your claims hold true in all cases, particularly when there are other well-known data points that contradict them. In English: Just because making a communist dictatorship somewhat less communist is good for their economy, it doesn't follow that eliminating all regulation in an already capitalist economy will be beneficial.
The countries that do the worst economically are the ones, as you said, with the most strictly controlled economies. The ones that do the best are the ones that have controls to prevent the excesses of capitalism and provide a social safety net while still allowing the free market to drive the economy.
If you take a look at libertarian paradises like Hong Kong, you'll notice that, while the mean income is very high, the median income is actually fairly low, due to a very uneven distribution of wealth. In these situations, you end up with a few people at the top who have more money than they know what to do with, and everyone else on the bottom struggling to get by. This is the direction the United States is headed.
The left like convicts believes they are entitled to get stuff they didn't work for.
I'm a leftist. I'm upper middle class, and I believe that my taxes ought to be higher so as to help people who need it. I also believe your taxes should be higher in order to help people who need it. The world isn't so simple that we can just lump all poor people into one label (that is, "lazy") and say that they, as a group, deserve to starve and die. That is immoral. It is far more immoral than raising the income tax on the wealthy by a few percent.
The left believe that corporations that employ people are evil and that people should live off the government.
I'm a leftist. I am aware of the fact that corporate profits are up while wages are down. I don't believe that people should live off of the government; I just wonder where all those jobs are now that the "job creators" are doing so well.
The left believes abortion is a women's choice and the result is millions dead because of selfishness. An entire generation that was suppose to be there to support us in our old age has been eliminated and populations are declining and being replaced with immigrants.
I'm a leftist. I am aware of the fact that the reason abortion was made legal in the first place was because people did it anyway, and many many people died from it. I also think it's funny as hell that you're this big conservative yet you expect young people to take care of your selfish ass in your old age. Save up some money like a good fucking responsible self-sufficient capitalist and pay those immigrants to take care of you, dipshit.
The left will believe in climate change religiously but when scientists say pot is bad for you they will argue tooth and nail because the left is basically a bunch of pot heads.
I'm a leftist. I'm no expert on climate change, but I know that people who study the climate for a living are more reliable sources on climate change than people who really really want climate change not to be true. That said, like every other leftist, I hope we are wrong about climate change, because if we're right about it, we're all fucked. Also, unlike with climate change, there's a lot of actual scientific debate on the merits of pot.
The left have fanatical beliefs that they are the only ones who care for the environment but you don't see them carless shivering in the dark.
I'm a leftist. My car gets 45 miles to the gallon, and I'm in favor of pushing for stronger efficiency and emissions standards rather than stopping them. Every leftist in the world could shiver in the dark, but that wouldn't solve our emissions problem. Change needs to happen on a global scale, or we're fucked.
The left give the rich their money and then want to tax it all back.
I'm a leftist, and I don't even know where the fuck to go with this one. We gave the rich their money? Are you fucking high? We want to tax it all back? Are you really, really fucking high? Fuck, I'd settle for having the investor class taxed at the same rate I am rather than at 15 percent.
The left believe in making dramatic policy shifts based on evidence. In the 70s we were told that science has proven that we were on our way to another ice age. The was science saying the earth was getting colder and ice core samples proving that was the case. Problem was the science was wrong.
I'm a leftist, and I understand that science starts out wrong about a lot of things, but when their observations don't fit their hypotheses, they refine their conclusions to fit the data rather than dogmatically repeating the same claims over and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence the way conservative economists do. You don't like science?
The earth is not and hopefully will never be in a state of equilibrium any time soon. Do you know what is in a much closer state of atmospheric equilibrium? The moon is a pretty good place to look. Mars isn't bad either. I don't know about you, but I like our atmosphere. As long as we have it and there are living things on this planet, it will remain that way. Hopefully for a very long time.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "equilibrium". Perhaps I'm using the wrong word, but the sort of equilibrium I'm talking about is the fact that on the time scale of a few years, our climate is relatively predictable, even if the weather is not. You don't know how hot or cold it will be tomorrow, but you do have some idea, within a few degrees, of what the average temperature will be over the course of a year. When I talk about things falling out of equilibrium, I mean a change in energy to the extent that the entire climate will shift one way or another.
The global average temperature is still trending up. But to consider things a bit more accurately:
Think of the earth as one big system. For the most part, energy only comes in and goes out through the atmosphere. At the moment, gases in the atmosphere are causing the earth to radiate slightly less energy out into space than it takes in. Before we got started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, earth was in a state of equilibrium, but that equilibrium has been disrupted. Provided we can stabilize that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should reach a new state of equilibrium, and with any luck, it will be similar to the one we were in before.
If not, then there are a lot of things that could happen, and most of them aren't good.
Extra energy in the atmosphere often becomes heat. This is pretty much the simplest thing that can happen.
Extra energy can also go into warming the land. This seems like a good thing, because the land can act as a buffer by absorbing energy from the atmosphere, but if the land gets too warm and old swamps start to thaw out, large quantities of methane will be released into the air, which will further decrease the earth's ability to radiate excess energy.
Extra energy can also cause increased evaporation of water from the ocean, which increases cloud cover and precipitation. This is why snow isn't evidence that global warming has somehow reversed. That being said, cloud cover and snow are both white, which increases the amount of light reflected back out into space. The trouble is, we're not going to reach an equilibrium state until the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere level off. Increased precipitation might stave off big rises in temperature for a while. Or, it's possible that precipitation will increase so much that the ice sheets will expand very rapidly, causing the earth to radiate away *more* energy than it takes in, which could set off an ice age, which would be really bad. Or, it's possible that cloud cover and precipitation aren't enough to counteract the warming effect at all, in which case we'll continue to see the heating that we're seeing now.
In any case, as long as we're increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, we're pushing things further and further out of equilibrium. If we can't get things under control, it is inevitable that things will eventually swing wildly out of control, because there are only so many potential buffer effects that might absorb or reflect the excess energy. Take the aforementioned cloud cover and precipitation. Since we can increase the greenhouse gases in the air indefinitely, even if cloud cover and precipitation are enough to equalize things for a while, eventually they aren't going to be enough. Or, as I said earlier, they might spiral out of control and become too much. We don't know for sure. But eventually, bad things will happen.
Maybe if we're lucky it'll be in a few hundred years. If we're not so lucky, maybe a few decades.
Note to self: Using words that aren't words is an excellent way to troll.
I (unknowingly) used something that isn't actually an english word. You took the time to look it up in two separate dictionaries basically just so you could be pedantic. If you're that kind of person, I'm glad I could waste your time.:)
In short, mostly it's due to FreeBSD's issues with the GPL, not all of which are purely philosophical (it affects their funding, for one thing). On the other hand, if you don't have a beef with the GPL, it's probably best to stick with GCC, which produces more performant code.
Why is the onus on us to offer "real, detailed solutions for problems"? We just want freedom, regardless if it works or not. It's the only moral option.
This would be a wonderful motto for the Libertarian party.
There are lots of different kinds of anarchists, who believe that various, differing things would happen in the absence of a government. They don't agree on a whole lot, but what they *do* agree on is that the thing that always happens in the absence of a government (warlords, violence, etc) definitely would not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we're going to turn into a communist dictatorship, like Canada. Or Norway. Hellholes, I tell you!
Corporate paid shills? Sure, probably. But what corporation would pay to have someone bash the tea party? Corporations love the tea party. Corporations are where the tea party gets its money.
That remains to be seen. After the law has been in place for a year or two, it may turn out to be a very good decision.
The "tea party" isn't a philosophy. It's a bunch of idiots and corporate patsies. At one point it had an underlying philosophy which, while fundamentally flawed, was at least consistent. Now it's just a bunch of reactionary Obama haters.
A 'valve' is a 'steam controller'.
Groundbreaking new developments come from research, not youtube comments. The people posting troll comments about climatology and biology are almost universally unqualified to be making the statements they're making. If someone tells you that if you drop a rock it will fall upward, why do you need to give them the time of day? The fact that millions of people may believe very strongly in "intelligent gravitation" or some bullshit doesn't make it right. Some things in science are not up for grabs, at least not by random laypeople and corporate shills trolling on the internet.
Couldn't find it. Also, when I tried to dig up actual numbers, they seem to indicate that the article was wrong, so definitely don't quote me on that unless you can find some way to confirm it.
...that more people are running CyanogenMod on their Android phones than are using Windows phones. And CyanogenMod isn't a picnic to set up if you're a layperson, either.
This is the primary issue with your philosophy. "It's not my problem." Poor are in trouble? Fuck them. If they worked hard, they wouldn't be in trouble, because the world is just and all poor people are lazy.
Young child has poor parents who can't afford to put adequate food on the table? Fuck that kid. Not my problem. Should have been smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. I donate to charity (interestingly, Internet libertarians must be an incredibly generous group, since they all donate to charity even though poverty is Not My Problem).
Someone gets cancer and loses their job and health insurance? Fuck them. Not my problem. Dude should have been smart enough not to get cancer.
Charity alone has never solved these issues, no matter how much you really, really want it to. And yet, there are other civilized first world countries where everyone has health care and enough to eat, even if they're dumb and lazy enough to be born into a poor family or get cancer, because their governments can and do deal with these issues effectively.
Truth be told, I just take the standard deduction. I'm not sure what kind of deductions I'd get if I itemized, so I can't be absolutely certain that I take the maximum -- I probably don't. I doubt it's a significant difference, though, and I didn't get into it because it's beside the point. Whether I happen to be a hypocrite by your convenient and warped standards is irrelevant.
You sure as hell do:
Actual statistics contradict your bogus claims about abortion deaths.
I get to state my own argument. You don't get to make it for me. Much like I said above, how one person happens to allocate their funds means precisely jack. What I am saying is that this is everyone's responsibility. That includes yours and mine, but it is not, as you imply, limited to you and me.
Also, while we're making assumptions about how other people use their money, I assume that, since you seen to believe so much in private charity, you donate a significant portion of your money to charity in order to help people in need? What portion? Who knows, really. It's just like arbitrarily saying that because I take tax deductions, I'm a hypocrite.
When taxes on the wealthy go down and assistance programs are cut, charitable donations never go up enough to make up the difference, so honestly, your whole point is complete bullshit, even on the off chance that you do donate a significant portion of your money to charity as you imply. Yes, I believe that tax funded government assistance programs are more effective than private ones, precisely because they have an adequate budget to make a difference.
It's interesting. The people who bitch the most about affirmative action are the same people who feel very very strongly that discrimination by private companies should be legal. Here's a thought: make discrimination illegal, and then maybe we can talk about getting rid of affirmative action.
Discrimination kind of throws the whole "personal responsibility" thing right out the window, doesn't it? Hey, look at me! I was born white and wealthy, but I got where I am with hard work. If other people worked as hard as I do, they'd be right where I am. The fact that it's harder for minorities to get jobs even when they have the same qualifications doesn't enter into it, right?
I believe in personal responsibility. We have a personal responsibility not only to take care of ourselves if we're lucky enough to be able to do so, but also to take care of others who are not. Again, it's time we started admitting that this warped view people have of the phrase "personal responsibility" where it means "take care of me, and fuck everyone else" is a serious moral issue with American society.
No, I believe our taxes should be higher. Not taking deductions myself will do precisely jack squat. The difference is that if I just do it myself, nothing will happen. There's no hypocrisy there, and you know it.
Just to clarify, you're saying that the fact that this one guy exists and was arrested for this proves that people still die from abortions on a massive scale?
There's also a word for a person who only cares about him or herself: sociopath.
There are real slaves in the world who have to do what they're told 100% of the time and make no money. Paying a portion of your income in taxes doesn't make you a slave -- you are still free to choose what to do, and you are free to choose not to do anything at all. Your misuse of the word slavery is pathetic and laughable.
Ahh, dogmatic capitalism. A bunch of people at the top take money from everyone else, exerting coercive power in various ways, but that's okay, since they're all only hurting people a little bit individually, you can't say that the specific actions of one person caused a specific child to starve. That child probably would have starved anyway, right?
Meanwhile, back in real reality, those of us who understand statistics have figured out that you can't just take a couple of data points, draw a liner regression, and assume your claims hold true in all cases, particularly when there are other well-known data points that contradict them. In English: Just because making a communist dictatorship somewhat less communist is good for their economy, it doesn't follow that eliminating all regulation in an already capitalist economy will be beneficial.
The countries that do the worst economically are the ones, as you said, with the most strictly controlled economies. The ones that do the best are the ones that have controls to prevent the excesses of capitalism and provide a social safety net while still allowing the free market to drive the economy.
If you take a look at libertarian paradises like Hong Kong, you'll notice that, while the mean income is very high, the median income is actually fairly low, due to a very uneven distribution of wealth. In these situations, you end up with a few people at the top who have more money than they know what to do with, and everyone else on the bottom struggling to get by. This is the direction the United States is headed.
I'm a leftist. I'm upper middle class, and I believe that my taxes ought to be higher so as to help people who need it. I also believe your taxes should be higher in order to help people who need it. The world isn't so simple that we can just lump all poor people into one label (that is, "lazy") and say that they, as a group, deserve to starve and die. That is immoral. It is far more immoral than raising the income tax on the wealthy by a few percent.
I'm a leftist. I am aware of the fact that corporate profits are up while wages are down. I don't believe that people should live off of the government; I just wonder where all those jobs are now that the "job creators" are doing so well.
I'm a leftist. I am aware of the fact that the reason abortion was made legal in the first place was because people did it anyway, and many many people died from it. I also think it's funny as hell that you're this big conservative yet you expect young people to take care of your selfish ass in your old age. Save up some money like a good fucking responsible self-sufficient capitalist and pay those immigrants to take care of you, dipshit.
I'm a leftist. I'm no expert on climate change, but I know that people who study the climate for a living are more reliable sources on climate change than people who really really want climate change not to be true. That said, like every other leftist, I hope we are wrong about climate change, because if we're right about it, we're all fucked. Also, unlike with climate change, there's a lot of actual scientific debate on the merits of pot.
I'm a leftist. My car gets 45 miles to the gallon, and I'm in favor of pushing for stronger efficiency and emissions standards rather than stopping them. Every leftist in the world could shiver in the dark, but that wouldn't solve our emissions problem. Change needs to happen on a global scale, or we're fucked.
I'm a leftist, and I don't even know where the fuck to go with this one. We gave the rich their money? Are you fucking high? We want to tax it all back? Are you really, really fucking high? Fuck, I'd settle for having the investor class taxed at the same rate I am rather than at 15 percent.
I'm a leftist, and I understand that science starts out wrong about a lot of things, but when their observations don't fit their hypotheses, they refine their conclusions to fit the data rather than dogmatically repeating the same claims over and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence the way conservative economists do. You don't like science?
I think you misunderstand what I mean by "equilibrium". Perhaps I'm using the wrong word, but the sort of equilibrium I'm talking about is the fact that on the time scale of a few years, our climate is relatively predictable, even if the weather is not. You don't know how hot or cold it will be tomorrow, but you do have some idea, within a few degrees, of what the average temperature will be over the course of a year. When I talk about things falling out of equilibrium, I mean a change in energy to the extent that the entire climate will shift one way or another.
The global average temperature is still trending up. But to consider things a bit more accurately:
Think of the earth as one big system. For the most part, energy only comes in and goes out through the atmosphere. At the moment, gases in the atmosphere are causing the earth to radiate slightly less energy out into space than it takes in. Before we got started dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, earth was in a state of equilibrium, but that equilibrium has been disrupted. Provided we can stabilize that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should reach a new state of equilibrium, and with any luck, it will be similar to the one we were in before.
If not, then there are a lot of things that could happen, and most of them aren't good.
Extra energy in the atmosphere often becomes heat. This is pretty much the simplest thing that can happen.
Extra energy can also go into warming the land. This seems like a good thing, because the land can act as a buffer by absorbing energy from the atmosphere, but if the land gets too warm and old swamps start to thaw out, large quantities of methane will be released into the air, which will further decrease the earth's ability to radiate excess energy.
Extra energy can also cause increased evaporation of water from the ocean, which increases cloud cover and precipitation. This is why snow isn't evidence that global warming has somehow reversed. That being said, cloud cover and snow are both white, which increases the amount of light reflected back out into space. The trouble is, we're not going to reach an equilibrium state until the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere level off. Increased precipitation might stave off big rises in temperature for a while. Or, it's possible that precipitation will increase so much that the ice sheets will expand very rapidly, causing the earth to radiate away *more* energy than it takes in, which could set off an ice age, which would be really bad. Or, it's possible that cloud cover and precipitation aren't enough to counteract the warming effect at all, in which case we'll continue to see the heating that we're seeing now.
In any case, as long as we're increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, we're pushing things further and further out of equilibrium. If we can't get things under control, it is inevitable that things will eventually swing wildly out of control, because there are only so many potential buffer effects that might absorb or reflect the excess energy. Take the aforementioned cloud cover and precipitation. Since we can increase the greenhouse gases in the air indefinitely, even if cloud cover and precipitation are enough to equalize things for a while, eventually they aren't going to be enough. Or, as I said earlier, they might spiral out of control and become too much. We don't know for sure. But eventually, bad things will happen.
Maybe if we're lucky it'll be in a few hundred years. If we're not so lucky, maybe a few decades.
Note to self: Using words that aren't words is an excellent way to troll.
I (unknowingly) used something that isn't actually an english word. You took the time to look it up in two separate dictionaries basically just so you could be pedantic. If you're that kind of person, I'm glad I could waste your time. :)
Good luck with that. If you replace the (GPL'ed) Linux kernel, then it's not Linux anymore.
See this link for an explanation:
http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/49906/why-is-freebsd-deprecating-gcc-in-favor-of-clang-llvm/49970#49970
In short, mostly it's due to FreeBSD's issues with the GPL, not all of which are purely philosophical (it affects their funding, for one thing). On the other hand, if you don't have a beef with the GPL, it's probably best to stick with GCC, which produces more performant code.
Why is the onus on us to offer "real, detailed solutions for problems"? We just want freedom, regardless if it works or not. It's the only moral option.
This would be a wonderful motto for the Libertarian party.
You clearly don't understand anarchy.
There are lots of different kinds of anarchists, who believe that various, differing things would happen in the absence of a government. They don't agree on a whole lot, but what they *do* agree on is that the thing that always happens in the absence of a government (warlords, violence, etc) definitely would not happen.