You missed the point both times. RMS was saying "copy music because the laws are bad".
Let me try again: "The death penalty for raping children is unjust, therefore, to protest this unjust penalty, everyone should go rape children." Do you get the point now? The point is that RMS's statements make no logical sense. Bad laws don't justify hurting people. Something that's wrong isn't any less wrong when you disagree with the laws.
it's also OK to vandalize every building in the city because the laws against buying spray paint aren't fair. And kids should get drunk every morning before school because drinking age laws are unjust.
Since your statement that "no one in business does" is obvious to everyone as a false statement, there's no need for anyone to address (or even read) anything else you've written. People "in business" have diverse opinions and various guesses about the future. What's the point in asserting that they don't?
And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire? You'll tell them they're wrong. They won't listen. No one will be hired. So what's the point exactly?
Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away.
Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profits? (And don't argue that the government is not doing that. Even if you were right, it doesn't make any difference unless you are the one hiring.)
Scientists should forget about the US then. We're going bankrupt. Within about 10 years, all government money will be used to pay for debt interest and entitlements.
So you want lots and lots of government money for sciencey stuff, but with no politics involved. Do you also want it delivered by unicorn-riding couriers?
So your point is that 87 years isn't enough time to build a 13-inch seawall? Or 15 inches? Or 18? People will just stand there on the beach, waiting for their property to wash away for 8 or 9 decades.
But I'm being specifically and intentionally overcharged to buy benefit coverage for conditions I am not at risk for. I could buy a much cheaper policy that completely covers me, but the government makes such policies illegal in order to transfer wealth from the people who earn it (me, especially) to favored voting blocs and health conditions with activists or lobbyists.
Lots of things are "a good thing to have" for people who get them for free. People who actually pay their own bills have to look at the price.
How about we establish a free society where innocent people don't get forced to do things like eat turds?
That sounds like a good idea for [things I don't personally like], but for [things I do personally like] it doesn't quite work like that....
So forcing people to act against their own interest is good. And I'll always have more votes than the bad guys. And nothing can ever possibly go wrong. Because, if it could, it would have gone wrong in the past. And that's never happened bef --
They sell turds. You have to buy them or pay the turd tax. The Supreme Court says so. Then, the government can force you to eat them because you've engaged in "commerce" when you bought them. So forcing your enemies to eat turds is profitable either directly or by tax collection.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the point both times. RMS was saying "copy music because the laws are bad".
Let me try again: "The death penalty for raping children is unjust, therefore, to protest this unjust penalty, everyone should go rape children." Do you get the point now? The point is that RMS's statements make no logical sense. Bad laws don't justify hurting people. Something that's wrong isn't any less wrong when you disagree with the laws.
Not the point. See the second sentence if the first one is too distracting for you.
it's also OK to vandalize every building in the city because the laws against buying spray paint aren't fair. And kids should get drunk every morning before school because drinking age laws are unjust.
Because how could shame and morality ever help anyone? All behavior is of exactly equal value, right?
Since your statement that "no one in business does" is obvious to everyone as a false statement, there's no need for anyone to address (or even read) anything else you've written. People "in business" have diverse opinions and various guesses about the future. What's the point in asserting that they don't?
And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire? You'll tell them they're wrong. They won't listen. No one will be hired. So what's the point exactly?
Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away.
Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profits? (And don't argue that the government is not doing that. Even if you were right, it doesn't make any difference unless you are the one hiring.)
What's the point of this post? You aren't fooling anyone. It's so shallow, you don't seem to even be trying. So what's the point?
Shorter version: "I hate people with different priorities than me. Give me money."
A lot more things are nice to get than are affordable to get.
So you want to turn the clock back about 35 years then -- back to the good old 1970s? The Higgs boson isn't the one you need for that.
Is theoretical physics a race? What do we get if we cross the finish line first? What do US taxpayers get?
Scientists should forget about the US then. We're going bankrupt. Within about 10 years, all government money will be used to pay for debt interest and entitlements.
So you want lots and lots of government money for sciencey stuff, but with no politics involved. Do you also want it delivered by unicorn-riding couriers?
Really. What difference does it make whether it was "discovered" now or 10 years ago?
This is a serious question. The SSC was very expensive. Someone please explain the value proposition of making the discovery then vs. now.
So your point is that 87 years isn't enough time to build a 13-inch seawall? Or 15 inches? Or 18? People will just stand there on the beach, waiting for their property to wash away for 8 or 9 decades.
Since you're just making up numbers, why not go with 12 miles?
Or sea level rise from magic. Or because Gaia hates George Bush.
Yeah, how could anyone ever build a 12-inch-high seawall in only 87 years?
I'll buy that property if you're selling at a nice discount.
Incorrect. Read it again.
But I'm being specifically and intentionally overcharged to buy benefit coverage for conditions I am not at risk for. I could buy a much cheaper policy that completely covers me, but the government makes such policies illegal in order to transfer wealth from the people who earn it (me, especially) to favored voting blocs and health conditions with activists or lobbyists.
Lots of things are "a good thing to have" for people who get them for free. People who actually pay their own bills have to look at the price.
When it costs extra to cover pregnancy and hysterectomy and drug abuse and any of the other conditions I'm not at risk for.
How about we establish a free society where innocent people don't get forced to do things like eat turds?
That sounds like a good idea for [things I don't personally like], but for [things I do personally like] it doesn't quite work like that. ...
So forcing people to act against their own interest is good. And I'll always have more votes than the bad guys. And nothing can ever possibly go wrong. Because, if it could, it would have gone wrong in the past. And that's never happened bef --
Hopefully the turd tax isn't too much, either way it sounds like it's the way to go. Turds are gross.
If you don't eat the turds, they'll raise the tax until you do. And when the tax is too high for you to pay, you go to jail for not paying.
Either way it sounds like we're focusing way too much time on turds, aren't there more important things we could be moving onto?
How about we establish a free society where innocent people don't get forced to do things like eat turds?
They sell turds. You have to buy them or pay the turd tax. The Supreme Court says so. Then, the government can force you to eat them because you've engaged in "commerce" when you bought them. So forcing your enemies to eat turds is profitable either directly or by tax collection.
And this is different from the current Medicare system, how?
Mostly, it's just a lot more of it, with several layers of deception on top. And bribes for heath industry providers.
So things just got better for younger people.
Yay, you just got $1000 per year worth of insurance for $3000 per year.