ersatzz

I do not advocate for the oppression of children. Nothing I said have called into question the rights of a five year old. I never said that guardians can't advocate for their children.

In fact the only point I made that you addressed you said wasn't relevant. So I will repeat myself clearly for others that are confused. Five year olds can not be expected to advocate for themselves. Five year olds do not get the final say on decisions concerning them.

Edit: What children would say with their soapbox is very much relevant it illustrates my above points.

Furthermore is it common practice to do edits without annotations? They are really annoying to keep up with frankly. This is the 2nd in this chain alone.

I don't know about you but when I was five I was busied myself by picking my nose and playing my gameboy. If given a soapbox I would probably voice something to the effect of being allowed to do the former with unlimited access to the later.

I suspect there may be a reason in that in the present (and past) children really don't get the final say on anything really.

Edit: I responded to your pre-edit comment. I don't live in the city, have any debts, etc. nor am I child so I don't know the social state they are in.

Giving kids a flight sim in cereal packs? One purposefully made for Linux no less sounds like an awful idea. Of course they don't do that.

In that very article the FSF says to comply with both the GPL and "regulatons" companies are free to employ a ROM. Nowhere in that article does it say the regulations must change.

Why even bring this article up? The FSF seem pretty reasonable here. Not to mention I couldn't find any evidence on the web of the FDA requiring Tivoization for medical devices.

Kaczynski would've probably said the same thing honestly.

No there exists natural/universal rights and legal/customary rights.

I should've left the quoted part out as its presumptuous, my bad.

Governments can say whatever they want. My question was rather that if the government ceases to provide protection to... my exclusive right to my wallet, are others free to take it? Would this be theft, liberation or recovery? What happens if I simply begin to assert this exclusive right? What would this phenomenon be called? Is it really the case individuals can not assert their rights without a governments backing?

Do you genuinely believe this or do you just approach property at large from a realist's perspective?

This comment is surreal given what happened the last 3 years.

Manufacturers could always open source the firmware themselves.

It is trivial to get a list of all Tor exit IPs from the Tor Project itself, blocking it completely.