none_for_me_thx

is it not true that you're better off poor now than rich 100 years ago? maybe the statement alone is reductive, but most of "these" articles give justification via examples, too.

I believe the word you're looking for is technocrats.

I encourage you to ignore the IRS, then. Or, hey, even the FCC.

A valid contract requires consideration. It also requires an understanding, by both parties, of the terms of the contract so, no you couldn't _force_ someone into _slavery_ if they _inadvertently_ blah blah blah. I'd say none of those words make sense in context of a valid contract.

I should have said I think you are operating under false assumptions, are making invalid comparisons, and are therefore drawing unwarranted conclusions.

I think you might be confused about what Rust offers and from where Rust's safety is derived. There is no "safe subset" of Rust. As far as I know, that is a nonsense phrase.

> in the same way that "safe" Rust is a usable (if difficult to get used to) subset of "unsafe" Rust

Where did you get this idea that "safe" Rust is a subset of "unsafe" Rust? Your whole premise here perhaps qualifies as not even wrong: this is not how safety in Rust is conceived or conceptualized.

or Keith Jarrett playing Shostakovich's Preludes and Fugues?

Have you ever run a business?

Government is not "industry". That word usually means "private sector".

If you receive low wages in the private sector, it might be an indication that you're not providing much value, and that your time and effort are probably better spent in some other endeavour. It could also be an indication of some artificial or temporary misallocation of resources. The same goes for high wages. You could be providing genuine value, or your profit could be due to some intervention or other.

In the meantime, people who can't make a living doing teaching shouldn't teach. Or they shouldn't do it as their day job. At the very least, they shouldn't demand other people subsidize their choices.

The Liberty Fund doesn't engage in political advocacy. They primarily (re)publish literature important to classical liberalism and the moral case for liberty (and history and law, etc). They also put on occasional conferences, and they maintain online libraries.

Insider trading is not fraud. If someone is merely trading based on insider knowledge (that is, they aren't also being fraudulent about it), there is no deception. A person ought to be able to dispose of their property when and how they see fit. Moreover, we should actually want insider trading to happen more often, since prices transmit knowledge, and more knowledge earlier is a good thing for markets.

This is why some people, myself included, believe insider trading is a victimless "crime" which should be decriminalized.

Are you joking?

It wasn't clear what "accessed the profile" meant.

I guess it's talking about the travel logs from 2 paragraphs above?

There were no threats. Stop making stuff up.

The comments were about "digging up dirt". Sleazy as that is, it doesn't even require personal contact.

There was no mention of blackmail.

There was no mention of revealing the location of children.

There was no mention of "rifling" through the location metadata of another female journalist.

There was no "implication" about leaking customer data.

As far as I can tell, the article amounts to almost exactly what's in the headline: dirt digging.

If you want to criticize Uber, it's certainly possible to do it without exaggerating or making stuff up, otherwise you risk making legitimate critics look like sensational buffoons.

Rulers can certainly provide rules and conventions. But that is not the only, or best, place they can come from. Rules are usually emergent, and these kinds of rules are better suited to the communities they arise in, since they are tailor-made for the circumstances and preferences of the people from which they emerge. Contrast this with Federal rules and regulations which have little or nothing to do with the way life is lived in rural Alaska. But this is the same old argument about the failures of central planning that has been ignored by progressives and conservatives for more than a century.

See: English common law prior to being co-opted by the state.

Also see: David Graeber, anarchist, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVDkkOAOtV0

People who think like this suffer from a lack of imagination, in my opinion. They are people who cannot imagine that others can negotiate or have negative experiences of being ruled over, thus must be dictated to.

Anarchy => no rulers

not

Anarchy => no rules

Luckily, no one trotted out that argument. Even if they had trotted it out, making wimpy appeals to the claimant's "privilege" has no bearing on whether the statement "poor people would be just fine if they weren't lazy/ignorant/poor/etc" is true or not. Such claims can be exploded in the same way as any other false claim. By addressing the argument and exposing it as untrue.

Complaining about "privilege" is limp-wristed ad hominem intended to silence viewpoints you don't like, as evidenced by your refusal to take seriously zo1's points ("You should be happy ...").

zo1's arguments are valid or invalid independent of her/his "privilege" (whatever that even means).

Here's the announcement from Microsoft:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/somasegar/archive/2014/11/12/opening...

Obama doesn't care about contradictions. He's just saying whatever he knows will get him support from credulous fools. That's how it always works. Politicians don't care about you. They don't care about the things you do.

A single dimension of political ideology is ridiculous.

In principle, the more people and companies avoid taxes the better: less revenue for states to use as collateral for their various wars and illegal projects.

In practice, Luxembourg appears to have given preferential treatment to larger corporations---more specifically, cronies. Low-tax jurisdictions where every kind of person or business can get in on the benefits of tax avoidance would be best.

I don't understand the link name or what's going on with the page. "From now on"? What? Like, before today Quest wasn't a browser? What's so special about a web browser? The page doesn't have any answers.

The good news is the woman's smile is great.

It seems that this is the whole point of patent law. It's a subsidy to people with access to money and power. That it may be used to some effect by smaller interests is a "happy" by-product of the scheme.

Once you grant that ideas are property and should be protected in the same way, it seems to me that this is the inevitable result.