What do you mean, don't you know, governments don't look backward, they only look forward.

Don't you wish it worked like that for just normal people? You killed somebody? Just apologize, we don't look backward, we look forward, so with an apology you are free to go.

(same user, backup account)
---

- now you see, that's a flame.

- the only function of a government is to defend the citizens from an attack, defend their lives and private property. Of-course instead of that the governments are actually destroying freedoms and rights, murdering people around the world, where there is no business for any of that intervention and creating a gigantic police and surveillance state. Military defence can be paid for Constitutionally, with direct apportioned taxes and/or with excise taxes, and the illegal income tax is neither of these.

In fact in order to go to war or to do defence what government should do is this: Congress has to state what the defence budget is going to be and then apportion collection of taxes for that purpose directly, proportionately to the population of the states (direct apportioned tax). All was have to be paid for, not put on debt for the future generations to pay for and not via inflation either, government must not be allowed to print cash.

- yes, which is why government should stay out of business altogether, so that the society becomes wealthy due to absence of government in free market capitalistic economy and wealthy societies can take care of their water and air without government intervention. Governments have no business in clean air and water but they certainly destroy plenty of air and water, the bigger the government, the more dictatorial it is, the worse the environmental outcomes are, this is history. The wealthier the economy is due to less government intervention, the more money (production) society can allocate to these causes.

- no. The only thing that can actually keep weakest from falling too far is a wealthy growing free market capitalist economy, government has no business, no authority in any of these and there is no moral right to steal from anybody to subsidise anybody else, regardless of how weak they are and how wealthy somebody else is that you want to steal from.

- not a government postal system.

- not a government roads.

- not a government safety and standards.

- not a government firemen and not a government police force either.

- fuck you, you piece of shit (now that's a flamebait, definitely is, but you see AFAIC you are a piece of shit for all of your assumptions and for your conclusion, you are a piece of stinky excrement for telling people how they should live their lives, so you are an anti human, anti freedom POS from my perspective).

- wrong. Every person should want freedom, not oppression, and if you want oppression because you were brainwashed into it in the so called 'public schools', then you are not a human worthy of having a discussion with.

Nothing close? Not even a Macbook or decent windows laptop?

Free assembly is one expression of democracy (though I am against democracy, don't get me wrong, I am against mobocracy), however you are correct.

Another expression of democracy is free association. It absolutely 100% does not matter who is deciding not to associate with you, be it a girl next door, a club of interests or an employer for whatever reasons, that's completely irrelevant. I want people to be free to discriminate or not based on their own ideas and believes, and you are telling me that you can't handle that freedom, freedom of association.

Freedom of assembly is absolutely not impeded in any way by any private party, be it an employer or anybody else. Freedom of assembly can only be impeded by government. The entire concept of rights is completely misunderstood by vast majority of people that have gone through the public brain washing system, so called schools, that teach you nothing.

Rights are protection against government abuse, nothing else, everything else is either an entitlement (that nobody should have) or an obligation (that nobody should be imposed upon by any government).

Corporations are a front, a fiction, they are a fiction and behind every corporation there is a person or a group of people. AFAIC corporations shouldn't even be established by government laws, government has nothing to do with business, a corporation in fact is a self governing body, nothing else. You may want to figure out where the word comes from in the first place, the only purpose of government involvement in corporation is registration. Registration of corporation is what 'citizens devised' (and it wasn't citizens actually that devised it, you are wrong on that too).

However I am not arguing pro or against corporate charter here, I am talking about the reasons that people start their own businesses, corporations or anything else. A BUSINESS, a business for the purpose of generating profits, not a 'corporation' for the purpose of incorporating a legal entity. Government shouldn't have anything to do with people running businesses, that is my point. Whether corporations should be legal entities that are given any special treatment? NO! Owners of joint stock companies that eventually became corporations for the sake of simplicity of regulations shouldn't be hidden behind corporate facade from litigation.

I disagree as a general principle with the entire idea that there should be ANY form of protection of private individuals behind corporate facade in case the individuals (or the company) are sued or become liable in any way.

Yes, I am against special privileges that government provides to anybody, anybody at all, including all people, all living or dead creatures, all legal or illegal entities. Of-course I am completely against the very concept of having any federal power over people in the first place and hopefully over time, given the facts of life, such as freedom of movement of information (the Internet), freedom of movement at all (transportation, immigration, emigration) eventually people do away with federations, with dictatorial entities that are trying to steal their property and lives from them.

Governments' "Limited Liability" garbage is what created possibility to create gigantic faceless entities, known as modern 'corporations' that removed private liability from the company owners. This is a moral hazard that government created and this moral hazard is what makes it possible for the modern stock market to exist not by virtue of the real business value, real earnings, long term goals, but by virtue of government created guarantee and protection that destroys the principle of running a private business that incontrovertibly adds value by its activity in a normal free market rather than extracting capital from unsophisticated 'investors', who are really unaware of what is going on around them. This is a moral hazard and it was created by governments.

Apple and Google or anybody else must be within their absolute rights (and I am an atheist, otherwise I would have added 'god given' there, as is I would say 'nature given') to come to any agreement among themselves to not hire you or anybody based on whatever criteria that suits them and you shouldn't be compelled under any circumstances to take any position within those companies.

The patient gets plenty of benefits from this, one being not having to go to the clinic and wait in line, not having to drive somewhere, not having to interrupt your day. With mobile Internet you should be able to connect to a doctor on the go.

There are costs associated with setting the system up and training the stuff to work with it, to maintain and support it, but the benefits are for both, the hospitals, clinics and for patients.

In any case, you are not forced to use it.

False, the reason you are modding down every one of my comments (and a few others like you) is because I am too effective at expressing the opinions that you are personally against, which only means you have a bias that is not based on rationality of legality, you have a different type of bias that requires that anybody with the opinion that destroys all of your arguments flat is silenced.

The only reason to mod down every comment in a row i s to silence the opposition, there are no other reasons here.

I am not against unions that do not derive their power from government, so if you want to start your own union, you should be able to, however as an employer, I should not be compelled to work with a union, so I should be able to fire all people in the union, it's my discretion. Agreement between two companies not to hire employees from each other is suboptimal, but nowhere near the scale of damage that government causes with rules and regulations and taxation and inflation. As I said, the problem here is not that Apple and Google decided to agree not to hire from each other, the problem is that there are so few companies in the first place that such agreements can even be noticed.

How small and pathetic is the true state of USA economy when such irrelevant to the larger picture agreements become items of discussion? I will tell you how sad, small and pathetic the true state of USA economy is.

34% of American households feel they are worse off now than in 2008. So more than a third of American households feel that during today's so called "recovery" they are worse off than during the year 2008, the year when the economic crisis hit USA.

Again, the problem is so few employers are out there and unamerican unconstitutional decisions like this one by this court will not help at all, not even a little, it only makes it worse.

---
Anyway, enjoy my last comment here, I had to use my backup account to leave this one. The moderators are already in full swing right now all over my comments, as they often are, making sure that I cannot participate in this discussion. Once they push the 'karma' low enough, I'll not be able to continue leave comments for a while, which is the point I take it, to ensure that the echo-chamber is unchallenged.

I have no idea why Microsoft isn't pushing the fuck out of c# on Linux. At the moment for apps you have to use c++ or Java if you want to support both. They've already open sourced the compilers.

Well most people would see that as satire and not that the elements of geekdom are to be taken literally as 100% true. There is a category for shows like that: documentaries. I would argue most TV shows does not follow subjects faithfully. Since you mentioned "Friends", I don't think people really believe that New Yorkers spend all of their time hanging out in a coffee shop. Chuck probably does not represent a true government agent any more than Will Smith was your average Bellaire teen.

Personally I thought one of the funniest episodes was "The Alien Parasite Hypothesis" where Howard and Raj decide to settle a dispute by wrestling. In real life, two people angry at each other would have actually wrestled regardless of lack of skill instead of the hilarity of two nerds circling each other endlessly.

Bahahahaha. Oh, you were serious? I don't see it happening. Part of what allows Apple to do what it does is the fact that they control the hardware. They've even gone as far as to design their own mobile chips. Opening up OS X to a massive number of hardware permutations will lead to support nightmares at the very least.

Read it for a laugh, just don't tell anyone about anything you read, and you'll be fine!

Luser is most definitely loser. Because most users are idiots. No ability to partially diagnose or even use common sense to solve any problem (ie. if the problem persists when you log onto another PC why do you think your PC has a problem?)

He made rockets out of prisoners?

You don't get to call someone a sociopath just as an insult; it has a technical meaning.