Right, and this will force more people to go without because it will decrease the profitability of providing Internet access, decreasing competition.

It doesn't work that way. There is no category of "money" that something must either fit in or not fit in.

Is a toy car a car? If yes, does that mean you have to register it?

Please by quiet while adults are trying to speak.

Say I have $10,000 that I go by selling drugs. I want to make it appear legitimate. So here's what I do:

1) I convert the $10,000 to Bitcoins anonymously.

2) I sell those Bitcoins for $10,000.

3) I claim that I bought those Bitcoins for $65, and pay taxes on the profits.

I have no made my drug profits appear to be legitimate income.

If it cost a car dealer $1,000 more to sell a car, the price of cars would go up about $1,000 immediately. The money comes from the consumer. The consumer ultimately pays all the costs associated with making and selling the product.

If everyone agreed with this reasoning, the price would already be higher. The fact that the price is where it now shows that other people assess the probability of Bitcoin taking over a substantial fraction of the world economy *much* lower than you do. If you still think you're right and everyone else is wrong, then buy Bitcoins.

Whether or not the conduct creates an unreasonable risk has nothing to do with whether that conduct is legal or not.

"Wether or not they work is irrelevant. Aiding someone in committing a crime, in this case..."

If they don't work, it's not aiding anyone in committing a crime. In fact, it's ensuring they get caught.

But that is a heckler's veto, recognized as invalid in the United States. Under this kind of reasoning, I can silence anyone I want by creating a situation where their speech is likely to cause a foreseeable risk of harm to others. For example, if a guy is preaching on a bus, even where he has a perfect right to preach, I can force him to either stop preaching or risk tort liability by simply saying, "If you don't stop preaching, I'll slap the driver, creating a risk of a traffic accident". In the United States, we don't hold people liable for how other people choose to react to their speech acts, even if that reaction is reasonably foreseeable, even if it is intended. (Except under very narrow circumstances nothing like the circumstances involved here.)

That's still completely absurd. The risk of an accident from a driver receiving a single text is microscopic. The idea that one can "recklessly" create such a small risk is bizarre.

Say I convince my friend that he really would like a Slurpee and he drives 30 minutes to 7-11 and back to get one. On the way, he loses control of his car and runs into another car. Surely the risk of an additional car on the road for 30 minutes is greater than the risk of receiving a single text. Should I be liable if I create that risk "recklessly"?

We prohibit texting while driving because the cumulative risk of the large numbers of texts received isn't justified by the small social benefits of texting while driving. It's not because receiving a single text while driving is an unreasonable danger to accept.

If lie detectors tests worked, advising someone to lie during such a test would result in their nefarious deeds coming to light. Why would that be a crime? Or are you assuming it's common knowledge that lie detector tests don't actually work?

To claim that lying during a lie detector test is an act of fraud is to admit that lie detector tests don't work. The whole point of such tests is supposed to be that you can't beat them by lying.

You're assuming all the people involved were rational and calm, the driver follow instructions, and information was accurately relayed. There have been several similar incidents and in all of them, despite lots of people blaming mechanical problems, it was driver error. When I hear hoofprints, I think horses. I'll believe it's a zebra when the real evidence comes in.

There's a great audio of one such incident with a woman whose brake pedal jammed on the Long Island Expressway. In more than 20 minutes of conversation, it was impossible to get her to shift the car into neutral. When they finally got her to, she said, "the engine is racing!" and put it back into drive. This was while police were trying to make physical contact with her car to slow her down from in front and there was a significant risk of death. Nobody could stop her from worrying that she shouldn't race the engine. You have too much faith in humanity. It is not justified.

So what? Driving at 125 miles per hour could have killed him -- worrying about the engine or the brakes is idiotic. And the brakes won't catch fire decelerating you from 125 to 0 just once after the transmission is in neutral. He should have shifted into neutral as soon as he realized he couldn't keep the engine from accelerating the car beyond where he wanted it to be.