And a video of Lacey V Murrow Bridge sinking. The concern with the 520 is that given enough wind, water movement or an earthquake would cause the Evergreen Floating Bridge to sink as well. While the Lacey V Murrow Bridge sank during construction (and TBH, because of construction) so there wasn't anybody on it, the same will probably not be true of the Evergreen Floating Bridge because you never know when an earthquake will hit.
no one would have recourse against what this school does because it wouldn't be against the law
Assuming this kind of thing could even happen in anarchist conditions, you would still have recourse. That recourse just wouldn't be through the government (which wouldn't exist in this situation anyway). Take the webcam and shove it up the responsible party's urethra. Just be sure the webcam is still attached to the laptop. I'd say that's pretty good recourse right there.
You (and a lot of other people here) seem to advocate a system that gives no reward or incentive to succeed. It doesn't seem to matter to you how amazing a work someone produces; the viewpoint I'm reading says they are entitled to the same share as someone else who makes a totally mediocre piece of work.
Right, because James Cameron got the same share as the makers of Pluto Nash.
We, as a society, allow content creators a limited amount of time to take a work out of the public domain. During that time, they have the same opportunity to make money as any other content creator. Some people think that there ought to be opportunities to extend that time, but I've never seen anyone who thinks the time extension should be based on the profitability or popularity of the content. Granted, if the work isn't profitable, the copyright holder will probably not want to pay to extend the copyright terms, but I've seen no extension propositions that prevent it.
Do you think that the outrage against Goldman Sachs and Monsanto is of the same moral character that makes readers here despise Apple?
Take away the government enforced patent law and other protections, and Monsanto goes away tomorrow. Or at the very least, changes drastically so customers won't make them go away tomorrow.
I want universal health care because it's a universal human right.
I'd like to explore this issue more. Is it really a universal human right? It sure would be nice if everyone got health care. However, people provide health care, and I don't think any one has a right to demand anything out of those people. Rights (I think) ought to be things that you have a right to do, not a right to have someone else do for you.
For example, free speech means you can say whatever you want, but you do NOT have a right to an audience. The 2nd amendment acknowledges the right to bear arms, but it does NOT mean that someone has to make, assemble, sell, or provide you with said arms. You do have the right to peacefully assemble, but that does NOT mean you have the right to peacefully assemble on someone's private property.
Health care, on the other hand, universal or not, is vastly different. By saying everyone should have a right to health care, you are saying that everyone has the right to demand someone else to provide them with something. I think that's a dangerous path to go down.
However, things can get a little muddled with, for example, the right to a fair trial. The 6th amendment states you have "...the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...", and that means you have the right to force others to be speedy, public, and impartial. However, in that case, if your trial can't be speedy, public, or have an impartial jury then you should be let off without a trial. Which means that a right to a fair trial is still different than health care as a right.
Again, I think it would be nice if people got the health care they needed. However, I don't think we ought to go down a path where we say that someone has the right to another person's time and resources.
What the gods would destroy they first submit to an IEEE standards committee.