Well first thing I would ask is: What is anti-social speech? And more importantly, who defines it? If a govt wants to silence opposition to its policies, is anyone who speaks out "anti-social"? Or are you talking about child-porn? Because if you're talking about child-porn or cyber-bullying or whatever, then you're talking about crimes among individuals. But if you're talking about free speech issues like petitions or twittering about rallies, then you're not talking about "anti-social" speech, you're talking about political speech. And I think it has been proven over and over again that the dangers of allowing governments to suppress speech of any kind far outweighs the advantages to the society it is trying to "protect". In China, the govt has put in place an enormously powerful system of censorship to ostensibly control "anti-social" speech, but is in fact primarily a tool for controlling political speech. People can't see child porn very easily, but they also can't even see a picture of "tank man" (the guy who stood in front of a column of tanks in Tienanmen Sq). What is "anti-social" about political protest? Isn't that how the PRC was founded? They fought a war with the existing govt and won. Now they don't want the same thing to happen to them. China wants to enforce it's totalitarian system to protect those in power who know that if people are allowed to read and discuss anything they want, they would be thrown out on their asses. If you don't want to be censored, well...you're out of luck.

Ever heard the saying "people get the government they deserve". Your statements above are premised on the assumption that government is separate from society rather then being a part of it. As the authoritarian part of a society, government is the authority on what is anti-social (i.e. against society). What particular moral view do you claim the US is imposing upon you by asking you to pay for something that it's citizens are trying to sell?

The moral view that they have the right to deny the idea to you, through the use of force, unless you pay them for the use of the idea.

What? Who in the world believes that copyrighting one's own work is immoral? I know people who think the laws favor copyright holders too much, but I've never met someone who thinks copyright laws are inherently "immoral".

People who believe it is immoral to monopolize ideas.

Sounds like your okay with governments controlling the internet so long as it conforms to morals, but you don't realize that other people have morals different from yours in which copyright (and enforcing it) is immoral and blocking anti-social speech is moral.

That's because they are capitalists in name only, only wanting the parts that benefit them and not the parts that don't.

They aren't mis-advertising themselves if they don't say that certified per that particular ISO standard. IEEE doesn't have a trademark on Software Engineer any more then PE organizations have one on Engineer.

Sorry, but the professional engineering licensing/certifying organizations do not have a trademark on the word engineer, and the word has been around longer then the said organizations. Software engineers don't call themselves Certified/Licensed Professional Engineers, so I don't see the problem. Certified/Licensed Professional Engineer != engineer and engineer != Certified/Licensed Professional Engineer.

Unless Moses was Akhenaten.

The words and the meanings of engineer and engineering predate these certifying engineering bodies you are referring too. These certifying engineering bodies you are referring to do not have trademark on the word engineer or engineering. Software/system engineers are not claiming to be be certified these engineering bodies you are referring too.

...and make 'them' turn it back on. Who is 'they' anyway? Just want some names and addresses so I know where take the case of whoop ass when 'they' turn off the internet.

Deductions only apply to one of the three federal taxes on wages. The social security and medicare taxes have no deductions. If you've ever been self-employed then your are very aware of the 15% bite those two federal taxes take out of your income, but even if you are not self-employed those two take still nearly an 8% bite out of your paycheck (not to mention that if the employer didn't have to pay their half, they could just pay it to you instead).

Call it the tyranny of the majority, but it is the will of the majority.

It's only the will of the majority if was passed as proposition that actually have >50% of eligible voters vote in favor of it. Anything else is the will a minority, and usually a very, very small minority since most states only have a few hundred law makers.

It was created to protect the corporate officers from liability and maximize profit.

Actually they were created to protect the corporate owners from liability. While it is true that in some jurisdictions, such as Nevada (even there is isn't a complete liability shield for corporate officers), corporate officers are also protected from liability, this is not true of all jurisdictions. What is true in all jurisdictions, which I am aware of, is that the corporate owners have no liability beyond their share in the corporation.

Employers have their own processes for screening candidates. GPAs and transcripts are crappy predictor for how well someone will do in a given job. A candidate who, while partying, developed a extensive network of valuable contacts, may well be of more benefit to an employer then one who worked hard at an endeavor that is of no value to the employer.

you got to classify them somehow by ability

Why exactly is that?

During the nine years I spent as MS, I regularly imbibed company purchased beer. When I first started there, every Friday afternoon we were provided beer and apps. Over time and moral budget cuts the frequency decreased, but beer and apps were still provided fairly regularly. This seems like a case of some one being disconnected from culture of the product development groups.