arrested != convicted, but that's was the starting of what led to the computer fraud conviction I believe.

It's not, but it's standard "see that guy is a bad".

If he was a convicted (or even just accused) child molester you can be sure that would get a mention too.

He was convicted of computer fraud and embezzlement. There was no claim made that he was felon due anything related to content, copyright of intellectual property.

Sure, if you just ignore that when a plane you aren't on crashes that information can then be used to make the plane you fly on in the future safer. Which some people would consider a benefit of greater than ZERO.

So what?

You are distributing the microscope not the tools to make it.

their non-orbiting satellites?

If that's how you are going to account for it, then how much did facebook's shares go down in price due to this purchase?

Sure, maybe that's why I didn't make that argument.

I also didn't argue that they weren't already taxing more than a small bit of the wealth. Just that the logic used to argue that point was flawed.

You're going to have to explain for us stupid people.

How does transferring $19 billion from Facebook to 50 people with less money that Facebook possibly increase inequality?

The richer party now has less. The poorer parties now have more. Isn't that a decrease in inequality?

Given the amount of borrowing the government does in order to fund its spending you really can't make the argument that since they spend so much they must tax so much.

Because automatics don't change gears automatically or anything like that.

Oh not "your" sorry, and now that I actually read the problem I didn't care about before I see that your response doesn't apply to that either so I'm not sure what subsidies resulting in higher prices has to do with any of them.

I was referring to your second problem, which I thought was clear because the first problem has nothing to do with the proposal in question and hence reading the slightest bit of detail wouldn't have helped with that.

No it wouldn't, which you'd know if you read the slightest bit of detail about the proposal in question. But I guess that would require engaging your brain instead of your default biases which is too difficult for someone of your mental stature.

Sure, if you ignore than under this scheme there is no "price". The college isn't getting to decide a fee and charge the student. The college gets 3% of what the student ends up earning in the 20 years after they graduate. So unless you think that colleges control wages across the board they have no say in what they are charging under this proposal.