The first thing we do, let's replace all the lawyers.

No, go fuck yourself. When it comes to human rights, we shouldn't be treading water, we should setting world records for the best protections for human rights, and aim to make ourselves a decade ago look like filthy savages.

We don't even have people who sell loose cigarettes going through the criminal justice system. How naive are you?

If my free speech costs someone money, the Bill of Rights has no standing.

You need to be MUCH more precise in your language, as that speech has to be fraudulent, violate some contract, or involve some other kind of tort. If this review were accurate, for example, it could cost Link money, but it would not be actionable.

Uber being self-entitled douchebags doesn't preclude evil cartels.

You can have give and take without an omnibus treaty. The omnibus technique is an intentional defect that could be trivially avoided if the goal was actually free trade.

As for the secrecy, unfortunately, this is generally how complex international treaties are negotiated

Then, perhaps we shouldn't have complex international treaties. We can do this in small pieces that can be decided in an actually democratic matter. It's the same thing with omnibus bills. If you break them down into smaller pieces, it's harder to get a rider in there.

Historically, a university education was about becoming a scholar. The vocational role is rather new, and vocational schools are likely better suited for vocational training.

Imagine if the incumbents in any particular industry where allowed to get together and decide laws barring others from entry!

So, imagine a modern industry?

Fraud doesn't seem to slow down banks. Why should he let it slow him down?

Perhaps we could better afford those things if we weren't so beholden to the Military Industrial Complex and other such parasites.

So, instead of just taking money, they take money, and then take more money? How is this in any way advantageous once you stop deifying the military.

The world WOULD be a wonderful place if everyone were wealthy, or at least having nobody lacking in basic material needs. Economics is the means of addressing the problem of scarcity, but if there is no scarcity, there is no problem, and economics becomes redundant.

I think it's a great disservice to higher education to define it solely within the context of getting a job. Most people's jobs aren't closely tied to their degree anyway, and jobs are usually a means to an end.

I expect at least basic fact checking from anybody regardless of their nationality. This goes doubly so for someone fact checking within their own organization. America has a lot of that shit too, and I hate it, but don't defend this piece of shit for trying to defend himself with a claim he could have investigated by calling up any single person in his office.