Actually, there is a way to have these kinds of issues covered outside of both the tradiational public and private sectors. From the evil overlord list.

12. One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.

By that logic, TSA agents should expect to be shot in the face for spending all day molesting strangers.

Yes, it's still censorship. Censorship isn't inherently a bad thing. It certainly can be, and we should be careful of it, especially from the government, but it's not a bad thing in and of itself. "Censorship" is a much broader term than the way you are thinking of it, just like "discrimination" would be describing which of the billion messages you want to air.

No, censorship is when something is censored. Government censorship is when the government censors something. Someone might even self-censor to avoid offending others, even out of pure politeness. That's what the word means. You do touch on one reason why we consider non-government censorship to be much less of a concern: competition. If one channel won't air something, another might not. Generally speaking, we don't have as many options regarding our government, so we take government censorship much more seriously.

The First Amendment is about government infringing that right. Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject. On the flip side, there is censorship that most would find totally acceptable. I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.

No, the goal is ultimately to eliminate human material want. To get ourselves to a Star Trek type of economy where our efforts are focused on achievement instead of domination. Now, automation alone will not get us there, but it's an essential part.

I WANT most jobs to be replaced by robots. Imagine what we could do if we weren't so bogged down with petty shit.

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.