And censorship is a tool of thought policing. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Anytime someone prohibits you from viewing, listening or reading something it is thought crime, and policing thought is barbaric and unjustifiable violence against individuals.

Sure it is, but the CEO is a critical part of it.

Nice theory, unfortunately it is completely removed from reality. Your nice ideas of cooperation and civilization only apply when resources are plentiful and the social structure is in place. In extreme situations where food is scarce and the social structure has collapsed only the strongest survive, and those are likely to be those that are most aggressive, well armed and trained for combat. A single person well armed and well trained can slaughter a whole lot of people. A well trained and coordinated group can slaughter thousands and take everything they want from them.

Desperate people are all but organized. The guy who has things and cannot defend himself is the first to die, even if he is trying to help everyone. Those that can defend themselves are likely to last or to the the among the last to die.

When an Accounting or Biochemistry related subject needs programming is because it needs Mathematics. Programming IS Mathematics. Basic programming is basic Logic, basic Arithmetic and basic Algebra, which are all fields of Mathematics. You don't need formal training to do it, you may use it intuitively, but that is what you do. And the more complex what you are trying to model with your program is the more Math you will need.

It highly depends on what you do. If you work mostly with the common database applications, basic math is enough for you and it is unlikely that you will ever need anything above Calculus or even Calculus.

On the other hand, if you work with RF you will most likely need a lot of math. If you work with high level optimization algorithms you will need Abstract Algebra. If you work with Geolocation you will need a fair amount of high level Geometry, specially Non Euclidean ones.

So in the end the answer is: Higher Math is not necessary in all fields of programming but it is certainly very necessary in many.

As is any government that prints too much money and causes inflation.

And most of the buts and trade-offs, if not all, are arguably unnecessary and exist solely to give control to bureaucracies over individuals. Other are not in opposition to the rights themselves. Libel laws, for example are not necessarily an exception to free speech, unless they demand the take over of the offending information. Civil consequences for the damage you make by lying are in perfect harmony with total and unrestricted free speech.

Rights as long as they are included in the law should be as unconditional as possible, always, and the difficulty of doing that is just another motive why rights should never exist in the law. The law should be negative only and anything it doesn't deny should be an inviolable individual right.

It does not need to be a Human Right. Even because the Human Rights Chart makes all countries in the world offenders if taken seriously. What I mean is that as long something is defined as an individual right by any legal chart applicable, it should be absolute as long as the law exists, not dependent upon the whim of the majority, a bureaucracy or whatever.

I am all for a single competition for both sexes, as long as we don`t have people whining that women are being discriminated because there are not "enough" of them at the top.

But if they really think they need a female only competition make it like chess.

Chess has a female ranking and a universal ranking. Any person, woman or man who wants to compete in the universal ranking can as long as they have the necessary ELO.

Sure they do. There are laws that regulate every single aspect of society nowadays. What can and cannot be done and how. It is no wonder that you need expensive lawyers, able to find and twist the many loopholes such a complex law code has to have any chance of success in a lawsuit.

And you are completely wrong in your assumptions. The more regulations you have the easier is to keep competition out. It has always been this way and you won`t ever find an example of the opposite.

And why courts would be that way? Maybe because the legislation is overly complex and extensive trying to regulate everything, and government is too busy trying to do 196797698 things that it shouldn't be doing toi do the thing it should correctly.

If the houses in your examples burn it will be a trivial matter to determine the cause and there will be a lot of witnesses. The company will have to pay a lot of money in compensations which will make it much cheaper for them to do it right, even because the maintenance costs for doing it wrong are considerable. Regulations are irrelevant here, the responsibility for any accident generated by their equipment is theirs and that is enough.

The funniest part on your example is that the worse and most irregular electrical installations are those made by State owned power companies in countries where the State tries to do even more than in US, and in these cases there are no consequences at all, you can't even sue them with any hope of receiving anything.

Regulations only serve to create gargantuan regulatory bodies, which basically exist to sell favors, block competition and perpetuate themselves. Bodies that do not grant any measure of increased security compared to a judicial system that works.

You prevent the poles from becoming like this with the due legal responsibilities for any accidents they produce, and this responsibility does not depend on the existence of regulatory agencies and much less of limited concessions. The same applies to your shooting example. You don't have a regulatory agency verifying if people are shooting well with their registered guns, but if they do misuse them they go to jail. Regulations solve nothing, even because regulators are always for sale. Consequences do.

The truth is: there is no monopoly in the face of the Earth that was able to survive more than a very short time without the help of a government.

The State has very clear roles which is to keep peace (police), protect people from external threats (military) and solve disputes that can`t be solved by mutual agreement (judicial system). That is very far from doing nothing and the only reason that justifies the existence of a an entity that is based on violence and coercion. Everything else is better done by the private initiative, especially when the State keeps out of it.

You have one power company because the STATE forces you to have a single one. If the state did not regulate and use the concession model you would probably have more, especially if the business is a lucrative one.

Having to work not to starve does not make it non consensual. From the damn of mankind it is a choice every single human being has. Sorry, but nobody has the duty to work to feed you.

In a free market you don't need to sign to work for someone else or starve, you can work yourself without signing for anyone. It is the STATE that forces you to sign by making expensive and too risky any endeavor you decide to start. For example, if you want to be a taxi driver good luck, you won't get a license. Want to open a hair cut shop? I hope you know somebody in the mayor office. And so on.

Oh and if you point a gun at me and say: "Your money or your life", you will be the State, because that is exactly what the state does.