Close. You don't have a right to operate, you have permission to operate, subject, as you say, to informed consent. If you had the right to operate, the patient's consent wouldn't be an issue. You have the right to speak freely, without the consent even of those about or to whom you're speaking. Big difference.

And, as a patient, I would deny consent if I thought you were not competent for whatever reason, be it fatigue, intoxication, or just plain being a lousy doctor. Informed consent requires that the patient understand the risks to which he is being subjected. Your fatigue--or drunkenness, or your six trips to the review board--are a relevant risk.

And what's wrong with that? The patient has the right to expect his surgeon to perform competently, just as the passenger has a right to expect the airline pilot/bus driver/etc. to perform competently, and to hold him responsible if he is negligent.

If a trucker on a long run gets tired behind the wheel and runs into you, do you want to be able to sue him for damages?

If your government is anything like ours, it has foiled more terrorist plots in recent years than even existed.

How many private entities have the ability to either print money or seize money from others through force (taxes)?

That's why the private sector is more efficient: even with profits, private entities still have to work within budgets. Governments don't earn money, governments take money, and if they have cost overruns, they can just take more. Where's the incentive to be efficient?

...in exchange for providing services to the government--services the government would have demanded anyway--and in competition with other entities, spurring innovation and driving down cost, while also offering to the same service to other entities the private sector.

Or are you saying that everybody who ever sold a product to a government is morally identical to that government creating that product itself?

...by taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who haven't? Isn't that pretty much the definition of redistribution? We can argue all day about whether that's a good thing or not, but are you actually trying to take the position that taking from one person and giving to another isn't redistribution?

Reducing taxes isn't redistribution, it's "taking less away from people." There's plenty of redistribution going on that favors the wealthy--corporate welfare, bailouts, barriers to entry, etc--but "not taking their money" isn't redistribution.

She was not "completely innocent." She did share the files*. "Innocent" means "didn't do it." Her claim is that she didn't know it was illegal; unfortunately, ignorance of the law is not, and never has been, a defense.

* From a link in TFA: "Whitney admitted to using KaZaA as well as downloading and sharing music over the P2P network, but said she didn't realize what she was doing was wrong."

Do, please, make your argument as to how this is "clearly unconstitutional." Be sure to cite the relevant precedents that would support your argument. Oh, and tell us where you went to law school. Thanks!

They were in Oklahoma.

Where's the -1, Not Funny mod?

Even more fun than blueprints: http://www.cncguns.com/projects/1911a1frame.html

That's right, complete CNC files. No need to translate the blueprints and drawings into instruction lists. And light-duty CNC mills can be had for under $10k new. Sure, that sounds like a lot of money, but how many people have two or three times that in a bass boat? If machinework is your hobby, you can have your "3D printer" right now, and it'll make real metal objects, not plastic toys.

God, I love living in the future!

So, basically, you're taking the same strongarm robbery position as your average mafia don, and calling it "civilization."

It's going to be up and down for the next few years.

Well, thank you for giving me the opportunity to work to support your chosen lifestyle. Is there anything else I can do for you? A pillow, perhaps?