What do you write software for? I'd like to avoid those products.

You are assigning causation where there is only correlation. That is a common logical fallacy. I am saying there is a correlation between being educated, being wealthy and discussing ethical theory. You are saying because someone is wealthy and well educated, they created ethical theory to maintain wealth.

You are inferring causation where there is none, and it seems to be based on your predisposition to dislike people with money.

This is a huge oversimplification of many concepts stemming from your predisposed views of the world.

Foremost, amoralism is systemic to the human condition. Rich people, poor people average people, all have the capacity for moral and immoral acts.

Secondly, ethics is always based on what someone else deems as right and wrong. Ethics is the code of conduct between one person and everyone else. Even if you decided what was right and wrong, the rest of the world would be subject to the right and wrong decided by someone else. It is a group effort.

Lastly, classical ethics for the most part was created by the rich and powerful. But that is because they were the educated, not because they were trying to take over the world. The uneducated, even today, don't sit around thinking about the fundamentals of ethical theory.

There are many classical ethical philosophies, which you clearly don't understand. Social contract isn't then end all be all of theories. If you warp one philosophy you tend to end up actually using another or a blend of several. Our current state is a mix of egoism, social contract and utilitarianism, all poorly implemented.

Blame the theory all you want, but it's only a fool who blames his tools.

What have you been smoking? Social contract theory is a philosophy; it's an idea. It was not perpetrated by some Illuminati conspiracy theory to keep people in check. Even within your own argument, you bash social contract theory in one paragraph, then praise its merits in the next based on the implementing class.

If you want to argue over the merits of an ethical philosophy, have some idea of what you are talking about: http://www.philosophybasics.co...

If you want to complain about the overbearing police state the US has become, that's ok to. But don't string big words together if you don't know what they mean.

Psychopaths don't sympathize with anything...

It was also built to be a living document; to change and flow with the will of the governed. Since majority of the governed don't seem to care or are ok with it, its completely constitutional. That being said, I'm moving to the Caymans, or I hear Amsterdam is nice this time of year.

I think this shows the desperate need for talented developers in the US. Personally, I am all for this program. The more medium to sub par programmers that get pushed out is more work for me to come back and clean up.

That's what I was thinking. Maybe time to short some stock...

That may be, but I posted my comment in rebuttal to this statement:

Again, the reason cable companies have a monopoly is because of regulation, so how does more regulation fix the problem?

Retardation would imply the inability to progress our ethical behavior. I'd prefer to think, while infantile, we still posses the power to improve our understanding of ethics. But I digress, as that is someone else's words, and while I may not be religious, the underlying sentiment holds true.

What these statics show is that an increased police presence reduces crime. I know, lets put a police officer in every home!

Umm... Its a government instituted monopoly. How does giving the government more regulation over the industry going to fix that?

What moron put the table of contents in paragraphs? How do I know what page a paragraph is on?

Hmm... Its not mentioned in the article you linked, but all instances of net neutrality bills I've seen have the caveat of not blocking or throttling "legal" content.