Compulsory wealth redistribution is not a "service". I regularly pay for things (voluntarily) that do not directly benefit me. Foodbanks, local charities etc. That is how it should be done - not via state enforced extortion.

You're assuming that people would only pay for services that directly benefit them. That wouldn't be the case. It's in everyone's interests to see people protected from harm.

I've not said that at all. What I have said is that I will pay fo things that I use, and also for things that I find valuable. "Valuable" doesn't mean I directly benefit from it. This is why I donate to food banks in my area and spend many hours a week with youth organisations. I do this voluntarily because it is the right thing to do.

I've not written that at all. I don't think it is ethically justified to force people to pay for things like a space program.

Direct benefit? No, I don't see that. But then again I don't need to see a direct benefit in things I choose to give my time and money too. I'm not sure where you get this idea that people should only pay for things that directly benefit them. I sure haven't made that claim.

It's not dogma, it principle. The principle is that it's wrong to initiate force against someone else, and that the state should exist to protect people from such harm.

People who want those things would pay for them whether they are profitable or not. Just like NASA.

Because people value those services. It's not rocket science (excuse the pun).

No, but I would willingly pay for those things that direct benefit me. I would also assist in areas where people don't have the menas to provide such things.

It's not selfish to expect people to pay for what they use and not for what they don't use. "Selfish" is expecting (and forcing) people to pay fo things they don't want. The least selfish option is the one based on voluntary and compassionate action. Compulsion is selfish.

If no one is willing to pay for them then no third party should be able to force us to pay for them. That's ethically corrupt.

Ah, the old "if you don't like it you can leave" argument. That's not an intellectually honest tactic when discussing the protection of liberty and individual freedoms.

I still maintain that if individuals believe strongly enough in what NASA does, then they will willingly pay money to them. I would. What I do not support is the state forcing people (using extortionate means) to pay for such things.

If it's not profitable then they shouldn't be forcing hard working people to pay for it. Make payments to it voluntary.

They should 100% privatise it. Then the people who want to support it financially can, leaving those who do not want to to, well, not. That's the only fair and honest approach.

I disagree. It's none of the governments business. If I want to voluntarily trade with another person using bitcoins (or chickens, or shells) then no third party has a right to get involved. This applies double-so to the government.

I would say that any automatic mechanical device that is controlled be electronics could be considered a "robot". Tha't a pretty broad category though and would include many everyday things like a microwave oven, a washing machine, a hard disk drive etc.

I have a home built CNC machine, I'd consider that to be a robot.

As you have alluded to a part of the problem is that people don't read the terms of the service or product they are paying for. That I don't understand other than to attribute it to apathy. I read all licenses I agree to (unless I've read it before), and I won't trade with companies on terms I don't agree to.

Sure - because I don't have a contract with anyone with regards to the content. No-one should be able to tell me what bits I can have sitting in my computer (unless I specifically agree with someone not to have their particular sequence of bits).

I have no formal contract agreement with the holder of that copyright. They cannot control what I sing. I couldn't care less about copyright law - my point is about contract law.

Copyright law should be scrapped. The state, via the government, should not be able to prevent otherwise free people from saying whatever they like. But if I buy a song on iTunes and as a part of that purchase I have agreed not to copy it to another device, then I should honour that agreement.

Allowing a song to be purchased on iTunes does not mean it's in the public domain.

You're preaching to the converted. I don't tink there should be such a thing as copyright, and I don't agree with patents either. But if you pay for a service and when paying you agree to certain conditions, you should honour those conditions.

I disagree that this is about culture. The latest pop song is not "culture", and neither is the latest blockbuster movie. You have a very broad definition of "culture" if you think it includes those things.

This is about the protection of contracts. Contract protection is one of the cornerstones of a civilised society. If you trade with someone and that trade has with it certain restrictions, then you should honour those restrictions or not agree to them in the first place.