Would a dose of common sense do?

Consider for a moment if LA were to increase the minimum wage to $1,000/hr for all workers. What do you suppose would be the impact of that on jobs and the local economy?

Yes, and the riots in the streets of Paris combined with debts so bad the EU is rejecting their budgets and forcing them to reduce their spending ought to tell us all we need to know about that brilliant example.

You're right, let's get ahead of the game now and make the minimum wage in LA $1,000/hr. Better yet, do it at the Federal level.

That should solve all the problems, right? Everyone will be rich!

No, the problem is that there is inflation. It's a tax on everyone that's been crushing the purchasing power of everyone but the rich for decades.

What happens to those who were making $15/hr or $16/hr? They're likely frequenting places full of minimum wage workers and their costs will now rise - inevitably - to at least some degree because of this. Further, they've all now been reduced to minimum wage (or close thereto) by the stroke of a pen.

Beyond that, how many jobs will now cost enough that automating them starts to make good financial sense? How many people with little to no skills - especially those without a good education who are most in need of steady legal employment - will find that their lack of marketable skills make them not worth hiring at this higher price point?

This is the kind of feel-good thing that bring down the middle class, raises some in the lower class (those lucky enough to ride the wave), and leaves behind large swaths of the most vulnerable people. What's going to happen is that people with little to no marketable skills in surrounding areas will get hired at the state or Federal minimum wage, gain some valuable experience, become more valuable employees, and then move or commute into LA to take jobs from poor, undereducated residents. This is an anti-poor measure masquerading as a hand-up. It will drive the middle class further down the chain (by negatively impacting their purchasing power), reduce the number of available jobs for everyone (and especially for residents), and drive many of the poor right into the ground.

Mark my words, within 5 years of this taking effect, all or nearly all indicators of poverty will worsen in LA.

No, they're inherent to the fact that we're living, sentient beings with dignity and value.

No, rights cannot be "given" because something given can be taken away. Privileges are given and privileges can be taken away. Rights are inherent (see above) and can only be infringed inasmuch as we allow them to be.

Strawman; no such claim has been made. Precisely the opposite. On the other hand, sometimes people say "rights" when they mean "privileges" and vice versa.

There's nothing extremist about living, sentient, valuable individuals having rights. Whether you believe they're inherent to the existence of that individual or endowed upon them by their creator is irrelevant. In either case, the individual is naturally provided with their rights as a fundamental component of their existence. Once this is understood and accepted, it becomes obvious why no law or act of violence can rob you of your rights; rather, merely infringe upon their free exercise. As limited creatures, we lack the requisite ability to alter the fundamental nature of mankind.

Put another way: you can prevent me from exercising my right to self-determination or my right to self-defense, but you cannot eliminate those rights. You can - at worst - kill me.

Protip: If someone has to give them to you, they aren't rights; they're privileges.

No, I mean illegal. The US Constitution recognizes that there are things beyond the reach of any government's authority and by their very nature, such things cannot emanate from the government. Ergo, violation of such rights is inherently illegal regardless of what laws or judges or kings and queens might say or do.

Regardless of the unfortunate case you cited and the suspicions that a grave injustice was done, capital punishment is not murder by its very definition. To clarify my example, the Supreme Court cannot order or authorize me to go out and kill random schoolchildren. They can order or authorize the capture and punishment of a person convicted of a capital crime, but they lack the requisite authority to allow or require that I go kill innocent people.

There are things the state cannot grant or authorize because they would violate the rights of the people. The US Constitution recognizes some of that (at least on paper; in practice...). The government lacks the requisite authority to authorize those rights to be denied or revoked.

When they do it anyway, all involved should be hauled off to prison, even if it takes an army of the people to do so.

Well I'm sure the Executive branch can define it for you, though you may find the particulars of their definition convoluted and self-serving.

No court can authorize an inherently illegal action. The Supreme Court of the United States can approve me murdering schoolchildren all it wants, but my ass will still fry for it (and rightfully so).

This is just like the old days where everyone (except the rich) in Russia got inferior quality (and quantity) stuff to avoid the evil western companies run by their evil capitalist masters. Now mind you, the moment the government stopped enforcing that restriction, it was as though floodgates had opened, but I'm sure this new era of restrictions will enjoy some popularity for a little while. Once that's over, few will have the guts to complain openly.

1) What's the difference? Do you anticipate that these companies will go out and mow lawns to make up for what the tax is costing? Any costs of doing business tacked on by the government get passed on to the customers; that's the way it works.

They always need just a little bit more, don't they.

What needs to happen first is for major software vendors to begin supporting it. That's when you'll see enterprises at least begin to consider it.