It's not cognitive dissonance; you explain it right there -- a scarce resource is required to create a valuable but non-scarce resource.

By establishing a social contract where everyone gives you control (for a limited time) over the distribution of a non-scarce resource you created, the creation of more non-scarce but valuable resources will be encouraged.

The flaw in copyright is not that principle but rather the imbalance of its present implementation.

The entire purpose of copyright has been lost, and in its place given birth to the erroneous belief in an inherent moral that people should own non-scarce resources once they release them.

Exactly -- that is a key difference between a job and being a slave. And for whatever reason, the GGP chose not to accept the hooker job.

A hooker may also degrade themselves. Keep in mind that people grade all jobs, and sex is a special act -- it is necessary for procreation (families, in general) and it is often, and perhaps biologically wired to be, an emotional act. People naturally have strong feelings about it and when it is appropriate in a way that is unlike almost all other jobs.

Good point. Legalizing (and regulating?) prostitution may be a better option. I view this as a separate argument than social stigma.

Superpowers are the best at spreading their cultures and ideologies, but I'd argue that all powers do it, particularly when they expand. The salient difference is how they do it -- whether through violence or through trade or other free choice. The reality is always a mixture of those, but the make-up of that mixture is important yet difficult to weigh.

Conflating non-violent missionaries with violent conquerors confuses the morality at issue.

Are you really saying that you would have sex with your boss if ordered to?

Selling your work is entirely different from slavery.

You make an excellent point that the GP ignores.

But one benefit of regulation is that it gives the government authority to arbitrarily choose to examine internal processes before an injury even occurs. Should private citizens have similar authority? If not, it seems that they would be at a disadvantage to provide a similar preventative service.

There's also a significant cost to litigation that individuals tend to avoid, though that might be ameliorated with proper incentives to expose fraud.

Except, from my reading above, it seems that the matching "monopoles" are connected by a long series of aligned dipoles resembling solenoidal tubes, so there is mag field in the dipoles flowing into the box. Sure the "in" field occupies a very small area, but in/out still balances. Is this incorrect? If not, I don't see how this is evidence of the existence of monopoles.

And, as an aside, given the parallel you draw with conservation of charge, is there any corresponding persistent and unique connection between (e.g.) an electron and positron pair after they are created?

As with the "no true scotsman" argument, you both have to agree upon on a single definition for capitalism.

Keep in mind that capitalism is not anarchy. e.g. it certainly requires that fraud be prosecuted. At some point, intentional confusion and misinformation become fraud. Likewise, capitalism is aided by an informed market.

There's also soft toric lenses for astigmatism.

If linking with the kernel creates a derivative, how can Linux link non-GPL drivers, but a non-GPL kernel cannot link a GPL driver?

While I don't like the physically centralized registry of Windows, having a standard format and api for easy, live, dynamic modification and notification of configuration is a great boon.

Text files which each have a different format, which must be parsed and altered in their entirety to maintain consistency, and which often are not live, are not as useful or advanced.

The only meaningful act of an omnipotent and omniscient being is to limit its own power and knowledge. In essence, to create separate entities of free will and abide by rules for its existence.

If it's not too much trouble, could you please elaborate on a couple of points?:

(1) Examples of the "trade giveaways" where the U.S. gave up its natural trade advantages.

(2) The key differences between global trade and global economy. You seem to suggest that economy leads to homogeneity while trade does not.

Then why not implement it as a non-profit rather than a government program?

Capitalism means getting to choose what to buy. Socialism means everybody is forced to pay for a particular option, even if everybody doesn't want it.

Because the freedom of Linux also results in an abundance of fragmentation. Diverse Window Managers aren't even close to the worst of it.

What is remarkable is how the freedom to share and customize can actually result in less sharing of code. Too many options breeds confusion which can be a significant impediment to actually getting things done which is the purpose of freedom.

It's also fascinating to consider the parallel pitfalls of freedom in economics. It can be chaotic, confusing, lacking controls, and often more difficult, but the system as a whole evolves better.

Similarly, Linux evolves and I am confident that it will eventually solidify on excellent general purpose solutions. I just don't know when that will happen.