Technically feasible, politically impossible. We can't even get the paranoid reactionaries on this planet to support the idea of using our knowledge to cure genetic diseases. I'm sure you've heard all the arguments. Any proposal that suggests use of science and technology to select or de-select specific genetic traits generates screams of protest. You get all the "master race" bullshit and hear about how rich people will give their kids genetic advantages and blah, blah, blah.
I'd like nothing better than to see the human race start engineering healthier, stronger and more intelligent homo sapiens. However, the ghost of Adolf Hitler will be haunting us for generations.

"...people have come to think that you need these degrees in order to do the jobs, which is not really true. "

Unfortunately, many of the people who think that seem to be in HR departments and IT management positions. Without the right keywords, your resume will be scanned and discarded before a human ever sees it. Some places even want a Master's degree of PhD, when I suspect that the jobs don't really require one.
Maybe Si valley is different than the East Coast, but the job market here is tough. I can't imagine getting an interview without that piece of paper, even though it might be irrelevant to the actual job.

"all you have to do is not use the stuff."

Some of the "stuff" is just too damned useful. If you belong to any club, organization, political group or whatever, FB has become a very handy planning and organizing tool. Nobody really wants to manage lists of e-mail addresses anymore, let alone a telephone calling tree like we did in the past.
Having a portable device that gives you at least internet access, a telephone, calendar, GPS and camera is also extremely useful.

I think that being cognizant of exactly what you're trading off in terms of privacy vs. functionality is the important thing. I'm not quite ready to retire to the country and become a subsistence farmer.

You think he should get LIFE in prison for complicity in encrypting some data and demanding a fraction of the payment extorted for the encryption keys? Seriously? There are rapists and murderers who get off with lighter sentences than that. There are Wall St. executives who have done far more (like 10E8 times more) financial harm and have never even been investigated, let alone prosecuted.

Ridiculously disproportionate sentences are a contributing factor in the insanely large USA prison population. He shouldn't spend a single day in jail. If that's going to be the punishment, I hope he's never caught.

I'm happy to compete against other U.S. citizens. I'm not happy to have the federal government (which I'm reluctantly funding) steadily importing new competitors for the express purpose of changing the supply/demand dynamic to benefit the potential buyers of my services.

The malware authors need to create some sort of automated bartering program so that they can extract people's maximum willingness to pay. I'd definitely pay $22.88, but no way on $500.

Nonsense. Maybe Republicans have been more successful in gerrymandering, but both parties have engaged in this practice. That's why there are so many "reliable" Republican and Democrat seats.
In certain places, you know for certain that the 'R' or 'D' candidate is going to win. Incumbents from both parties typically have a 90+% re-election rate.

If Democrats are so much more popular, why aren't they able to maintain majorities and governorships in state governments and re-district to their own advantage? Are they too principled to use this tactic?

That's why the TEA Party was such an excellent movement. They managed to oust incumbents who had little chance of losing a general election. Impressive achievement for a bunch of old white people. How many incumbent Democrats have progressives and socialists managed to defeat in the last 10 years? And it's not like there aren't plenty of 'D's whose only appeal to the left is that they are marginally better than Republicans.

Note that with a few rare exception, I hate both of these scumbag parties and have rarely voted for either.

I don't see how they could possibly convict him for publishing or selling information that simply described how to defeat a polygraph. That's a definite First Amendment issue.

He screwed himself by running his mouth about how he had "F****d the government" and by coaching someone to pass the polygraph test, knowing(believing) that their intent in doing so was to get a government job.

IIRC, they got Al Capone for tax evasion.

The best way way to make "crime" go away is to repeal stupid laws. No victim, no crime.

With moderate use, those things last forever.

Now, how do you propose to raise the tens of trillions of dollars necessary to build this massive solar-hydrogen power generation and distribution infrastructure you're talking about?

Let me guess. Massive taxation and huge government subsidies for projects that are obviously not economically feasible at present? Maybe outright nationalization of the energy and transportation industries (because that always works so well)? Government imposed food and energy rationing? Limits on vehicles? Limits on home size and living space?

I don't give a shit about the evidence. I'd rather be burned alive than live under Warmunism.

The point is that the "climate change" fear mongers are using labels to disparage their critics rather than resting on the weight of whatever "logical arguments" and evidence that they apparently have.

Same BS we saw with the terrorist fear mongers. If you didn't believe in the Patriot Act and war, you were unpatriotic and hated the USA and were letting the terrorists win and blah, blah, blah.

If the warmunists have such overwhelming evidence in their favor, why do they need to stifle dissent with a label that has such obvious baggage?

These regulatory and law enforcement douche-nozzles love to exercise their power over helpless victims. They raid small businesses, family farms and sole proprietorships just to get their jollies. Makes them feel like real tough guys to intimidate someone into compliance. The worst are the bureaucrats in agencies like OSHA and EPA.
Until you've run a small business, you can't possibly understand the nitpicking BS that these jerks will pull on you.

I agree that we don't have tyranny in the USA. What scares me is that the legal framework for tyranny has largely been established. It has even been exercised to a limited extent. For example, with indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial. The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments have been practically eviscerated by draconian laws and court decisions.
The First and Second Amendments are in perpetual danger from one angle or another. Speaking of "racism", so called "hate speech" laws are probably the most likely inroad for weakening the First Amendment, with "Campaign Finance Reform" right behind. And how often are the asshats in power trying to promote new laws and regulations to restrict use of the Internet? Constantly!
People are actively fighting this stuff, but it is a perpetual struggle. No tyranny yet, but I think we're definitely trending in that direction.

There's a reason why democracy is called "The Tyranny of the Majority". The OP is correct. Democracy, and to a large extent, even the USA's Constitutional Republic is still about forcing your personal views on other people. No clear winners and losers in a democracy? What about when the 99% vote to murder the 1% and divide up their assets?

Under a Constitutional Republic, such abuses are technically prohibited by limiting government power to commit such atrocities and the elaboration of certain fundamental Rights of the individual. Despite these protections, both of the so-called "sides" in the false dichotomy of current USA politics have authoritarian views and both "sides" want to enact policies that help their supporters and harm their opponents.
Pardon the labels, but with some exceptions, the 'left' wants to prohibit firearms ownership, wants to control relationships between businesses and their employees and wants to control the healthcare system. The "right"(again with exceptions) wants to prohibit you from using drugs, restrict your personal relationships with other consenting adults and otherwise push "morality" on you.
There are definitely clear winners and losers with all of these sorts of restrictions, and society is hardly being "improved" because of them.