Even in the most catastrophic scenarios like a nuclear war or a dinosaur-scale meteor hit, enough people should survive to gradually rebuild it to the current level.
That's pretty much what they're talking about. Some hit that breaks down society and then requires a rebuild.
Not if they raise other tax rates to make up for lost revenue... One might think that some how paying tax is kind of like a multi-way prisoner's dilemma between other tax payers, but in reality, the government will get their money some other way, and on that other game (a different tax revenue source), you may be the loser...
"May be the loser" is a lot better than "will be the loser".
We are becoming more like animals.
This is always how the human race has been right to the myopic malcontents whining about materialism. I would suggest improving yourself rather than improving humanity. It's something you can actually do.
The energy input to produce each calorie of food, must either stop or rise to reflect the scarcity price.
You do realize that the primary energy input for agriculture is the Sun, right?
And cheap petroleum has arguably already run out.
Anything is arguable even when it's simply not true.
From my point of view, what is special about Florence and Silicon Valley is the trade/industry. The Renaissance followed from that in Florence. It'll be interesting to see what follows from that in Silicon Valley. Already, we seem to have some significant stuff in space flight, for example.
Finally, I imagine that artists in Florence probably were complaining about the merchants, cloth finishers, and bankers too.
You really must have the strange and twisted mindset of a US citizen to liken the rightful banning of Nazi propaganda to being Nazi like.
The US had Nazis from before they became really unpopular and they never became a problem. So why did the US fare better than the Wiemar Republic which got overrun by them? Here's a clue: it wasn't too much freedom.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
I have too much of a sense of proportion. Or maybe it's my excessive modesty? Too good looks? Totally impartial viewpoint? Rugged individualistic lifestyle? Nah, it's people who get a little taste of hypocrisy and then go on a huge bender. I get that you don't understand your problem. I'm used to that.
But since you asked so nicely, look in the mirror. Give that guy a punch for me.
However, keep in mind, if you actually live in NJ, you are essentially screwing over the state you live in, so it's not a clear cut win for you give your hard earned money to Pennsylvania (in your example).
You also have to benefit from that sales tax. My take is that New Jersey will miss your sales tax more than you will.
Banning Nazi propaganda is wrong? Since when?
Well, the Nazis of Germany certainly put a high priority on banning other peoples' propaganda so there must be something to it.
I've got a lot of money tied up in my house. Should it have First Amendment rights separate from my own?
That would be equivalent to making it illegal to borrow against your house to fund a political ad, but allowing other means of funding.
The thing here is that the corporate personhood argument applies because the corporation (here, Citizens United) was being blocked from speech that was otherwise legal. The corporate personhood argument wouldn't apply, if nobody was allowed to do the speech in question though obviously other First Amendment considerations would apply.
Plus, your quote about "struggling artists can live elsewhere" is what makes people in SF really hate "techies" -- it's that attitude that is contrary to SF culture.
Your concerns are justified. I revel in that opprobrium. I was tempted to suggest Gilroy as an alternate locale - it's the garlic capital of the world!
My observation remains. If the place is too expensive for the starving artist, then they should move some place where it isn't. Or maybe get a better job. I don't like paying a lot for things either. But to whine to the point of advocating harmful social policies because a not-particularly-useful lifestyle no longer is economical in a particular place? GTFO.
That's not considering opportunity cost.
In other words, I did consider opportunity cost, we just disagree on what it would be.
You're acting like some government central planner, deciding for other people what they can or cannot achieve.
I'm deciding for others what? I'm not deciding what they watch or do. I merely have an opinion on what I think most people would be doing in the absence of watching football. I still think the replacement activity for football would be watching people on some sort of field or room chasing a ball or perhaps a puck around.
Those individuals can make their own expenditures in support of their First Amendment rights which are no less than the First Amendment rights that anyone not associated with a corporation has.
Not if their money is tied up in corporations.
If the corporation has rights then they are in addition to the rights their associates have on their own.
I keep hearing that. No one has yet to put forth an argument for it.
I haven't always supported the positions of the corporation I'm associated with and it offends me that they can imply that I do through their expenditures.
Then choose not to be associated with it or change the corporation's positions. Your emotions otherwise mean nothing.
You seem to think that money is equivalent to free speech but in reality it is merely an amplifier of free speech. Most corporations (especially the large ones) have resources far in excess of of most individuals. That stacks the deck in favor of corporations and wealthy individuals enough and I'm tired of my voice being drowned out by them.
Technically, most corporations are shells and/or individual corporations and don't have such resources. But even if we consider big corporations what's a constitutional valid justification for preventing them from exercising a particular right to speech and yet allowing you that right? Merely having a lot of money and saying things you don't like aren't good enough IMHO.