Better the state who can enforce its tyranny with military might than a corporation who can wage it with voluntarily purchased products!
So, why would it be a reasonable solution to that "problem" to hamstring the one setup that is better than the others because all the alternatives are awful? Perhaps you should look into making online transactions more viable across the spectrum instead of begging upset at Paypal for being the most evil but also the only functional online transaction service you have access too.
I resent the insinuation that lawyers don't work.
See, honestly, I'd like to sympathize with atheists and atheist rhetoric, even on the most basic of levels. I just can't get past how arrogant it all sounds. This post is a rather glaring example of that tone. If an observation is made by anyone who doesn't self-identify as an atheist or "non-believer" the observation is generally tossed to the side with a clicking tongue about how "deluded" the observer is or a off-hand comment about how they don't "get it." Incidentally, this tends to position them into the same sort of special field they themselves reserve for religious people. Its holier than thou without the holy. I also can't get behind it because it turns the whole argument into a debate between a moving target and a characature. If people who preach (and I use that word intentionally) atheism against religion want to be taken seriously they had better start attempting to be understood and not working so hard to obscure their meaning.
I wasn't aware that your donation income was directly tied to your supporting voters. Its rather hard to reconcile that with the huge piles of money that corporations and wealthy individuals throw behind the bigger names.
I thought you were onto something and then you went straight off the rails. If you are actively setting up outlets for people to do something that is illegal (even if you don't like the idea that it is illegal) then the police don't even have to think of it as a fear generation issue. From that point forward it is only a crime control issue. Somebody (they may not know who) is committing a crime, you are enabling that crime. That is what makes you culpable. Unless you're going for the "people are afraid because they might get arrested" thing which is stupidly reductionist when you realize that the whole body of crime prevention is based on the idea of not wanting to get arrested.
While your passion and energy is really great and all, you're totally jumping past some rather important issues. If the "groveling masses" have the means to do these things that you seem to assume they do, why haven't they done them yet? Clearly it would seem that if the suffering state of the everyman is so great then they would just take the steps already to avoid this horrific suffering that the current Internet is heaping upon them. If people are going to "take care of themselves" as it were, your what then turns into a how-issue. You're frying up quite the plate of refried worms here and I don't think your argument as you're presenting it is up for the task of dealing with them. 1) Where is the infrastructure coming from? 2) Who manages this infrastructure? 3) Who maintains this infrastructure? 4) Assuming these people are compensated for this management and maintinence work in some way, what makes them different from any ISP? I sense a lot of cool utopias being built on your ideas there but I don't think you realize just how impractical that sort of idea really is.
Its a cool idea and all but designed for the thousands? What on Earth would I want a thousand little vibrating bots that jostle around in circles and blink at eachother for?