> We don't need a system where I become a millionaire, but it does need to be enough that I can make music

No it doesn't.

There are plenty of fields where people could produce good work, but there isn't a customer base to support that work.
How many skilled pot makers can make a living throwing pots?

The thing is, there is no shortage in the supply of musicians. If nobody was producing good new work, _and_ there was demand for good new work, then you could charge people to come to your concerts.

The fact that you can't charge means that either there are plenty of other folks producing music, or that people don't want to pay for more/better music to be produced.

Carry on producing your music slowly and sparingly. Accept the fact that nobody cares enough about what you do to pay you to produce more.

Alternatively, I'm sure there are sites where you can promise to produce your next album in return for $50,000. Join one and see if you can convince people to pay to hear you.

yup - works fine for Europe.

If you're moderately big and you sell to Europe, then you charge vat based on the country of the person you are shipping to.
Physical goods and electronic goods (like app stores) deal with this just fine. It's a pain, but it only kicks in when your business is big enough to deal with it (otherwise you don't have to register for VAT)

re figuring out where you are from; That's easy. Most of the time, your credit card won't work unless you provide the correct billing address. This doesn't need to be correct 100% of the time - it just needs to mostly collect the right sales tax and send that to the state governments.

there might be a small opportunity in re-shipping, but it is going to be pretty small. It only applies where

%tax differential between states * cost of goods > cost of re-shipping + profit for re-shipping company + saving to make it worthwhile for the additional hassle/delay

Countries (well - leaders) are desperate to win the bid. They get to stand around, look like winners, and hope that some of the magic will rub off on their next election campaign. At the time of bidding, the papers are either reporting win or lose regarding the bid. There isn't any examination of what is being agreed in order to win.

As a result, they'll swallow any crap the IOC (or football world cup, or whatever) thrust down their throat as conditions of bidding.

My understanding is that these rules are now a standard, and are required every cycle. Of course, as the IOC gets away with one batch of craziness, they ask for more next time round.

I'll certainly be doing my best to boy ignore the olympics.

a) We _could_ afford to do that if we wanted
b) That isn't generally the argument used. It tends to run more along the lines of "nuclear is dangerous and expensive in the long run, so we shouldn't use it"

I'm not expert on the arguments, but knocking down an argument which isn't used (b) with a statement that isn't true (a) doesn't really demonstrate anything.

not quite;

Taxpayers' get the benefit, and taxpayers' children, grandchildren and great grandchildren get the expense of decommissioning and handling the waste.

This is the big problem with nuclear - it's broadly equivalent to taking out a huge loan which will be paid down over the next few thousand years.

That's manageable. Get the person reporting the crime to sign a witness statement that they have got the data honestly and in good faith.

If you wind up with someone abusing the system to get raids on their enemies - then you can prosecute them for giving the police a false statement, wasting police time, etc.

Policing is frequently (mostly?) done on the basis of what someone says.

There's more to it than that.

They believe they are the good guys who are fighting an unequal battle against the bad guys. As a result, they come to believe that whatever they need to do to catch those bad-guys is reasonable and required.

So they do bad things, and still believe they are good guys.

Plus, they naturally sympathise with their good-guy friends who probably had reason to do those things which might sound bad. They're good guys, so there must be a reasonable explanation.

the jury found them guilty - but didn't award much damages

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=&sid=1577281

surely something as amusing as that must be protected free speech under a parody rule...