...the current system...[does not guarantee] distribution to the places best or helpful for society.
And it shouldn't, as people disagree on what that means and where those are.
They do? Don't most people want a place to live, food to eat, some entertainment, and some support, at the very least?
In situations where manipulative marketing and divisive politicking hasn't rotted people's brains, people overwhelming agree on at least the basics of where at least some resources should be distributed for the benefit of society.
This guy had a lot of great ideas, including:
- Guaranteed basic income linked to national average
- A cap on annual income
- A cap on personal wealth
- A cap on inheritance
Of course, he ended up getting assassinated and his program was purposefully run into the ground after his death.
And that's the real trick. The trouble is not coming up with great ideas that we know will work; the trouble is trying to implement them without getting murdered by the already-rich-and-powerful.
Link to Original Source
It's free in the sense that everyone can vote with their wallet
But that's not "free" as in "free market", as the parent just explained. You can't have a free market and copyright law at the same time. Copyright prevents you from "voting with your wallet" in the free market sense because it reduces the number of competitors to zero.
You better believe if a dude doesn't get anal and tells upgrayyd cinammon is gonna have a black eye.
Remember: the extra 'd' is for a double dose of his pimping.
In the first place, it was unusual for an interlocutory appeal to be granted from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion. In federal court usually you can only appeal from a final judgment.
Similarly, apart from the fact that it's always rare for a certiorari petition to be granted, it's especially tough where the appeal is not from a final judgment, but just from a preliminary injunction denial which does not dispose of the whole case.