Why are others' actions my responsibility? If I post something, and someone else makes a decision, that decision is also influencable by someone else's (i.e., the corporation's) speech. Why don't they use free speech to fight free speech they find offensive? Why do they try to ban it?
Even the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the EPA had to consider cost when determining what was "necessary and proper." Cost trumps the freedoms guaranteed in the bill of rights. If my free speech costs someone money, the Bill of Rights has no standing. Government at least is prevented (heavily restricted) from prosecuting people for their speech. Business has no such Constitutional amendment restraining its desire to quelch speech it thinks offensive.
Business is fundamentally undemocratic and unconstitutional.
All those scientists trying to steal the Hawaiian natives' land should have been on board.
Do we want a nation of Ayn Rands merely writing about technology, or do we want to actually implement the technology? If the latter, government spending is essential because the market is way too shortsighted and prefers to take risks on balance sheets, with derivative instruments, rather than push the envelope of technological development.
Madison was wrong. Other founding fathers such as Hamilton understood the General Welfare provision very broadly. Anyway we don't need taxes; fund the government at zero cost through the Fed. Banks make use of the Fed's financing powers, let the government direct the Fed to finance a basic income. Indexation of all incomes hedges against any potential unexpected inflation by keeping purchasing power from decreasing.
And scientists concoct fables about big bangs and multiverses and fought tooth and nail against the theory of continental drift for decades. How do you know you're not just as wrong now as scientists were about tectonic plate theory? Tomorrow you might suddenly find out the Native Americans are right after all. In any case those observatories are ugly poop that destroy natural mountain landscapes. Shoot those scientists up to space to build a telescope. I bet they'd prefer that.
It angers me, because those telescopes are ugly and ruin the natural landscape.
And guns protect scientific truths? If my gun is bigger than yours, you have to believe in what I say? Poppycock. We are mere stewards of the land, and the native americans were better stewards.
In Arizona, Baboquivari is a sacred site. It stands out, it is very distinctive from large distances away. Next range over has Kitt Peak Observatory, which is ugly and destroys the natural mountain's ridge line. Screw Kitt Peak. Just say no to earth-bound observatories. Put 'em in space. I bet the scientists would like that too.
Hyperbolic paranoia. Those scientists can fuck off to space. I bet they'd prefer it. Win-win.
Why should I care about the scientists? They seem like a bunch of asswipes to me. Fuck 'em. Give them lots of money funded at zero cost through the Fed, and let them fuck off into space where they can build telescopes to their hearts' content. Everyone wins!
Yep, constructing an 18-story building is exactly the same as moving a boulder. That's what your science tells you? No wonder the natives are suspicious of you.
So they got rid of some unfair rules, but kept the good ideas about preserving nature. Scientists can learn about progress and evolution from them.
Exactly. Win-win. Give the scientists the funds to do it; have the Fed finance it with created money. It's in the General Welfare, why would it cause inflation?
So you had to walk uphill in the snow both ways to and from school, so everyone else has to too?