So what they want to do is pump the value of BTC up so they can dump their 'largest holding of bitcoin'.
Taxation is so much more than simple act of theft, of course. It is a violent act of robbery done with the approval of those, who believe will benefit from that theft.
As to being selfish and/or prick, those are absolutely inalienable human rights and very important once, especially so since the very definitions of 'selfish' an 'prick' are political terms and if we deny people rights because of their different views on politics and policy then we cannot in the same breath start moralizing about virtue. Using violence to deny human rights and praising virtue.... how hypocritical and hypocricy is the real corruption of the mind.
Words are everything, if you point at an act of violence and call it justice, then you can sell violence to people under the banner of justice and people who would otherwise not be on your side in that way now can participate in the violence with you without even understanding what they are involved in.
So words are everything, words supply meaning to actions.
What does it mean in practice? In practice it means exactly as I said, more violence against individuals, fewer private property rights, more government overreach and bigger power of the state over the individual.
So called 'positive rights' are entitlements that require that governments strips rights from some people in order to provide those 'free' entitlements to others. However I disagree fundamentally that the so called 'net neutrality' is a right (or a 'negative right' as you put it).
Net Neutrality is an entitlement, where people are trying to use force of government to strip rights from individual ISPs to shape their traffic on their networks the way they see fit. This is destructive to the competition, this is destructive to the actual human rights, this means giving more power to already overbearing government monopoly on violence. There are no 'rights' there at all.
If I build a private network and sell connectivity to my network I set my rules and then a government starts mandating how I provide the said connectivity, that I cannot come up with my own rules and ways to provide the service, that's stripping my rights as a private property owner from me by the violence of the state, that is not a right, that's the exact opposite of a right. Some people are more equal than others, ha?
Science is not the only thing that does not work by democracy, very few things actually work by democracy.
Building a better car doesn't work by democracy.
Economics doesn't work by democracy.
A wealthy and healthy society doesn't work by democracy.
An individual is smart, a mob is made of idiotic, selfish, panicky, stupid animals and that's somehow is supposed to produce better results? Ha!
I, on the other hand, want to see veterans get their revolutionary prosthetics, so that the veterans without arms could finally have a middle finger they could give to the government that sent them to die and get maimed into wars that should never have been started in the first place. Obama needs a collective middle finger and the largest hose up his ass for anal rehydration, so does Bush with Cheney and Rummsfeld and Clinton too, by the way for Yugoslavia and almost all these ass wipes who mess with other people's countries instead of following the ideas that USA was founded upon, like trading with people instead of meddling in their internal affairs.
Yes, and this shark jumping happened more than a hundred years back now. From Sherman Antitrust Act and the 'private' bank known as the Federal reserve that creates fake dollars out of thin air and IRS collecting illegal income taxes illegally and FBI and SS and Medicare and minimum wage and EPA and FDA, and departments of 'education', energy, housing, commerce and interior and more, to defaulting on the gold dollar and destroying the value of money (around the world actually, since the others were relying on the dollar to be reserve and dollar itself no longer had any backing itself once Nixon defaulted on the gold promise).
Basically USA jumped the shark when it gave up on individual liberties and started building a gigantic government machine for the sake of propping up giant companies and the empire.
In the UK case these ISPs mostly also run other media services: Virgin Media is a big media conglomerate that owns a bunch of TV channels, and Vodafone and EE both sell streaming-television services. A blocking/QoS war could be damaging to all of them, if they start preferring their own services and degrading other companies' services, so it might make business sense to just mutually agree not to do that.
Oh, it worked fine for Alan Turing but even he had Keira... I mean Joan Clarke in his team, ading a woman to the team, brilliant. If only the British had this type of quality research back then... they could have solved that enigma even faster. All they needed was replace Turing and a couple of other guys with some females and BAM, could have figured that problem out in a month.
their party's next nominee
I gather there's not much lost between the Obama and Clinton camps...
You are forgetting something very conveniently, namely taxes. Maybe your reply is that majority of people do not actually pay taxes, the very poor do not and the very rich also find ways to avoid as much as possible on the personal level. However all taxes are paid by the employers, all taxes come from business revenues. People don't recognise this reality as such, but without businesses there can be no wealth generated (more than necessary for a primitive barely self sustaining society of subsistence farmers, hunters/gatherers) and no taxes paid.
I actually argue that corruption costs less than taxes in total cost of having a government system at all. It is cheaper and faster to deal with a corrupt, bribe expecting gate keeper of a politician than to have this 'civilised society' with enough red tape that basically created the poverty, the situation that so few people actually run their own businesses.
Wrong. I can even say that a man is what a man does.
Are the Slavs really more culturally similar than the Arabs, though? They feel at best "equally foreign" to me. Slavs are the eastern fringe of Europe, and Arabs are the southern fringe. They both intertwine with European history while remaining not quite entirely within it. And in the modern era, they are both more religious than the average Scandinavian, which manifests itself in fairly similar ways (the Slavs and Arabs both seem to hate gays). I'm not sure I would really prefer to have Slav neighbor than an Arab neighbor, all things considered. If anything the Slav seems more likely to try to sell my kidney to someone.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
I take it it is not self evident to you that pursuit of happiness among equals means among people that are equal under law and nothing else? Yet here you are proposing that some are not equal under law to others, that there should be laws that apply differently because some, who are not you, built and are running services that you want to purchase, they have done so without any laws that you now want to see implemented to limit their freedom. You do not want tocompete with them, you want to enslave their work to your terms.
As far as I am concerned every single (without exception) thing that governments do end up hurting me because every single thing that governments do impede upon individual freedom for self determination and ability to attempt and improve individual conditions.
No, governments should not be able to violate laws, like private property rights. This means eminent domain cannot exist, this means government cannot be allowed to intervene between any parties signing a contract, this means there can be no business or labour or money regulations.
At most government can be allowed to police borders and search for murderers and rapists and isolate them. But even these functions lead to ever greater government with more and more power that it should not have.
It is not a religion, it is an ideology of individual freedom from tyranny and from oppression. 2 or more wrongs do not make a right. Destroying more freedom now, because other freedoms were already destroyed earlier does not make a better society. Instead government needs to be abolished, 99% of what it does need to be abolished.
The only way to get a wealthy and ready qnd able to withstand long term difficulties society is not to shackle individuals in it with the chains of the murderous will of the mob. Individuals are capable and smart and may even be brilliant in pursuit of their own happiness on their own terms but the mob is none of that. Decisions made by individuals have an impact on them and on a limited surrounding circle,decisions imposed by the mob have impact upon the entire society at the expense of brilliance, wealth, inventiveness, long term health of the society.
Governments must not be allowed to stand in the way of development of society but today many equate governments and society, while the reality is that governments steal power, wealth, health of society and the benefits of this theft are limited to very few very well connected individuals.
Being one of those connected individuals is great for them, but the society is diminished and empoverished because of unequal treatment.
Switzerland just cut its losses and depegged from Euro, basically it left the Euro zone unilaterally, well, this is the first correct move by a central bank (since 1981 Volker's 21.5% interest rate) in a long time. This is a call to action. Large governments fail and the larger the government the more spectacular the failure. It is an example that applies here as well. Yes, horrible things were done, eminent domain for example, but do not compoune the error, cut your losses and cut the reason of the problem, shut down most of the government, kill all business a d labour laws, kill income related taxes, yoh have to cut losses and return to the idea and ideology of individual freedom. It built the most wealthy manufacturer bases (I do not like the word 'countries' or 'nations', they imply group ownership as opposed to individual freedom), ever in history of humanity. It took a long time to destroy that wealth in the USA, the momentum was so great, momentum built in the 19th century and dissipated in the 20th.
If there is an ideology in the idea that free people in their own pursuit of happiness will build better anx wealthier societies than what is done in systems dominated by government power, it is because of evidence, not a baseless belief system. Time a d again we see that all powerful governments destroy the society and weath while free individuals is what builds wealth and society around it. I would not contaminate that evidence with something as horrendous as a religious belief.
The question is not about the Internet access here, it is a fundamental question of human life that is at stake. Life as a free person or life as a slave to the all consuming mob.