Isn't it fascinating how much people hate paying their taxes while loving to impose higher taxes on others, especially on those, that make more than they do?

AFAIC all income and wealth related taxes are immoral and must be illegal. All wealth transfer schemes are immoral and must be illegal. All taxes on income are also bad from POV of economics and must be stopped for that reason as well.

Any scheme that uses violence (government power) to take away property (savings, wealth) and productive output (income, earnings, dividends, capital gains, rent) from people is immoral and must be stopped. If the government evil is necessary, it must be minimised by using direct apportioned and excise taxes in a completely transparent and open way that would allow people to vote away government for raising taxes.

Canada, UK, and other 'socialized medicine countries" pay less per capita for healthcare than American's do.

I'll never understand how that's relevant or how you seem to think that's the government's doing.

It baffles me that anyone would argue for privatized health care.

And it baffles me that anyone would argue for anything but. We have one of the least "free market" healthcare systems in the world: consumers have little freedoms, competitiveness is non-existant, costs aren't determined by actual market forces but instead by some secret negotiating coalition of "government cronies in medicare", "insurance cronies in the private sector", and "a chargemaster hospital crony in the service industry". We desperately need free market mechanics introduced into our healthcare system.

But I can't figure out why the other 99% wants private for profit insurance companies managing their healthcare

We don't. We don't want ANY insurance company managing our healthcare. We, the consumer, should be able to make an informed cost analysis when purchasing any product or service. The middlemen (insurance companies AND government) rob us of that opportunity.

British healthcare is run by the government. The vast majority of services are "zero cost". Americans spend 2.5 times as much on healthcare as the British.

And American hospitals determine prices using a chargemaster that practically throws darts at a dartboard. What's your point? If prices were exposed, consumers given choice, and the healthcare sector were allowed to be a competitive free market, we wouldn't have this problem.

The universe is approximately 13.7E9 years old. There are 8.766E3 hours in a year. Thus, the universe is approximately 1.20E14 hours old. So at a rate of 100 hours per second, it would take 1.20E12 second to exceed the age of the universe in YouTube videos. 1.20E12 seconds works out to around 1 million years. So we have a way to go still.

You may want to loosen your tinfoil hat. If you tighten the straps too hard, sometimes it can cause extreme irritability. Ideally, the fit should be "snug" but not "tight."

- this entire story is of-course full of socialists envious (jealous) of more successful people, socialists that completely miss the entire point that wealthy individuals like Gates created that wealth, without them that wealth doesn't exist and it doesn't pay for anybody's food because it is not brought into existence in the first place.

Also this topic is filled with completely ignorant people that don't understand anything about economics, believing that money that Gates and other like him have money that is not in fact being used by the economy, as if it is outside of the economy. His money is being used productively, that's why he is able to grow it while donating huge amounts to charity.

Given the attitude of the mob in his place I would probably convert my money into gold or commodities, like oil or food and then shoot it into space with space rockets rather than donating it to anybody, it's immeasurable how sick and ignorant you all are.

A guy whose company uses stack ranking is not in a position to complain about non-cooperative behavior.

Well this really explains the methodology of the whole thing. Should be +5, "the rest of the story".

The basis of property law is utilitarianism. A labor theory fails to explain property speculation, among other things. Property law can more or less be summed up as 'you and who's army?' and having actual armies involved.

No they don't. They have vast amounts by our standards, but not unlimited amounts. IIRC they ultimately rely on 'ordinary' fusion reactors. (While they do use a lot of antimatter, they have to manufacture it, and it's inefficient to do so)

This is a question about at the level of "yeah, if humans evolved from primates, why are there still APES?!?!?"

Basically, no one can explain it to you, because that you're asking at all tells us you are not seriously interested in the topic, and are either acting in bad faith or not patient enough to read through a complicated explanation.

Twenty years ago was 1993. Cell phones were real, and some models that were small not to fit in your pocket had been out for years, like the Motorola MicroTAC, and the flip phones directly inspired by communicators would come out only a few years later.

I can't help but wonder if you're old, and haven't realized that twenty years ago wasn't so long ago as it sounds (this happens to me all the time), or are young, and don't know what was going on twenty years ago, when hard disks had maybe a few hundred megabytes of capacity, floppies were commonplace, few people had so much as a modem, and the Internet still hadn't quite caught on, although people were beginning to hear about email.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There's no such thing as a proof strong enough that someone who disagrees can't just say "I don't think that's convincing". They don't even have to be telling the truth; they can just lie.

The proof is plenty solid, no one's found "better" proof to the contrary.

People dispute climate change for the same reason they dispute evolution; because there's a lot of money to be made selling doubt to people who want to doubt.

Wrong, it was not a "reversal". His position never really changed.

DENIER!