Do YOU hire somebody somewhere? Anybody anywhere? You can go ahead and lead by example, until you do you have 0 moral ground for any argument like that.
Free market monopolies are not a problem whatsoever, they only exist as the market allows them to exist. It is government monopolies that are a real threat to all people and those are created because governments usurp power to oppress individual rights.
Right, USSR ideology to the rescue... destroy the wealthy so that there is no more concentrated wealth so there is no wealth left at all, then come after the less wealthy and once you don't have those left, come after the less wealthy yet, rinse and repeat until you have made everybody equal... in their misery.
Yeah, the only person who should disappear in a puff of logic is you, somebody who equates working to save to voting to steal.
I don't care what most people believe or do not believe, they are wrong. Dangerous monopolies are created by governments, not by the free market, in a free market no monopoly has more power than the market is willing to give it and if the market is willing to give a company monopoly power it is always temporary and it is there as long as that company provides the market with the highest quality, cheapest product.
Cable companies or any companies should be able to merge all they want, governments interfering with any mergers is the problem, not any type of a solution, especially given that governments created monopolies in telecommunications in the first place.
Oh, I see, so who did google steal from? Or those guys that sold them youtube for a billion and a half (for starters)? The silly 'whatsup' billionaires, did they steal from somebody? For that matter transportation or energy or any kind of billionaires. No, thieves are found in government and among the voting mob first of all. Glass houses.
I think that the problem is voting based on the hopes of stealing from others and that happens in a system where people actually expect government to steal on their behalf and allow the government to usurp power.
No, the real problem is not money in politics, the real problem is use of violence by governments to take away individual rights.
The real problem is that such a large number of people actually support government threatening violence to steal from people. At that point money enters politics to buy favours. Money in politics is an indicator of a sick system, it's not the cause of it.
The cause of a sick system is people who want to have a sick system, a system based on jealousy, envy, use of violence against others (mostly those, who have more than the average voter, regardless of anything else, for example regardless of whether the money made by a person is earned or stolen).
If you want a just system that is not corrupted and where money cannot buy power, you cannot have a system that allows governments to steal from individuals, steal their rights (as in right to private property, defence and speech that are necessary to protect private property) and steal the outcome of their work by taxing people's incomes or wealth.
Free market does not require people to play by the rules or anything like that because there cannot be government rules.
The problem of-course is government power, not the fact that in a free market (or any market) people want to get ahead. The real problem is just normal people who want to get ahead having political power, the real problem is power that politicians hold. Power to use violence, guns and jails against individuals.
Threat of violence by system is what gives politicians the power to destroy the free market, nothing else. It is not about people not being honest or not playing by the rules. It is about rules that are set up by the governments to allow very specific people to get ahead while holding everybody else back.
The real problem is you, because you believe that what you are advocating (government power over the individuals, over the free market) is justified for your weird ideology of theft and murder.
You do realise that there is nothing wrong with being a 'working class'? There is also nothing wrong with being a billionaire.
If your first reaction to somebody who is wealthier than you is a 'pitchfork', then maybe the problem is you.
So they can restore the denaturated proteins to their original state... which basically is a step towards reviving the dead, however weird that sounds.... Undead chickens will take over.
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?