Yeah, lots of religious arguments about pain and suffering.

It basically comes down to choice and actually having one. If every time you swing a bat at someone it turns to gel -- you are not living in a world with object persistence. In order to have "free-will" (e.g. actually be able to play the game) there actually has to be consequences.

Disease and errant pain would seem more like bugs in the system -- but it might be more like radiation exposure -- there's consequences even if you can't seem them. Which makes the simulation seem less likely by nature of it being too replete.

At least, that's the argument most cosmologists give for why the universe can't have been created.

Burning bushes are common. Burning bushes that don't burn up are less so.

What a beautiful smell you've discovered!

Now you mind telling me how we get out of here?

In more polite company (and under certain governments) taking property from someone else and giving to those deemed by the taker to be needy is called social justice.

Well, Slashdot has the IP of one government operative.

Only a government employee would have mandatory ignorance of the Snowden leaks.

Yeah, good call on #4

I'm just so pissed-off by the government's overreach that at this point I think they have more interest in helping terrorists abroad than protecting my civil liberties here at home.

(...and also accepting only Muslim Syrian refuges (no Christian refugees need apply), trading an enlisted man in exchange for setting free top Jihadist leadership, and using every domestic terror event as an opportunity to publicly emphasize just how fearful we all should be: starting to wonder exactly whose side this government is on...but yes: that's just crazy)

Another person who thinks that everyone must pay the price in loss of freedom because of the hazards imposed by a few.

While this is true in many countries, the United States is suppose to be different: we are to value the liberty of the individual higher than the good of society. The risk we take is the price we pay for that freedom.

Except the following people will be much happier:

1. The FAA: adding a half million dollars or more to their coffers for doing absolutely nothing.
2. Amazon: what the government may regulate they may also ban. So the FAA sets a precedent for keeping people out of their own airspace -- making room for Amazon to fly for free.
3. The military and law enforcement can now breathe easy knowing the average citizen with a plastic weapons platform will no longer be a threat to their operations.
4. ISIS: will now have a handy list (leaked from the state department) of people to eliminate when they start operations in the United States.

Just goes to show that they are FREAKING OUT about the power of this platform. The Federal government is scared of people with this tech.

I actually think they are less concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation then they are about this.

They don't care about the $5 -- they just want the list of people to persecute/break down their door if ever they feel the need.

The premise that "gun control would have stopped this" is a completely ignorant one.

This man had outside support and would have been able to procur weapons of any sort. He had been in contact with persons being watched by the FBI (gee, thanks FBI, nice work protecting the public!) as known terrorists. Despite any legality or embargo he would have carried it out.

This was an act of organized "terror" (read: islamic mafia); any law would not have mattered.

No, I'm saying the rich and powerful Liberals in government (e.g.. Nancy Pelosi) want you to have a respectable wage, have a loan on a house (preferable a student loan, too), and barely be able to feed your 2 or 3 children.

Exactly.

When a majority of the populace is surviving (but not quite rioting), the government may print money without hesitiation. Why? Because all the money you earn is spent servicing debt or providing basic needs -- not bidding up the price of durable goods.

This gives the government an incredible amount of power. The government may invent money out of nothing (work required: absolutely zero) and buy real things or pay real debts -- and that money still has value -- because 300 million Americans will value those dollars because they need to buy groceries for the week.

Say 300 million people in the US can't (or choose not to) pay $5 a gallon for milk. What happens? The dairy lowers their price. Because when 300 million people don't buy the dairy product because dairy priced themselves out of their range -- the dairy is better off selling the milk for $3.29 a gallon and thereby encouraging say 298 million people to buy it. At the point, the dairy doesn't care that there's 12 thousand people in Washington D.C. who would think nothing of paying $8 a half gallon.

So while the people in Washington have money enough to swim in -- the price of goods is not overly affected by all that made up money -- because most people in the US are not in the same position.

The Liberal infrastructure is more than happy to subsidize people. One the money is free. Two, it only pays for basic needs and keeps people from competing with their dollars in the Liberal elite sphere. Just enough for people to live, but not enough for them to grow.

And that's all you want, anyway. You don't want to get better, you just want to get by. And that's all they want you to want.

Because as long as you stay low and average, they can continue to make up dollars, build political and industrial empires and live incredibly -- all thanks to 300 million others wondering where all the jobs went.

Essentially, the rich and powerful in government want everyone else to stay poor -- because poor people can't spend money -- so this allows those rich and powerful to make-up money ("printing", "inflating") via the central bank without having the normal consequences of the printed money devaluing.

Normally if everyone has a lot more money -- prices will rise.

But if you can give yourself a lot more money (i.e. you are a central bank and can just decide: gee, today I think I'll print myself a few billion dollars) -- you can give yourself and your friends a bunch of money -- but prices won't rise (as fast or as much) if you make sure the majority of people never get any.

Case in point: the housing crises. They "solved" the problem by bailing out the insurance companies and the banks -- when they could have directly bailed out the homeowners for (perhaps) less money. The "solution" was making the government give their buddies in affordable housing and banks a bunch of made up cash.

Frankly, I think both "sides" are in on this. Democrats doing the free-money thing to all their buddies and then a switch back to Republicans to do the nasty correction (because you can't inflate forever). Republicans benefit with the Democrats because if you know a correction is coming (i.e. you're doing it) you can hedge your investments accordingly.

You are mostly correct about what they want, but that's not why they want it. Let me recap what they want from your list:

1. They will not stop until we (in the underclasses) are all reduced to a "living wage".
2. They want people out of work.
3. They want to subsidize meager existences.

The reason they want all of these horrible things, is not because they hate us, it's because they don't care about us and instead want to make themselves extremely rich. How can this be?

By encouraging an environment where people are out of work or can earn very little, they are insuring that the general populace has no significant buying power. And when the general populace has no buying power — those in government are able to print more money without immediate or significant inflationary consequence.

As long as the people in power are able to stand under one of the spickets of the created currency (banking, government contracts, alternative energy, maybe even some educational grants) they themselves get showered with what would normally be inflationary monies — but because the general majority of people don't have a good job — there is little immediate impact on prices because the majority of the populace don't have money to spend.

It's critical then for as many people as possible to either be out of work, or be in situations where they have little to no disposable income.