There should never be a profit motive to keep people in prison. That conflict of interest is completely unconscionable.
And yet there is a well documented "profit" motive for government run prisons. http://youtu.be/Zq7heLS2ydQ. Isn't that a pickle?
I totally disagree. We had a chance to vote for Gary Johnson as a Republican. He failed to get enough support early on, so he dropped out and is now "running" as a 3rd party candidate, but this is silly. It's not only that he can't win, but that he couldn't even win within one party.
It's all perspective. You say he couldn't even win within his party. I say the "media" and "elites" put hurdles up and limit the opportunities for these voices to be heard. If Gary Johnson had as much coverage as Newt Gingrich in the primary, could he have won? This isn't just speculation either. When Johnson ran for Governor he was polling at 3% before the governor's debate. A debate that had more than two candidates. After the debate, Johnson soared up the polls and ended up winning.
I have a hard time trying to convince myself that a system of exclusion justifies the perceived need for a two party system. Many other countries hold elections with more than just two candidates without any problem at all. Most people I have talked to don't know who Gary Johnson is. Those that do know, are voting for him. Now, my circle of friends is not scientific by any means, but it further illustrates the point, the control is in the information. Yes, people could go do the research for themselves, but more than likely, they will not.
There is a "better" system. The one created by the United States of America in 1776. The one we have been moving away from in favor of "progression." Simply our original idea has gotten turned on it's head. Originally the Federal Government was to be limited in size and power, this allowed the control to be closer to the people, which in turn allows for much more rapid change. I cannot vote out my senators, as I am in the minority viewpoint of my state. I like my representative, but my representative's vote is drowned out by the 40 other representatives of my State that do not share his views. Local government I can be more active in and actually inact change, and fight corruption. The higher up the chain, the harder that is to achieve. Even getting a governor out can be a challenge.
Ability to create/re-create does not equal supply. There is exactly zero supply of ebooks sitting on a shelf waiting to be moved. Now, they can create a copy for you in seconds, but you have to pay them what they consider fair for them to do it, or they'd rather keep it to themselves. See supply and demand works both ways. You have to supply enough cash for them to want to meet your demand.
The publisher is irrelevant. The system works the same if it's one of the major publishers, and independent publisher, or the author self publishing. It's true, we don't "need" the publishers, but I have nothing to do with that transaction. The author selected a publisher to distribute his work, that was his choice and his cost. Now they are the distributors and I have to get it from them, but that changes nothing from my perspective versus buying straight from an independent author.
Why do hardbacks cost more than paperback? The extra cost of the "cover" is probably less than a dollar, yet you've had no problem paying it before and never complained. Why? Maybe because the hardcover book will last LONGER than the paperback and is easier to take care of. Just like the ebook. You are paying more for a better product. Production costs are largely irrelevant.
The question is, are they charging more than a fair price? I think the answer to that is they are not. So what is the problem? Our economy has gone down the tube because everyone is hung up on price. We complain when they ship our jobs overseas, but we want to pay fractal pennies on the dollar for every item in profit. I see no collusion in ebook pricing. I see a wide range of prices for ebooks. If you are unhappy with the pricing, don't buy them.
There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak