bjl

Except that both the USSR and China are capitalist in the Marxist sense.

'Powerful' is a weird way to describe a selfie app.

Its telling that you don't see a difference.

And An-Caps never seem to understand why nobody takes them seriously.

I'd rather a democratically elected state than a cabal of wealthy warlords.

Nah people that think gays shouldn't marry should have the non-bigoted views forced upon them.

> The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else.

Except, of course, the wealthy.

Equating theft with rape and murder is just one of the reasons rational people ignore right-libertarianism.

All I can say is that I'm glad the vast majority of academia, and the population in general, think your position is indefensible.

Because, under your 'utopia', we never would have had the civil rights movement. Or woman's suffrage. Or gay marriage.

Or, instead of depending on utopic ideals and discredited economic theories, we can just make people buy liability insurance if they want to drive a car.

Good thing the paradox of tolerance has been solved for over a century! Now if only we could get the message out to people like you that seem to delight in ignoring centuries of philosophical discussion on this topic.

>which they wouldn't if government stopped intervening.

That's a very strong assumption, and I see no reason to believe its true.

OK, so use any other example.

What if Florida decides to roll back gay marriage?

What if Alabama rescinds the Civil Rights Act?

Are those who can't afford to move supposed to just deal with it?

But what about the millions of people with poor family/friends? Are they supposed to just roll over and die if they get sick?

And don't say 'but charity', we already know charity is massively insufficient.

They run over a pedestrian without insurance, now that pedestrian has no way to pay for their medical care.

> How do you justify the healthy paying for the unhealthy?

Because we live in a society, and in a society people help one another.

Because a lot of people (most, even) don't have the resources required to just up and move cities, let alone states.

Your 'solution' would be massively regressive - what if Texas decides to rescind Medicaid? Are those people who cant afford to move just SOL?

You can certainly pick a random real number from the unit interval.

As long as Kalinick is CEO they haven't done enough.

Are you seriously comparing the murder of millions of Jews to a multinational corporation ignoring taxi regulations?

Uber fanboys have lost their minds.

SpaceX and Tesla both have a long history of extremely shady labor practices.

You don't see how a multinational corporation running roughshod over a democratically elected government is a bad thing?

If they really believed that then they should have fought those laws in the political arena rather than just ignoring them.

So Greyball was fake? How about their Hell program? Or the fact that one of their executives illegally acquired a rape victims medical reports and circulated them around the office?

Uber has continuously demonstrated a total disregard for both the law and common decency. They lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago.

I'd take the Cessna every time.

Right, because delivering expensive drinks to lazy yuppies is the most important thing in the world.

>A drone flying over your property doesn't harm you at all.

Until it falls on your head. Not to mention the gross privacy violations that this allows.

There's a big difference between flying 1000 ft above private property in a properly licensed aircraft and flying 50 ft above.

How would it kill them? Getting permission of property owners is a hindrance, sure, but I'm not willing to give up privacy rights for the privilege of flying drones wherever I want.

Its no different than hunting, where you already have to get a license and ask for permission before going on to private property.

I'm against a complete ban, but there should definitely be more restrictions than we have currently. Strict licensing requirements and a total ban on flying over private property (without explicit, written permission) seem like no-brainers to me.