Liberty and freedom aren't the same things. If you're in complete solitary, sure you have complete freedom. But what does that matter? That doesn't comment on how we should structure our societies. Liberty isn't unchecked freedom for every individual. Unchecked freedom for every individual would in fact run counter to preserving liberty for every individual. Unchecked freedom means I can steal your stuff or kill you. Liberty means the opposite; I'm free to do as I please as long as it doesn't infringe your ability to do the same.
Farrrrrrr from it. Humans don't behave perfectly rationally. Humans often behave badly, in fact. I think you'd agree businesses are just humans (as are governments). That means they get all the beautiful and ugly traits we bring to them. That's why a strong legal framework to prevent business/other humans from using coercion against you and I is a great idea! That is what government is for!
“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”
― Hayek
Well, their comment is flagged now so I can't directly quote it (drats). More or less they said, "private schools are indicative of racism". In other words, people who send their kids to private schools are racist or support racist constructs? Racism is fairly malevolent.
Classes are always going to exist, friend. People will also always look out for their and their family's best interest before the collective's. Those are all constants and they aren't malevolent. What is malevolent is calling people racist for withdrawing support for a clearly broken system when their children are at stake.
Is the goal simply to boost the numbers of some arbitrary group of people clumped together because of their immutable characteristics? Or is the goal to improve the output and speed of innovation in an industry by exposing more people to it? If it's the former, you're probably right. If it's the latter, being concerned about sacrificed quality is not "BS".
I don't know the official numbers, but just from looking around I'd say space is about 50% filled. They do have a lot of construction going on so lease numbers might be higher. It is a very cool office space
"No direct Harm Vs. Harm" is essentially "No Harm Vs. Harm". The "direct" is only included to limit it's interpretations or to be more specific. Proving "direct harm", in this case, is proving "harm". Without being able to prove a direct causal relationship, the government would have no justification to act.
Inaccurately and purposefully yelling "fire!" in a crowded space is a direct attempt to cause panic. In other words, you would never be prosecuted for yelling "fire!" in a crowded space when there actually was a fire. It is not the act of yelling "fire!" that is illegal, it is purposefully causing a false panic that is illegal.
Included "directly" very intentionally. I'm of the mind set that you never give government subjective authority over something. You put up very strict guardrails for their power. "Indirectly harming others" is way too subjective and leaves far too much room for abuse of power/corruption. I don't judge laws by their best meant intentions, but by their worst case scenarios.
Agreed it is probably a bad state to be in; Chinese companies buying up ours. But if I own a company, I shouldn't need permission from Washington to do with it as I please as long as I'm not defrauding or directly harming others. Freedom is messy.
Blame the state! A complicated, unwieldy tax code is their/our fault. They created an untenable system that got in the way of you entering into a mutually beneficial contract with another individual(s). It is 100% their fault.
I doubt any stats on this exists, so I'm referring to my own anecdotal experience. In my small hometown in northern NJ, they did, in fact, shut them down frequently. Unless you can prove otherwise, I am not sure the point of your comment.
If I had to make an admittedly uneducated guess, I bet females being more self-sacrificing than men can be seen across species. It would only make sense that the sex generally responsible for child-rearing would be the sex most likely to self-sacrifice.
I know nowadays, especially in the tech scene, it is frowned upon to suggest intrinsic differences between the sexes and to imply those differences can affect behavior at a statistical level, but with this fascinating historical context, it's an interesting thought.
Country time lemonade is a lemonade mix brand. In the US anyone constructing a stand on their own property to sell/attempt to sell lemonade (or anything) without permission from the government is illegal. So, an 8 year old is bored, puts out a table and tries to make a couple bucks off his neighbors, he is technically breaking the law. They frequently get shut down (or even ticketed). Country Time is attempting to get some good press by saying they will help people avoid legal fees