snappyTertle

And an even better question: Would we need to ask ourselves these questions if these nonsense laws didn't exist?

I think the better question is: Does the law that Uber is subverting make sense in the first place?

You want it out, but it's pretty clear other people don't. Why are you able to force your personal views on other?

You are free to choose not to use Uber, others are free to choose for themselves.

If the law is immoral, wouldn't forcing people to follow something immoral be immoral?

Voting is an illusion of choice. You have the choice to use Uber or not, You don't have a choice when it comes to following the law.

How is state not a huge corporation?

http://speedeoapp.com/ - Speed up almost any video on the web using a custom player.

This was made to scratch my own itch of wanting to watch videos at faster speeds. At first I had ads, but that wasn't making much. When I made it not free, it started pulling in about $500 a month.

A contract that we were born into without consent and no choice to be free of it? Sounds like slavery.

Slaves were given food and shelter for their labor. Sure, they didn't directly enjoy a majority of what they produced, but the marginal gains would benefit everyone else.

I absolutely agree with you. Taxation is, by definition, wealth redistribution..and theft by people in power!

I think the more important question is what are we spending taxes on? and why does it have to be decided by a bureaucratic monopoly that is above the law a.k.a. government? Shouldn't we have a choice in how we allocate our own resources? Is it not our own time and labor that we use to produce? Why does that belong to anyone else?

I'm not against helping others in need. But the important distinction is that is should be by choice not from coercion.

I agree that it is an opinion. It's a choice between liberty or equality, we can't have both. In order to make things equal, people are forced to give up their income.

Higher wages drive prices up, and price out less productive workers. Sure, the people who remain employed are better off. But what about everyone who has to pay higher prices, and workers who are now unable to find a job?

Why is it ok to tax profitable businesses/people for the sake of equality? I get it if they don't earn their profits fairly. Why should we steal from top producers and redistribute? Taxes should not be a means to redistribute wealth. It should be directly tied to whatever they are funding. More importantly, people should be free to chose what to spend their earnings on. Does the government own the people it governs? Does it have a claim in what people chose to produce? Having income tax forces everyone to pay for things they might not want (like a wall).

Inequality is not inherently a bad thing. People should be compensated for the value they produce. Profits are a signal of how much people value what is produced. For example, people love iPhones, it no surprise that Apple is the most valuable company in the world.

What causes resentment between classes is lack of mobility. This, IMO, is caused by government regulations and a banking system that hurts the middle class and below and benefits the people at the top.

We have a banking system where the federal reserve can make money out of thin air and inject it into banks. This shifts purchasing power to people in finance.

Regulations like minimum wage and higher taxes on larger income make it hard to hire the next marginal employee. Minimum wage prices out low skilled workers, who would like to work and obtain on the job experience needed to climb the ladder. High taxes makes it more expensive for business owners to hire someone. I'm not talking about large businesses like Walmart (they actually support minimum wage). Small businesses are going out of business, or are just not able to start with increased costs of doing business.

This is a vicious cycle where government intervention leads to rich getting richer, and the poor being more dependent on government programs and finding it harder to move up the ladder. So to fix this people beg for more government intervention, which worsens the problem...and on and on it goes.

Having a large group of people (including the Trump administration) not "believe" (in this case, beliefs shouldn't matter, we should be looking at facts) climate change is exactly why this should not be a public issue.

Once it's public, people vote for a blanket solution or government officials (by no means environment experts) decide what to do. Private companies should be free to innovate and try multiple different solutions where the best one sticks.

I don't think many people disagree that climate change exists. What's debated is what the proper solution is. Throwing public money necessarily diverts private resources. Who is to say gov't has a better solution? Would you really trust a bureaucratic monopoly led by Trump to come up with the best policy for energy? I don't think gov't should be in charge of picking favorites with regulations and grants.

Just because a law exists doesn't mean it's a good law. Uber is finding inefficient/protectionist laws and challenging their validity. I think that is better for the overall economy.