Saffire

Of course not. It's like writing a poem. If someone reads the poem a thousand times, do they owe me a thousand dollars? Or do they owe me one dollar for the privilege of seeing my poem? The poem isn't in limited supply, and therefore isn't subject to the laws of economics. You may consider it unethical to not compensate the artist, but that's up to the individuals who appreciate the art - what is the song worth to them?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAOhgVw78e3U So says America's Central Bank.

lmao, at this rate Britain will be covered in pillows by 2030.

I think energy-saving light bulbs are awesome, but why do we have to force them on people? One of these days there will be affordable, bright, and balanced LED lightbulbs that produce a shine exactly like what the Sun produces. People will voluntarily switch to those when they're in mass-production. Governments constantly do this. They make an assumption, "Everyone should have this." and then people suffer because of it for 10 years, then when the technology finally matures and becomes affordable, they point back to that law and say, "Look, if it wasn't for us, nobody would have it today!" They did this with seatbelts, food safety, etc. Consumers are smarter than the government gives them credit for.

Why should I care what you think? You're a bitch. *whack* There. A bitchslap for a bitch.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8221599.stm Holy Bob Saget. I have a hard time imagining Amerika's Supreme Court ever saying something like this. Go Argentina! Land of the free.

There is no such thing as "intellectual property". These are victimless "crimes". The politicians are hoping to spend a few nights on the record label executives' yachts.

How, exactly, is any politician's career "fruitful"? All they do is vote. They contribute nothing of value to society.

Okay, "conspiracy" theories or not, let's take a look at this logically; The reason we have a government, which confiscates half our income and makes us slaves to our neighbors, is to protect us from criminal activity and other governments. It's a "necessary evil" (or so they say). But it failed on 9/11. It failed to protect us. We already had the most massive military in the world, the most expensive intelligence operations, etc. We already had violations of the 4th amendment, 2nd amendment, etc. Yet it still failed. Government cannot protect you. It exists solely to protect itself.

Here comes the Ted Kennedy Memorial Healthcare Bill That You Must Vote For Or Risk Looking Like You Don't Care About Dead People.

Simple solution: raise taxes, and quit your whining. Oh that's right, you can't raise your taxes because they're already astronomically high! The inevitable result when you make everyone a slave to everyone else.

They are poor because they are stupid. Because of the choices they make: where they live, how much they save, etc.

Oh, if only she had been jailed two years! Then she would have gone on to become a successful surgeon! :laugh3:

Further proof that the flow of capital is not arbitrary, and that money accumulates toward those who are the best allocators of it. It's why government and poor people are perpetually in debt; they are both brutish creatures of the same nature, inelegant in their thinking.

Boycotts of entire countries are stupid, because they end up hurting innocent business owners and their employees. Targetted retribution makes more sense.

All laws are whims, except natural laws. Natural laws include things like gravity and property rights (including self-ownership). The enforcement of superfluous man-made "laws" inevitably violates these natural laws.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A763HO0 Fantastic news! Now they can actually get started on treating addiction rather than attacking the addicts.

My problem isn't with the fact he was freed... it's with the free security he received courtesy the taxpayers. He should have been let loose to the public! My guess is his prostate cancer would be the least of his concerns then.

Maybe Brazil is in a bubble that prevents them from emitting CO2 and affecting global warming. That could be the only explanation for this! Besides rank hypocrisy.

That tattoo behind her ear is breathtaking. I know what I'm getting myself for my birthday!

Does anybody else think it's hilarious there was a Nazi man who pretended to be a woman to compete in the high jump? Saturday Night Live should bring back the "Pat" character and make her/him a Nazi. :laugh3:

No, don't you see? This particular government program will create efficiencies and cut costs.

Colduser, as I understand it you're gay. Governments haven't always been very friendly to gays! But I think among intelligent people the dispute about whether Anarchy is good is typically centered around its utilitarian aspects. Would the weak really perish in anarchy? I don't think so. Am I a lover of disorder and chaos? Not at all, I love order, and I believe freedom begets ultimate order. Many people say that anarchy would work well "in theory", and of course that's what I'd say about government. But we've had plenty of government experiments in the past, and they rarely "work"... I'd love to see anarchy given a serious try. Here's an article for you to read: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap12a.asp Also, according to Matt Drudge the Democrats are planning on "going it alone" on the healthcare bill... whether that means they will include universal coverage or not, I don't know. Maybe the American people will do the prudent thing and swing back to the Republican side next time they're allowed to herd into their voting apparati. :rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1 Well this is sort of a legal game-changer! Let's make a DNA database of everyone so we can plant evidence at crime scenes!