Who is 'we' in your arguments. Master? And why do you think laws exist? It's to protect the rich from being burned at the stake by reality. Societal agreements go both ways. You think it's to feign appeasement to the little piggie complaints and get them back to growing for your market day? You continue to dehumanise 'them' -- your neighbour into nothing more than an idiot who takes from your bottom line. Humans aren't a one way street to a compute problem, friend.

I'm going to ignore everything that sounds too weird to address. Philosophy major? Drinking on a Tuesday?

As for laws, we're almost in agreement. People want to argue about rights, but it seems to me the rules are a lot more about control. I could ramble on quite a bit about corruption at every level from local police to federal politicians. ... to copyright enforcement.

However, most of the rules were made before the current batch of super rich people got super rich, so there's something oversimplified in thinking it's just about protecting wealth.

My bottom line? Compute problem? Whatever. I think the rest is just more weirdness I can't make sense of.

This is exhausting. Just read a history book. Yes, power started with families. Then big families - kings and queens and y'know, we slowly but surely woke up to being a kinder humanity not a more brutal one. You'd have thought.

Art major. I don't drink. I debate hard ideas.

Well, since we agree the laws aren't about right or wrong, I guess you can appeal your case to the rich.

Yes. Master.