Saying "it's not democratic!" isn't a useful comment.
We know.
You might have learned that by now if you weren't so busy spreading dumb conspiracy theories on the internet.
They're all doing shady shit, but sometimes one of them hits on something useful.
Which ethics? Which morals? Yours?
Instead of merely repeating the questions, you should explain why the answers to those questions are wrong.
I think you're overly consumed with the political dramas of the present and haven't really thought through questions about what a good system of governance looks like.
You might want to understand the existing structure of government before you propose replacing it on a whim.
Here are some questions to get you started:
* Why is there a Constitution?
* Why are there 3 co-equal branches of government? What are they all there for?
* Why is there an electoral college?
* Why are Senators allocated by state while House members are allocated by population?
* Why do House members have 2 year terms and Senators have 6 year terms?
* Why do the courts exist?
* Why does the executive branch exist?
Is that because they don't "understand the dynamics of how economies work"?
As in, I could make $25k (at a level where the tax rate is effectively near-0) and still save > $5k per year.
The hard part, which barely gets any discussion is:
* How do incentives work? How do you incentivize the production of new wealth?
* How does immigration work? You can't have open borders and mountains of free stuff.
* Does this replace or augment existing welfare programs?
* Does this actually make people's lives better? How do you know? What happens if it doesn't work out?
And so on.
Proponents of Net Neutrality: What do your best and strongest critics say and where are they mistaken?Opponents of Net Neutrality: What are the best and strongest arguments against Net Neutrality.
The important point is that even under the most pessimistic assumptions people can get by AND build a secure retirement.
The "it can't be done" mentality is not justified in 2017 America.
My point is that even if you do make that for your entire life, you can still get by and build a secure retirement.
It's also true that most people tell themselves that very thing to justify buying dumb shit.
Saving $5.5k in an IRA every year for 40 years earning 7% ARR is a retirement nest egg of $1.1M dollars.
Median family income is $60k, making this 9% of the budget. Even if you earned say... $25k/yr ($12 per hour) for your entire life, you can afford to save $5.5k per year.
There is zero excuse for most people not emerging a millionaire at retirement.
"Hey guys. We should have a law against being an asshole."
"Nah, people seem pretty nice."
"I'll show you, fuckface!"
"How much of the problem is real and how much of it is inflicted by activists who are willing to burn down the world in order to 'win'?"
Here's CEO Matthew Price in his own words:
"Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet."
The reaction at the time was the same as the reaction here: I'm glad this guy's against Nazis, but he picked a very infantile way to show it.
People who run their businesses on CloudFlare get a little uneasy when they see a CEO randomly turning off websites because he "woke up in a bad mood".
In what whacky moral universe is this okay?
Most parents smack this out of their kids by the time they're 4.
The polite term for this is "concept creep".
If the only way you can defend your position is by invoking apocalyptic rhetoric, you might want to pick another hill to die on.
Regardless of your opinions on net neutrality, a roll back to 2015-era regulatory policy is not an extinction-level event. Obviously.