The disadvantages to soylent are taste, chewing difficulty/calories, preparation, it stops up your digestive tract, and takes much longer to become usable energy.
The disadvantages to soylent are taste, chewing difficulty/calories, preparation, it stops up your digestive tract, and takes much longer to become usable energy.
I also did not say that "valuing liberty" has a negative influence. That is not how I was using the word "libertarian"
Nor did I say ideological motivation should not or does not play a role in prosecuting crimes. Whether it should or not is probably not important--because ideology does play a role prosecution, particularly in jurisdictions where they're elected.
As you know, motive (mens rea) is an element of some criminal charges, including murder. Motivation matters basically for public policy reasons--for example, we punish hate crimes more harshly because we, as a society, decided crimes motivated by hate are more damaging to society & harsher punishment is a deterant. Similarly, sometimes "crimes of passion" are punished less harshly, because society has decided that harsher punishment would not be a deterrant or effective.
What I said was: ideology is not a defense. And, in Travis's & Ross's cases, such ideology is more likely to increase, rather than mitigate, liability.
And, what I meant was: neither Uber nor the Silk Road would, could or should attempt to assert a defense based on not consenting to CA law, democracy, and/or denying the legitimacy of federal courts. Not only will it irritate the humans whose legitimacy is being questioned, but such a defense is not procedurally permissible in any court that I am aware of. Basically, it won't help either of them--its more likely to increase liability than anything else.
My sense is that we define words like libertarian quite differently, so I'm going to leave it here.
Regardless, whether its Ross, Travis or anyone else, why would or should ideological motivation be relevant to whether or not any given act is legal or how it should be punished?
When libertarians, for whatever reason, choose to start businesses in CA, they are explicitly consenting to our government & to obeying our democratically enacted laws. Ideology is not a shield for consequences--and, for both Travis & Ross, using Ayn Rand to justify their behavior only makes them less sympathetic to judges, prosecutors & juries.
I didnt work for the Justice Department, but this appears to not be consistently logical. If ideology doesnt matter, why does valuing liberty negatively influence a judge's or prosecuter's actions towards you? That doesn't seem right.
Also, if ideological motivation should not play a role in prosecuting crimes, then why does our justice system sometimes do the opposite (consider hate crimes, or other cases where motivation is considered when prosecuting crimes, i.e. different versions of murder charges.)
1. there are evil people, but
2. those people frequently have more social power than nice people, and
3. the evil people will use their social power to paint nice people as evil (i.e. "bullying.")
If you're defining the laws for a community or society, or the Terms of Use for a piece infrastructure for such a community/society to use—then it behooves you to consider that any "hammers" built into your system will mostly be used by those with power against those without it, regardless of which side is "correct."
So: If you let people speak freely, the powerful will shout down the powerless. But if you let people silence others, then the powerful will silence the powerless.
Morally, it really comes down to a choice of which kind of hammer hurts wronged innocent powerless people the least. (Which can often mean offering no hammer that can truly be used to "deal with" obviously-evil people.)
Not saying that's a bad option, just different.
Hell, by your logic, the U.S. Senate before the 20th Century wasn't elected because they were elected by state legislatures instead of popular elections.
People keep trying to either spin globalism as evil or good, but it's neither. It's just something that was going to happen no matter what. The US does not have a say in whether it happens. If the US doesn't figure out a way to make it work for them, then they'll be replaced by whichever country does.
The answer is not passing laws for tariffs or thinking the US can race to the bottom with low wages and manufacturing. The world desperately needs advanced technology and medicine, and the US should be focused on that, not stupidly trying to compete with literally every other single country on Earth on things any country can produce.
You are also misunderstanding by conflating globalism with free trade. The two are related, but not the same. You can be for free trade of goods and services, but not for unelected central powers (i.e. an EU, a central bank).
Mainstream academic economists are typically free trade, but we have no science to test this theory so just br careful about drinking too much of the kool aid. LarGe corps, banks, and US gov generally want globalism. Keep in mind why they want that (profit and power). We still have a lot of people suffering in 2017 and no longer a good excuse for it (i.e. resources scarcity cant explain malnutrition anymore).
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/inside-rolex
Certainly nowhere on the scale or awe of what the large automakers like Toyota or Honda have done, but impressive nonetheless (to a layman like me, at least)
You mentioned being software development, and as a skilled craftsperson in that field naturally you prize function over display. But two professional investors might eye each others' Rolexes to to signal both a sufficiently high level of disposable income that they can afford not to care about purely utilitarian factors, and as a sign of willingness to comply with an unwritten social norm rather than insisting on the superiority of their own taste/judgment in every circumstance.
What's ostentatious to the outsider may be an expression of humility to the insider: 'I'm willing to pay the price for this entry ticket on my wrist, but did not come here this evening to try to one-up everyone else.' At the opposite end of the social scale, you might wear a black leather jacket to fit in at the local punk club, but if your leather jacket was of too obviously high quality the other punks would doubtless consider you a wanker.
Please consider the possibility that you are undervaluing the social engineering function of the expensive watch by focusing on the technical engineering criteria.
Also, the above poster's assertion this is proce discrimination is plainly wrong and uninformed. This has nothing to do with price discrimination.