Not building something because it will allow poorer people to move around our cities more easily is just wrong no matter what the consequences. There are also criminals and kids who strut around and flex from rough areas of town that have cars. Should we get rid of roads that connect those neighborhoods to the rest of the city?

These issues just reveal deep problems we have as a society and the solution we have had so far of trying to avoid it at all costs only making it worse.

Atheism isn't a belief system predicated on the existence of supernatural forces for whom we have no evidence. Wouldn't call it brainwashing.

You can't opt in to "atheistic teaching", it's simply the result of not opting in to any of the religious options.

You probably can indoctrinate someone with atheism, but it is, as you say, alao a potential outcome of rejecting the other options.

Can you define “atheistic teaching”?

The mental gymnastics to justify piracy as anything other than theft is always interesting to watch.

So is the substitution of moral smugness for complex thought.

I highly recommend The Dispatch. They make a point of not being click-baity and try to give thoughtful takes instead of reactionary ones.

It is a trade-off which is not always acknowledged. It is not something that has 0 potentially negative consequences. And the competition and innovation that is stifled is often invisible (hard to see what could have been).

If you had less intervention with respect to privacy would there be more dynamic market-driven initiatives to fill the gaps? Would there be more incentive to develop technology that would be effective for privacy? I don't know.

Regulation is just hard because reality is complex and dynamic and regulation is often complex but not very dynamic.

> If you had less intervention with respect to privacy would there be more dynamic market-driven initiatives to fill the gaps?

This is hilarious. Because we had that, and it was lacking, to put it mildly. And some people still have that, in a way that's easy to compare (e.g. EU vs US, CA vs other states). For me, the results are in and obvious. Privacy regulations are the only thing that reflects the privacy externalities they might impose on society back onto them (and the shareholders).

Yes, a pebble in the shoe of Google but could be a mountain in the way of smaller company.

The cost of GDPR is mostly related to technical debt, not company size. A small company with little debt will not face any issues with GDPR. Google just bet on they themselves having much less technical debt than the other giants.

1. No one assumes that they have perfect information. No one says this is perfect just better than the other ways to handle these situations!

2. Who do you think will consistently have better information than someone whose sole goal is to sell these tickets?

3. If they are consistently losing money scalping and not selling tickets they won't be a scalper much longer.

4. This is a dynamic process which can account for changing variables regarding supply and demand quickly as opposed to rules and regulations which do not.

5. If they only sell half the tickets at 4x then they could sell the last half at an extreme discount and make even more than double their investment! Do you think they would rather make more money or less?

For 5. consider the diamond industry as a real world example of an industry well renowned for aggressively limiting supply.

Scarcity can drive price upwards in an exponential way that ends up making it optimal to not sell all inventory. Sure in an ideal world you would sell everything you can for the maximum price but in the real world the buyer is incentivized to wait until you offer your minimal price.

I recognize this "absurd" point.

Right, but most don't. Maybe try and understand what I'm saying.

"Unhindered capitalism"

"it has been balanced with more progressive policies."

That doesn't sound like unhindered capitalism.

Times when capitalism has been unhindered have led to market crashes, galloping inequality and depressions. Times when capitalism has been balanced with progressive policies have led to stability and growth, not only for the already rich.

So that sounds like a mixed economy is best where capitalism provides the growth and progressive policies counter balance the bad tendencies.

That's certainly a respectable opinion, yes, but some believe that these progressive policies are only possible temporarily or in countries that use various legal and kinetic means to maintain an advantage over other countries, etc..., so it's not a settled question that social democracy is the end of history.

I think the trouble other folks are having with your prior comment was that there has never been an "Unhindered capitalism" anywhere on Earth within the last several hundred years. Religious, societal, political, etc., factors beyond, and in addition to capitalism, have always held significant sway in any society that has been realized so far.

Capitalism is to be understood as a political economy, not as some abstract economic-only concept that is impossible. A political economy is more capitalist in so far as private ownership of capital faces fewer restrictions and insofar as power is correlated to political ownership. Like all political systems, there are practical limits, but a system in which the power of capital is unrestrained and where very few restrictions to capital ownership exist can be called "unhindered capitalism", and these certainly existed.

So by "unhindered capitalism" you mean “partially-hindered capitalism”?

No, I mean unhindered capitalism, capitalism being a real political economy rather than the impossible to define purely economical conception of capitalism. Capitalism is not just an economic system, it has necessary political implication, such as a strong state, an active police force, a class system, etc...

Why would you assign 100% of the ‘real political economy’ to capitalism, given the very obvious existence of non-capitalist forces that exist in the ‘real political economy’?

I don't, but it's clear that there were societies where the vast majority of the political power served capital, so from then on you can say that they were unhindered capitalism. Of course, there is always some political power that is not wielded by capitalists, even merely because the state requires a military and capitalism requires the state, but since that is inherent to capitalism it can still be said to be part of capitalism without any restraint.

‘ but since that is inherent to capitalism it can still be said to be part of capitalism without any restraint.’

It certainly seems like your assigning 100% of it.

It is inherent to capitalism that not 100% of political power belong to capitalists, yes. That's not equivalent to what you claim I said.

If they don’t have 100%, how can they engage in unhindered capitalism? If the other forces hold even 1% of the total, they by definition can hinder the capitalist forces.

The original argument is essentially "if this action is so easy then how can you make it illegal?" which is not a very good argument as pointed out. Your argument is about the morality of this action which is quite different.