The consequences of the big government's War on Fat will be felt for generations. The loving and caring lesser governments even went so far as to outright banning butter in public schools...

Libertarians hate being proven right...

USSR — and then Russia — were/are the supporters and often outright instigators of most of the world's terrorism and other evil.

All efforts should be aimed on defeating that first and foremost.

If the Ukrainians are on the tip of that spear today, they must not lack for weapons, supplies, nor other support.

And you represent the essence of neo-feudalism where my bank account is the sole determiner of my worth to society and those poor's should just die more efficiently to pave the way for the glorious ubermensch to rule the masses.

You libertarian types

There is nothing — zero — in the Libertarian doctrine, that mentions anything anywhere near the strawman you attributed to me. Indeed, your verbiage is straight out of the most infamous (though not the most evil) Statist of all L-)

Live on a different planet. Go live where you are alone and die well there.

This is an interesting attitude — considering, that Libertarians don't at all mind other people organizing themselves into any kind of Collectives they genuinely want to. A Libertarian government wouldn't touch you — as long you don't coerce anyone to join you.

It is the other way around, that is impossible — Statists wouldn't leave the Libertarians be. So, if anyone ought to be exiled to a different planet, it is you — the oppressors — not us...

Yeah it looks like Putin is going to be your new best buddy.

On the contrary, that is quite less likely now, that we've avoided Obama's fourth term.

Baltic nations said this week they are investigating whether the cutting of two fiber-optic undersea telecommunication cables in the Baltic Sea was sabotage.

Of course, it was. We even know, who the saboteurs are.

Though the collective "Biden" may not realize it, Russia's been at war with the West for many years... They started it, and we ought to end it — on our terms.

I knew, I could count on you to refill my mug any time it runneth empty. Not that there is any danger of that at the moment :-)

Have fun applying for a new job at 50. Especially after the gut the labor board and age discrimination is legal.

This quote represents the very essence of Statism. It openly admits, that government needs to — indeed, must — maintain and enforce rules, which would compel people to hire those, whom they don't want to hire.

It is quite funny, that these are the same Statists, who are trying to scare us, that it is the other side, that "threaten our freedoms"...

Tell me more about "my kind."

Your kind is Collectivist — people valuing the (glorious) Collective above the (cantankerous and selfish) Individual.

Oh, you may be genuinely aghast about GULAG and Holocaust, but you're not in the slightest against government ownership — or strict control —of the means of production, are you?

The former would make you a Communist, the latter — a Fascist (like most of the Western establishment nowadays) — and I don't really care, which side of this murderous coin you personally prefer.

Making that pesky document known as American Constitution into a "living and breathing" one, which (emphasis added): "evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended " is just a tool towards the end of spreading the Collectivism wider, and your kind — be it a Slashdot-poster or a UChicago law-professor — are happy to use it.

I simply pointed out your self-inconsistency — you don't want the same "life and breath" for the Ten Commandments; because that would make your theft of content harder to justify.

That said, I'm impressed, that such ethical justifications are still something you look for — even if in the wrong places — maybe, there is still hope.

Finally, back to the topic — your "Insightful" argument is that of semantics: your (implied) defense of the practice of theft of content is simply "oh, it is not theft". Well, it is wrong for the same reasons as the theft of a tangible object would be. Whatever you want to call it, it is simply unethical — and you're wrong.

Knowledge is its own reward, whether it translates into financial gain or not. If you can afford longer education — or can find someone willing to sponsor you (not the taxpayer forced to do it) — go for it...

Whether spending that time and resources in a formally-recognized graduate school is the best way to learn — that's another question...

unapproved copying here, not theft

That's a distinction without difference, as argued rather convincingly by various victims of it over the years. Whether you're offering someone else's content to others (a form of theft known as "plagiarism"), or just consuming it yourself without the creator's permission, it is theft for all intents and purposes.

Had the 10 Commandments been a "living and breathing document" — like the US Constitution is alleged to be by your kind — the "Though shalt not copy content without approval" would've been found in it by now.

Difficult to feel bad for an industry

Difficult to feel bad for criminals stealing neither food nor lifesaving medicines, but entertainment.

Hollywood was built on infringement and theft

Seriously? It is Ok to steal content, because Thomas Edison did something unwholesome 100 years ago? Do you want to justify stealing electric bulbs from a hardware store by the same misdeeds of its inventor?

For some reason movies and tv shows aren't handled the same by western culture.

This is simply not true. There are movies offered by libraries. Here is a sample from Brooklyn Public Library in New York. 40+ thousands of entries...

We could argue, whether a thief is justified stealing food for his hungry baby. But there is no possible justification for theft of entertainment.

If you find it too expensive, just don't watch it. Go for a walk, read a book (from the free public library), whatever.

Or, if you're stealing it, at least, don't post excuses blaming the victims on Slashdot...

And, yes, they are victims — of your theft — and we know this, because, when we talk of independent photographers, for example, Slashdot's sympathies are on the victims' side.

Big corporations sitting in their corporationy buildings are easy to hate, but from the legal and ethical perspectives there is no difference between them trying to sell their content and the one-person operations trying to profit from his...

This is really old news. Drones capable of hitting the target selected by the operator, when they are still at a distance, where they remain impervious to the electronic countermeasures (jamming) have been operating in Ukraine for at least a year...

were only intended for use in wartime

Quit lying. No only in wartime. The law, which I cited for you, leaves it up for the President. Yes, a war is mentioned, but also "state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency". Roosevelt — a Fascist and an actual thread to democracy — signed these words ninety years ago, and it bothered you none..

Trump could have declare that very "public peril" in 2020, when American cities were burning because of the lies surrounding the death of George Floyd — he would've been right, the public really was in peril as police precinct were burning. He could have, but he didn't...

Meanwhile, Trump's enemies — you among them — were perfectly happy with government shutting down any debate on origins of COVID and the possible treatments. Similarly, it was Trump's enemies — you among them — who were threatening social media companies with "oversight", because "self-policing has failed".

It was Trump's enemies — you among them — who compelled those social media companies to suppress the perfectly truthful story of Hunter Biden's laptop until after the previous elections.

Hey, lie Trump's enemies — you among them — it is not the government banning you from Facebook, it is Facebook itself. Never mind our twisting Facebook's arm to do that.

It was Trump's enemies — you among them — who wanted to punish for "misinformation", and you turn around and (falsely) accuse me of desiring a Ministry of Truth?

Now, who is the "threat to democracy" again?