Division of labor. The men worked, the women stayed home.

Things went to hell for single-parent families

Nobody has ever succeeded adjusting the Law of Supply & Demand. Not even the die hard communists.

I’ll be sure to bring a posse of gunmen to my next negotiation.

Every well functioning market has ground rules. We call that laws.

And every well-functioning market has enforcer of said ground rules. We call that government.

Believing that the market is unregulated is faith-driven nonsense, which flies in the face of evidence.

A free market requires laws that protect property rights and prevent people from using force and fraud against others.

"Your signature on the contract or your brains" is not a free market transaction.

Why does it require it? To what aim does this serve the market?

A check against fraud and protection of property rights can be achieved through force and violence and the threat of violence, so that answer seems inadequate.

Likewise, supply and demand is definitely affected by government policies. The supply of labor, for example, by allowing or disallowing near shore or off-shore work with steep penalties. Or allowing/disallowing gambling.

So that also flies in the face of evidence.

It’s a self-serving, faith-based belief that that desires to put “market forces” beyond the reach of voters. It’s also a colossal delusion.

> Why does it require it?

The idea is that transactions then become mutually beneficial.

You cannot vote away the Law of Supply and Demand any more than you can legislate pi=3.00

Leadership and management problem, exacerbated by the Chicago school.

Good, knowledgable employees are not fungible. The in-house culture that built the engineering takes an entire generation to build.

The winner-take-all MBA class of the 1980s to the 2000s and the congressional leadership developed during this era are squarely at fault and their policies need to be replaced.

Don’t even.

Unlike vaccines, the patent misbehavior by Monsanto says otherwise about GMO.

That's not an issue with GMOs. That's an issue with patents and attempts to restrict replanting.

That’s basically the face of GMOs, so it is an issue for GMOs. GMOs for whatever reason have a terrible ambassador and I haven’t seen evidence to the contrary.

For vaccines, a good portion of the population remember vaccines being developed and marketed to help people. Then there are immigrants that remember more recently how life changing vaccines are.

The user privacy can’t be overstressed. It and a sane release cycle are what keeps me on Apple.

it means nothing when the UX is hot garbage

I spend my entire day in VSCode and Chrome. Who actually interacts with the built-in OS UI anymore?

That argument falls flat, when considering regions like the Ukraine that are fighting for survival today.

And when contrasting with earlier times like the Civil War, where a draft was unpopular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrollment_Act

Drafts, and by extension wars, should be unpopular. War should be the last resort that no one wants to take. No one should be cheering for a war they won't have to participate in.

War has become too remote and comfortable for most Americans.

I don't think I follow why your examples contradict the argument. A draft will always be unpopular.

I misread.

I saw the television portion and thought you meant the televised war was what made it all too real.

A formal declaration of war by Congress is the minimum.

Otherwise I agree that the incentives are warped.

Now you're talking crazy talk. Congress stepping up and fulfilling its constitutional role?

You don’t speak for the majority.

The music and atmosphere was gorgeous. Fond memories of wasted youth

I never finished the game, sadly.

Thanks. Tinkering is how I learn and this is what I’ve been looking for.