quote:

---

Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:

---

Originally written by Kasumetoru Sai:

But ultimately, any sort of argument that either argues for the existence of an upper-class or addresses its existence "pragmatically" purposefully ignores the notion inherent in the idea of an upper-class that it is somehow morally feasible to allow some people to have much larger sums of wealth than others.

---

Let's say bloke A has ten million dollars, and bloke B down the road has a billion. Bloke A can whine that his mansion isn't as big as Bloke B's, but I don't really see any moral problems here with allowing this situation to continue.

Similarily, if you work your backside off and contribute a lot to society while I kind of bum around and just work enough to scrape by and feed my 2 minute noodle addiction, I figure it's fair enough that you get rewarded better.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Vizhunairee:

In that sense, completely free speech (and writing) would also make copyrights impossible. Those restrict someone's ability to speak or write too. Thinking of government secrets as information that the government has copyrighted for its own protection covers the only justifiable exception to free speech that I can think of. You have the right to say or write anything you want as long as it's your own original words, but when it's someone else's, that other party may have the right to prevent it from being said.

—Alorael, who is not ready to believe that open-source everything is viable. Open-source government will be a long time in coming.

---