I feel as though I've been sent to sit in the corner with a dunce cap for daring to criticize a piece of journalism that equates releasing NSA spy tools on the black market with government whistleblowing.
How about stating that the CIA will, despite being a civilian organization, adopt the oath of the UCMJ. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
I don't know why you got down voted. You're absolutely right. Most everyone will tell you, "Its about maxing total compensation as much as you can to boost your overall earnings!"
Good luck with burning out at 35 with no passive income streams. I'd rather build equity, and even have a couple of rental properties from being a top 10% earner in a smaller area. That's a million dollar piggy bank being filled by someone else AND a passive income stream on which to retire.
I think I got the gist of OP's comment... Computer programmers make higher than the average salary. If you're barely making ends meet as a programmer your significant other is probably NOT making ends meet. Living together and sharing expenses saves some money but you'll probably be just about back where you started once you're married and co-habitating with your spouse.
Try to lock you in a room? You've already let them go to far. They try to physically stop you at the door, just keep walking. If it escalates from there, quickly consult local laws and your attorney for acceptable responses.
I believe the standard "party line" on housing costs would be something akin to Sweden. Purchasing a property for the explicit purpose of renting it is de-facto barred. Its not illegal but must be approved by your local tenant/owner association (like a condo board or home owner's association). This has the net effect of raising rents, making it extremely difficult to rent in the first place, while keeping home ownership within reach for nearly everyone due to depressing any kind of housing bubble or gentrification through property acquisition and flipping.
Do you distinguish between truly competitive capitalism and modern acquisition based growth? I will admit I only know about these topics from exchanges with peers such as this and haven't made it a study. I feel that modern capitalism... What I would call, "Militaristic" capitalism eliminates competition in the market, foments monopolistic practices, but drives global market growth and competition.
How would you describe your views on competition in the market and whether monopolies are desirable or inevitable in today's market?
Natural monopolies are OK, as long as they are not coercive (i.e. use laws, lobbying and other non-market means to cement their established position). Free market natural monopolies are usually short-lived — they might enjoy the economies of scale, but this advantage rapidly becomes offset by their bureaucratic inefficiencies.
When combined with coercive forces of the government, the ineffective monopoly might stay on the market much longer than can be warranted by competency only. Therefore, revolving door-type monopolies are bad and ought to be disrupted, including by legal means.
When is lobbying appropriate in your view? Is it the responsibility of government to facilitate the opening of new markets, for instance? As with TTIP?
How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm? How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market?
Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate?
*Your ideas don't sound very different from the form of capitalism practiced in America today which is a pretty far cry from the extreme ideas about free-market libertarian ideals I'm used to from fans of Ayn Rand. What are some principles you find appealing in her writing?
Lobbying is appropriate when it helps resolve market inefficiencies created by outdated legal quirks, not the other way around. I think the US approach is reasonable — lobbying should be legal, transparent, monitored and regulated. I can understand why it was decided this way.
> Is it the responsibility of government to facilitate the opening of new markets, for instance?
Technically, yes. However (under the current concept of sovereignty), some things can be obligatory in home territory but only "nice to have" abroad. Therefore, globally, it is more right than obligation (subject to costs-benefits analysis).
> As with TTIP?
I do not have enough expertise in international law and trade agreements to judge TTIP in its entirety. So far, I know that there are some good things there (steps to establish global markets operating transparently), and not so good things (mostly related to intellectual property laws, which are messed up).
> How do you square a free market with a global economy where free markets are not the norm?
With diplomatic and cultural efforts. Often it is enough to somehow show people that free market alternative exists. E.g. USSR was strictly controlling who could see what beyond its borders, otherwise it wouldn't survive that long.
> How do you compete with state owned and operated business? Do you let these companies participate in your free market?
It depends. If they are willing to participate on the same set of rules as everyone, and the government itself is not known for some atrocities, then yes, it will be allowed. Government business usually is not that efficient, and there is no coercion power beyond government's own domain.
> Are there any other instances you can imagine besides preventing revolving door monopolies where regulation might be appropriate?
Some. Ayn Rand wanted to abolish FDA and all healthcare-related regulations; I am not so sure about that (though these should be rooted from up-level laws preventing fraud in general). Some military-related stuff (you don't export arms to state enemies), etc.
Incidentally, all of this is strangely similar to the current US economic and foreign policy. I have to think more about that. I am not even American.
As long as we're all stuck in the "Breakfast Club" for veering away from "the facts" might as well read something relevant: http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/huxley-to-orwell-my-helli...