> the irony of grossly overcompensated tech workers defending anti-theft side effects.
Who are you to say that these people are grossly overcompensated? Why do you think it's an acceptable implication that because someone is well compensated that they do not have property rights against theft?
It seems to me this is another one of those "here's a thing that makes it harder for people to commit crimes, and criminals and criminal apologists flock to defend crime." threads.
Who are you to say that these people are grossly overcompensated? Why do you think it's an acceptable implication that because someone is well compensated that they do not have property rights against theft?
It seems to me this is another one of those "here's a thing that makes it harder for people to commit crimes, and criminals and criminal apologists flock to defend crime." threads.