For a market to be free, there must be actual competition. If the goal is to keep the market free, then the role of the government is to intervene to ensure a state of competition when such state does not exist.
If the goal is not to have a free market, then the role of government is to intervene and regulate the monopoly/oligopoly to ensure that people's constitutional rights are preserved and the monopoly is not used to obtain additional power or additional monopolies. AT&T was such a monopoly for many decades. They were prohibited from entering other businesses as it would just result in them expanding their monopoly.
There's a number of references to anti-Japanese sentiment in the article. Was that due to the ongoing imperialism of the Japan Empire at the time? For example, they had just annexed Korea in 1910.
Yep. This is an established pattern and practice by California.
Here's a famous one:
> Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, Inc., for the 2009 fiscal year was publicly posted; the document included the names and addresses of hundreds of donors.
The problem with Jira is that it is checkbox software, designed to sail through the checkbox procurement processes that large organizations have. "It checks all the boxes!"
Because of this, it is basically jello. It is everything, and it is nothing.
It makes nothing simple, and encourages people to overachieve with the tool. If you overachieve with the tool, you will underachieve on what it is you're really trying to do.
This is why much simpler tools are better. They are usually free, or at least a lot less expensive, and they come with constraints that you have to live within. Usually those constraints prevent you from going tool crazy, and guide you to actually focus on getting work done instead of doing performance art with Jira.
Guilty until you prove yourself innocent. It's efficient, but unethical and immoral.
Requiring large entities such as government or monopolies to consider you innocent until proven guilty in a 3rd party controlled system, such as a court, is a fundamentally important check on power.
Fear ruins everything. As adults, we fear failure, so we try to prevent our kids from experiencing it. As adults, we fear not winning, so we re-invent games so there are no winners. Everyone wins! (except everyone actually loses). We fear lawsuits, so we don't let kids play on our property, and we don't let them skateboard, and we don't let them do things unless its an organized activity with licensed/bonded/insured supervision.
We have friends who get calls from "concerned neighbors" because their child is a block away playing at a park with no adult supervision. Any wanker can call cps and make your life miserable, and the wealthier the area, the more cps tends to meddle. Montgomery county mentioned in the sibling comment is one of the most well-to-do counties in the country and also a place I would not ever consider raising a child in due to cps actions there.
There are many times when the political, religious, or other leanings of people committing these crimes have been misrepresented by 'media' organizations and politicians and others pushing an agenda, and trying to tie the despicable acts to their opponents, etc., or to make political points.
I've seen far left crazies characterized as far right. I've seen atheists characterized as being christian. I've seen mentally ill people characterized as following some ideology.
In this sort of environment, cutting off access to raw sources just makes these kinds of mischaracterizations even easier to do.
Cutting off people's ability to communicate does not have any benefit. All it does is signal that those cutting off the communication do not have a better idea, or do not know how to sell their idea. It strengthens the hand of those being censored by giving them a real grievance, and makes it more likely that they will find other ways to express their views, which will likely be more violent.