The guarantee is not a need, it is an opportunity that your potential effective employees are looking for. If you deny them that opportunity, they will look elsewhere and be highly effective for someone else.
If you are offering your employees a paycheck, that is all they will work for. If you give them your companies assets, capital, and control over the org structure, then that is what they will work for. If you're offering them the opportunity to work on interesting problems, then maybe guarantee it in an employment contract. There is no reason to blame anyone for working to acquire the only things you're actually offering.
That's true up to a point. But chances are, they will eventually have corporate leadership that is desperate to make a profit, and they'll seriously consider doing the same thing.
>why annoy people who've already paid you with the crapware?
Why make money once when you can make it twice? Where's the incentive for businesses to give you what you want, when you can instead just take what they offer?
Have you heard the phrase "know your audience"? A professional comedian should. Because if they don't, they might not produce any laughs. And if they can't do that, how are they going to get paid?
If freedom of speech didn't have to justify its value, you wouldn't need legislators to enact it as a law. Legislators aren't going to legislate without justification, and they shouldn't.
You can be held responsible. You don't have a right to obtain a substance just because you want it. It doesn't matter if it "goes in your body" or not. That's not how rights work. You have to justify the value to society.
What does "political action or political activity" mean here? Everything you say or do is political to some degree, but it would hardly make sense to tolerate everything someone says or does.
While I agree with your assessment, It is worth remembering that before the advent of the internet, even when speaking in public was not as widely public as it can be today.
Determinism and non-determinism are both just models that can be converted into each other fairly easily. Either way, that has nothing to do with free will, because getting random outcomes is not 'will' at all, let alone free will -- as ill-defined as that concept is.
Free will is just the sensation of having a brain that models counterfactuals. It allows you to have emotions like hope and regret, since you are capable of imagining the world being different from how it is. It allows you to understand your role in the consequence-that-is-the-current-reality.
And here there's nothing to debate. Of course free will exists. It exists just like every other aspect of mental perspective exists. Nobody is debating whether love, hunger, confusion, or boredom exist just because they aren't quantified and modeled in a properly predictable manner. They're debating free will because religious people want a common experience and a long history of unaddressed confusion to leverage for their self-comfort. A "mystery" that not even scientists can touch.