It shouldn't because the original possessor of the copy still has access to his copy. In principle they are different. Copying is no different morally than speeding.
Sorry, but the copying is not by 'force'. The force part comes in where the government tries to enFORCE copyright. There is no loss when something is copied. There may be no gain, which is different.
it also helps you logically deduce stuff you don't know. I remember that after a while, I could almost guess the names of functions that I didn't really know - that's what having a naming convention and regular syntax do for you
the reason there's a law against it is because men (yes, men!) were stupid enough to allow women to vote in the first place.
and now we have a feminine culture takeover: used to be only sticks and stones would hurt me, now it's words that slay me. Get over the obsession already, this is tiresome! Everyone starts out equal, no one person is inherently better than another - but some people perform more valuable services than others. Men and women are different, hence the chromosomal difference. If these guys want an exclusionary company, let them have it! But you don't have to buy their goods/services.
Birds of a feather flock together - people are almost always going to associate with people they feel more comfortable will - and each individual will decide which character trait they most like to identify with, and will seek out people with like traits.
</rant>
"cannot be spent in a reasonable way by a few individuals" - again with the socialist claptrap - these people earned the money, they should decide what it's best possible use is.
I'm stopping by your place today to raid your refrigerator, and take those clothes you aren't wearing. That good with you? 'cause that's what you're saying.
"the wealthy have more money than they really need" - who are you to decide what the wealthy need? They decide, by how hard (or smart) they are willing to work.
No, our taxes are going to be a lot higher in the future because the government is too busy getting re-elected by redistributing taxes & allowing the printing of new money to be responsible with it's financial commitments. In the end, the powerless will be held responsible, and pay the price.
the words 'put up or shutup' come to mind. There aren't that many people at Buffet & Gates level - they would affect the average if they donated what their conscience tells them to.
I'm with the parent on this one: if you think the govt should tax more, send in your 'extra' money. Don't tell me what I should do with mine, don't say that everyone should pay more taxes. I'm the one that decides what to 'reasonably' do with my money. Perhaps if people acted more as a community, local community charities to distribute money to people. Having the government take your money by force and distribute it to people without your consent does nothing to foster community or cooperation.
