So there's actually two things there that sound good to me, that I immediately doubt because if Republicans were in favor of it I have to assume there's something horrible about it...
What's bad about a national sales tax, and banning earmarks? Those kinda sound like good things to me.
Well, there's another change that made it more viable - back then people had spare batteries cause they needed them. Now most devices will last a full day of normal use, so the 'average user' doesn't care much about swapping batteries.
My gripe was physical keyboards. Until they basically disappeared entirely, I tried to buy exclusively devices with physical keyboards. I liked my T-Mobile Sidekick except it could stand to be thinner.
I think a good part of the reason they never addressed this is that there's no good answer. Any answer that posits it to be impossible that I can think of comes with awkward connections to the idea of a 'soul' or some such nonsense that makes duplicates non-viable, which I'm sure they really didn't want to introduce.
After all, it's not like transporters were part of a well thought out extensively considered backstory when they were first introduced. As I understand it, the issue was they didn't have the budget to keep shooting shuttlecraft scenes in every episode, so they came up with a way they could get the characters to the planet without having to use a vehicle in most situations. This decision has had its upsides and downsides, but I think on the whole, it has created far more issues than it ever solved. This is far from the only plot point that has issues in order for story to work with transporters. And considering how often they encounter situations where the transporters don't work, from an in-universe perspective the technology seems...unwise...to use on exploratory vessels.
People fighting AI are fighting to keep this broken system. AI has the potential to, over the course of this coming century, eliminate all human labor.
Our objective shouldn't be to fight that, but to ensure that as it happens, humans are taken care of and the benefits of this propagate to us all, because those who are trying to hoard the benefits to themselves are happy to see people fighting to 'limit' the use of AI or to 'save jobs' because it means those people are not fighting them.
Yes, that wouldn't be ethical. It's not a question of paying more than others, it's a question of taking more for yourself personally than the value of the work you personally do.
Let's skip the consulting firm thing because that sort of business has a lot of ethical questions inherently, and just say they became a billionaire selling widgets. Let's also posit that widgets are a useful, quality product that enhances the lives of those who purchase them in some way. And we'll stick with your proposition that they pay $200 an hour to their employees.
If they became a billionaire, it is still unethical. It means two things: their employees wages should have been even higher, and/or their product should have been less expensive. It'd have to be more than a vague hypothetical to pinpoint where the most unethical stuff is happening, but it IS happening, because a human is not capable of doing work worth a billion dollars in their lifetime.
Inheriting a billion or more is not inherently unethical because you didn't necessarily have a hand in accumulating it. However, few people will remain ethical after that, because it is difficult to possess that level of wealth without some of it being used unethically. Perhaps if you converted it all to cash and put it in a money bin, Scrooge McDuck style, you could know that your wealth isn't out there doing unethical things, but there's few other ways.
If someone makes it so I can stream all the shows and all the movies and such in one convenient place, without having to find them myself, hunt down the right versions, etc, I'm good with paying them for that.
It'd be better if it was from a legal service, but as long as exclusives are allowed that can't happen. If the owners of the content were required to allow anyone who wants to distribute it to do so, at the same cost with no special deals for one distributor over another, then every streaming service could have everything, if they choose. They could then compete on quality of service and which content they choose to have, not on what content they can lock down for themselves alone.