The whole premise of his argument is based on the statement "There's no such thing as a free lunch". His logical conclusions are then derived from this. Howev

The whole premise of his argument is based on the statement "There's no such thing as a free lunch". His logical conclusions are then derived from this. However, he never actually proves the statement, and I for one don't believe it. Why must there necessarily be a tradeoff for anything good? There's no law requiring that, and what makes one person happy may make another person miserable. EDIT: I just realized there's about 15 people on HN that said the same thing. And that's why I visit this place!