If the other "side" doesn't bother generating ideas to help with the situation, then it is a fair thing to deride the opposition. It's like the (bad) engineer that just points out problems without trying to come up with alternative solutions. I'm not saying you are that person, but it is aggravating to attempt to solve a problem only to have a contingent whose only goal seems to be preventing a solution. It seems like a certain amount of people honestly believe that have people live impoverished lives is simply a necessary feature of economic systems. "We can't have a minimum wage because it will just increase prices of everything and make the minimum wage moot. We can't give people free stuff because then they will be lazy and won't contribute." I reject that notion, and if you are in the group that believes such a thing I'm going to oppose you stringently, sorry.

> can't say an idea is bad without providing a solution ... engineers who do that are bad

People try to do impossible things all the time, and saving a lot of headache by pointing out ahead of time why they're impossible seems prudent even if you don't have a better alternative (no comment on whether increasing minimum wage actually can't have its intended effects -- I don't know enough to contribute positively to either side of that debate).

If somebody comes along and asks you to build an encryption system that only a million people in the government can break into then you don't need a better solution available to be allowed to tell them it's impossible. Similarly with nonsensical ideas like DRM, perpetual motion, .... Maybe it's worth your time to provide real solutions (picking on the DRM example, if the end user doesn't control the hardware and the content is interactive then the problem is solvable), but it's still beneficial to the other side to prove their idea can't work. Is the assumption of bad faith warranted?