Slashdot Mirror
NSF Ponders New And Improved Internet
diorcc wrote to mention a Wired article about a NSF Project that could completely rebuild the Internet as we know it. From the article: "The National Science Foundation is backing a major initiative that could lead to a completely new internet architecture, with built-in security measures and support for ubiquitous sensors and wireless communications devices, among other things. The Global Environment for Networking Investigations, or GENI, will include a research grant program to fund new architectures and an experimental facility, which has not yet been planned in detail."
Let's name it "Internet 2!"
So in other words, this is just an experimental research facility with possible long-term finds that may impact the future direction of interneworking.
To rebuild the internet is insane. To slowly change the direction we are building it is more likely.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Didn't we already give them hundreds of millions of dollars, and trust that they'd deliver the "New and Improved Internet" to us with Internet2? I know I2 is doing a lot of good for a bunch of universities, medical centers and corporations, all of which therefore are getting their N&INet (NII) to contribute to their hugely profitable enterprises, subsidized at taxpayer expense. Where is the delivery of I2 to the rest of us, who pay for it, who need it, who represent most of the American economy (foreigners are welcome to ride for free, as usual ;)? Why should we give them even more money, when they just got paid to learn they can get paid not to share it with us?
--
make install -not war
From what I read of the article, it didn't seem that the NSF wanted to rebuild the internet, just experiment with a new way of making the internet. It's even being connected to two other pseudo-internets, Internet2 and LambdaRail.
They're rebuilding the internet to make it more secure, eliminate spam, virus, spoofing and so on.
Bad News:
Initiative will use Microsoft programming techniques as its foundation.
:-) :-)
{just joking}
.. and it will be the best funded network EVER, what with all those 36 dollar fees they've been taking from me nightly.
oh.. gotta go deposit my check to get back out of the red.
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
Grandparent poster was joking. The Gore internet quote has been discussed to death and no-one brings it up with any degree of sincerity anymore.
Human, may I surf your mind?
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
If it had a version of napster running on it that the RIAA couldn't disrupt or bust people for using it might even get some use.
Sure they helped give us some nukes to kill a wraith ship but I still think they're bad.
Hell I didnt even know they had a internet.
Didn't GEnei die a few years ago?
There was an old McKinsey article that talked about "Strategic Incrementalism" back in the 80s. Idea was that with a clear vision, one could tweak the way to "good enough".
While there are intrinsically very ugly problems in client and server software right now, it seems that "Little Science" is displaced by "Big Science" (viz, NSF) in addressing incremental substantive improvements in security and availability for the Internet masses.
So, for example, as valuable as a *waving hands* non IP infrastructure blah blah might well be... there could be greater good achieved with work on secure computing environments, strong authentication, one time pad encryption methods and etc.
As a very dear friend of mine was fond of saying "if you want security, pull up your own shorts".
So, while big honkin backbone and new architectures are and will be very important, some think time at the "big level" regarding applications architecture and services would, likely, produce faster returns and shorter implementation times.
Verizon: Latin for "poor rural service".
The current Internet doesn't need replaced or fixed.
In other words... IPv6?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Maybe I'm drifting off topic here, but how can this internet thing simultaneously be new and improved? If it's improved, it existed before. If it's new, it didn't.
Unknown host pong.
Will it have hookers and blackjack?
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
The current version has clearly been a complete failure. Maybe if they start over from scratch, this Internet thing will actually become popular.
If it had a version of napster running on it that the RIAA couldn't disrupt or bust people for using
What problem do the major North American record labels have with the Napster Music Store?
It could use IPv6, but "built-in security measures" makes me think of Trusted Network Connect. Imagine if you needed a Trusted Platform Module plus an approved, unmodified operating system plus an approved, unmodified dialer program that verifies the "integrity" of your machine just to get an IP address. Some analysts claim that most major cable and DSL ISPs are likely to require TNC by 2015.
simply track every transaction on the internet and allow law enforcement to invade and abuse it whever they will it...
Considering we can break anything we make, no matter what is done, it comes down to this.
giving access to personal and private information to other humans...
May as well just start installing gps tracking and personal data recording chips in all humans...
Then it really won't matter what internet or other future tech we make use of.
Of course included is a punishment system of shock therapy and AI second guessing what you do to stop you from doing anything on the list of things not to do..... A list created by a few faulty humans of course....
The point is, there is nothing we can build that we cannot break.
Making this whole "better internet" just a carrot to get the donkey to move...... in circles.
In related news, industry analysts have examined the expected content of this "new & improved" web, and have decided to call it the "National Science Foundation Web", or "NSFW" for short. When asked for comment, an official replied "finally, the Internet will have a name that accurate reflects the majority of its content."
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
NSF? NSF what? Not safe for what? Not safe for work? Not safe for eyes? Not safe for consumption?
All I'm seeing here is NSF Ponders and I'm not even sure what a Ponder is and what wouldn't be safe for it.
These safety bulletins are getting severely lacking here on Slashdot these days.
I personally am waiting for the internet like in the Megaman Battle Network games. I want a PET! =)
Speaking is NOT communication
...think terrorists when they saw NSF?
Bastij terrorists
First off, there are a number of major challenges facing the Internet. The ones that spring immediately to mind are security, management, and availability. To see some of these, compare the Internet to the (good parts of) the telephone network. 911 emergency phone service has roughly 99.99% availability; the Internet is an order of magnitude worse. You can't get a virus over the phone lines, and it's very difficult to create a botnet of 100,000 people to DDoS, say, a hospital's telephone system. Now, that ignores many of the good things about the Internet -- you can create and run fabulous applications that the network designers never envisioned, etc., at least, if you're not running behind a NAT. ;)
But wouldn't it be nice to have a network that had the best of all worlds? A network that cost 1/10th as much to manage as it does today? A network where your parents didn't call you up frequently and ask, "It says it couldn't find my DHCP server - what's wrong??" A network where you didn't resort to weird (but clever) hacks like traceroute to try to diagnose problems? Where Scott Richter couldn't create a spam-blasting army of drones? I use Vonage, and I had to dial 911 a few weeks ago to report a fire at the apartment across the street. During part of the conversation, I couldn't hear the operator well enough to understand the questions she was asking. It was a frightening and educational experience.
One of the most important parts of this program is that it's encouraging researchers to not feel constrained to fit into the current design, and is looking at ways to get that deployed in a way that it can gateway to or run on top of the current Internet. There's a big difference between this program and the Internet2, IPv6, etc. It's both higher risk and (hopefully!) higher reward. Internet2 was pretty much "Internet + faster links + some focused researchy bits"; it got co-oped early on because it provided lots of bandwidth to big science, and was too entrenched to try radical new things that (gasp!) might break. GENI is research + interfaces to allow early adopters -- like, say, slashdotters -- to make use of its services. The idea of creating an infrastructure that can safely be used simultaneously for testing out new research prototypes at all levels and running production versions of those services that succeed is a powerful notion that will give GENI a big edge over prior attempts.
It's an exciting proposal, and a scary one. If it gets funded, it could be either the biggest success in networking since the Web, or the biggest flop.
(Disclosure- I'm a networking professor at Carnegie Mellon. This is my field, I've been involved in some of the GENI discussions, and I intend to submit funding proposals to it. I think it'll be one of the best things in years to help academic networking research have a big impact on the real world.)
I'm pretty sure they're talking about finally adding the evil bit to packet headers so firewalls can much more easily ferret out bad traffic.
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/
First, the obsession with wireless everything is beyond moronic as we don't know what our present electromagnetic soup does to our cell structures and synaptic interaction as it is and we want to fill the spectrum even more at higher power levels per unit volume and area? Yeah, that's a great idea. (
Second, what has made the present Internet great is not top down planning from standards committees and government agencies, but the interplay between them, users, content providers, carriers, corporations making products for it, etc. EVERYONE has had a part to play in making the Internet what it is today. I put the idea that any one group can make a new Internet under the same heading as people who claim to have special knowledge of how the universe really works (and that everyone else is an idiot; see the self-improvement section of the local bookstore) or how to make my life perfect. Unadulterated arrogance. There's a lot of parts to be played in some as organic and differentiated as the world of the Internet.
Third, anything which puts into place inherent breakpoints for snooping for whatever reason is a bad idea. It is an automatic invasion of privacy of citizens, organizations, and corporations whether the government uses them or not. There's no rationale that can justify the infringement and outweigh the long term negatives. The name of the game should be embracing of privacy and security of the Interenet's users. Say what you want about terrorism. There's been encryption of written communication going back to ancient times on stone tablets written in code. If we sacrifice freedoms for security we end up deserving neither.
The NSF would be spending its time a little more wisely on less grandiose things.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
OK, I'll bite instead of modding you troll. What the hell are you thinking? Don't you realise the internet was developed in the public sector? Those universities and medical centers are the same early-adopting testbeds that created the infrastructure to allow you to bang out your jingoistic nonsense with your one free hand today. I presume, incidentally, that you are posting this using some kind of advanced gopher client, and not HTTP, since you don't appear to have heard of that particular European invention. Likewise, presumably you're not using any GNU products (MIT), Linux, Berkeley Unix, or anything else that might challenge your pickled-in-vinegar worldview. Jeez. You are a prime idiot. No doubt you will be happy to learn that George Bush, quite possibly an idol of yours, has quietly slashed NSF funding, as part of his war on science. Presumably this will not damage the future of the Internet, however, since I am sure that a fine libertarian like you was first in line to donate his Bush tax refund check to some private Internet Reseach Trust or other.
Speak english.
Plus the set of ideas behind the JXTA protocols are beautiful. (Everyone that I know who has absorbed the protocol specification immediately turns into a zombie advocate that can't stop thinking about the cool things that they could do.) This paper is a great place to start.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
You're a retard. I never claimed the US invented everything on the Internet. The browser I use, though, like most people's browsers, is largely an American invention - mostly the work of NCSA (Mosaic) and Netscape (Silicon Valley). And so much of GNU, as you pointed out (MIT, Berkeley, etc) is American in origin. Though there's certainly lots of foreigners contributing excellent work: often better than their American counterparts.
So what? I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about Internet2, the subject of this discussion. Just like the Internet, I expect my taxes and government to support research to produce Internet2, and to share it with the world. But instead, my taxes and government are subsidizing corporate testbeds for Cisco and Nortel, as a weak protest in another response correctly identified.
You're riding your little hobby horse furiously, but backwards. I hate Bush, as I often make perfectly clear in many ways on Slashdot. My demand that public investment in R&D return results to the public, rather than just to the corporate recipients (who bribe^Wcontribute to Bush to perpetuate the status quo) is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR DEMENTED DRIVEL.
I don't know what crossed nerve, exactly, I triggered in your broken little brain. But my post merely demanded that we get more return from our public investment. Which your own post seems to agree with. So get your head out of your ass and stop flaming me. Because you're just making our rational shared position look bad with your obnoxious, deranged handwaving. If only there were an Internet2 here already that could block you from polluting it with ass-backwards posts like that one.
--
make install -not war
Which part? "Though there's certainly lots of foreigners contributing excellent work: often better than their American counterparts"?
I defy you to find anything like the Fox News pap in my posts. Unless you're going by your own Pravda, which tells you that somehow America didn't invent the Internet. All you've got is the stereotypical jealous response to any leader, whether a European disease or otherwise, that denies our achievements by finding fault with our pride in them. I could go on about the cultural defects of so many countries, that America doesn't usually share, which keep them bogged down in backbiting rather than innovation. But that would detract for the useful work I'm doing. Take a cue from us, and get on with proving something positive about your own country, before you start attacking the achievements of others.
--
make install -not war
If they equate "security" to DRM, then I am calling fud, lol.
~Kevin
Hmmm, sounds like the current POTS system. In the end, the internet will turn into another controlled network of the telcom companies and governments of the world from the current state of a maintained but uncontrolled system.
Savior the moment while it lasts fellas.
Ponders sounds like something Google would do.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
I have Verizon's DSL service and they don't block port 80. I can run a small little web server through it.
Will it have the recent Evil Bit?
I'm talking about Internet2, the subject of this discussion. Just like the Internet, I expect my taxes and government to support research to produce Internet2, and to share it with the world. But instead, my taxes and government are subsidizing corporate testbeds for Cisco and Nortel, as a weak protest in another response correctly identified.
It's too bad your own posts don't contain facts to back up your random walks through rant-space. We see Internet 2 just fine here, in UC Berkeley. I do realise NYC, and the east coast in general, is a little backward when it comes to these things.
I hate Bush, as I often make perfectly clear in many ways on Slashdot.
Well excuse me for not being thoroughly familiar with your ouvre. Then again, I've seen hundreds of clone-like American idiots claiming that (a) they invented most of the modern world, (b) foreigners are freeloaders and (c) they themselves are experts on "foreign" countries, science, national funding priorities, taxes, and indeed an assortment of other areas where they've basically got a couple of weeks experience at most (but clearly feel that, since this is two weeks more than most of their compatriots, the "expert" tag is well-deserved). After the first dozen or two such clones, you kinda stop paying attention.
All I implied was that the Internet was invented by Americans, our gift to the world. You'll have to argue about your straw man, all "software", with someone else. Like whether Linux is American of Finnish. But you'd show a lot more class if you showed at least a little gratitude for the free innovations you have gotten - and that's by no means limited to the Internet.
--
make install -not war
Face it, you've got a chip on your shoulder just like most people I met when I was a student at UC Berkeley. You got it all wrong, now you're flailing around looking for some credibility. Trying to get in shots about the "backwards East Coast". We don't let creeps like you into facilities like MAE East for a reason: you're loose cannons. Windmilling like that can knock loose a fiber - you're not worth the liability. Now, if your Internet2 lab were run by New Yorkers, you might have actually produced something tangible to shock the world. Instead all you've got is fog and mirrors. Paid for by our hard work, converted to taxes. Now get back to work and do something to justify your grant. That, by the way, is paying for you to spin your wheels in our country, a guest who hates his hosts. Ingrate motherfucker.
--
make install -not war
LOL :)
:).
I wish only that you'd posted nonymously, so I could look for your wit in the moons to come
--
make install -not war
How Swede it is :).
--
make install -not war
Hey, you know, Doc, those grants are awarded by competition, fair and square. If you don't like the fact that I out-competed Americans for ca$h, then why don't you submit a proposal and show a sketpical world what New York can do? Just one achievment on the scale of BSD Unix or the Linux kernel would be nice... instead of, ahem, whining bigtime about foreigners reaping the benefits of "your" hard graft. O & btw, I don't hate Americans; far from it. It's just that a college youth mis-spent on alt.nuke.the.USA taught me to recognise certain "types". And you're more typed than Haskell. Why don't you move on to the WW2 chorus. You know how it goes: "all be speaking German... bailed out your asses.... Turing was a fag in NHS glasses..."
I have always wondered why there is no consideration given to conserving bandwidth. If all busy sites were mirrored in every major location then all that needs to be updated is modifications to data bases. To tie up transcontinental communication services for the ten thousandth request for the same data when it could be local -- within the users city -- seems irresponsible. I notice a speed difference when school starts and all those online connections are made -- or on the weekend. Last Sunday my dialup went to 18k. I just gave up. Imagine what happens when more people add to the load. A lot of people have said to me they are getting a computer for Christmas and some of these are first timers. I believe the bandwidth dragon will be soon upon us. And yes, security needs a big assist as well.
Because all that bullshit is just what fills your closet of nightmares, not mine. You got your grant, now you spew your nuke.the.USA venom at people who don't want to hear it. I'll point out that on merit, you are attending at UC Berkeley in the USA, not at a European university.
However your college prepared you to win CS grants at Berkeley, you did not invent either Unix or Linux. The people at Berkeley who did create BSD were funded in no small part by New York City, where our achievements in other fields we invest in smart people elsewhere. Without questioning their naivete in adopting stereotypes. Your college experience didn't teach you the danger of that, either - apparently, it prepared you only to spew venom on the Web, and maybe engage in one of a hundred CS projects that will likely fail, but might bear fruit on the American tab.
And you're not even good at these stereotypes you cherish. You somehow pegged me as a Bushevik, when I am anything but. Even the post on which you bit, entering this thread with the stench of rot and ironclad preconcevied notions, is a stupid rant that ignores my original demand for more public benefit from public research investment, instead crying at your own demons of reduced public investment in research. From the beginning your posting is about your fear of getting cut off from the money tit here in the US, having nothing to do with me whatsoever. You take your fears of your own inadequacies, your own stereotypes, and keep them to yourself. You frolic in a.n.t.U, then make your nest in California. You've got zero integrity, zero sense of with whom you're dealing. I'm not interested in standing in for whatever's got you spooked, so you can exercise your fantasy of playing both sides of your stereotypes, calling Turing a fag, whatever it is that's boiling inside you.
As I said, Berkeley is a good place for you, with your badly repressed inner conflicts, and need to project them on others. Just don't turn them onto a New Yorker, especially one who's already lived there, because we can spot a cracked nerd from 3000 miles away. Get back to work, because that's the only reason we're keeping you and your disgusting, childish, badly broken attitude around.
--
make install -not war
BTW, you may not think you're a "Bushevik", but with your complaints that research isn't showing value, etc, etc, you may as well be. Research is showing value. It always has. Despite this, funding is being cut from NSF and NIH, and diverted to military spending and homeland security. This leads to a distortion of scientific priorities, e.g. towards biowarfare and away from public health, which can properly be seen as part of the massive fear-driven distortion of US priorities following 9/11. Yes, go ahead, accuse me of being driven solely by blinkered public-sector greed again; that's what you faux-libertarian nobs do best; regardless, that's the context to your comments attacking NSF. Maybe you'd like to take a pop at the UN next? In the least-Bushlike way possible, of course. See, no matter how anti-Bush you claim you are, no matter how nuanced and unique you think your particular "indignant-taxpayer" drone may sound, in the end it's indistinguishable from the chorus of similar voices on the right wing. Especially in its rampant nationalism. "But I hate Bush," you cry, oblivious to the fact that the main problem with most self-styled opponents of Bush is that they sound exactly like Bush on so many issues....
I'm guessing it'll also have ubiquitous wiretapping capability.
-Uberhund
But we did invent the Internet. And until an American invented the IMG tag, the Web wasn't useable by most people. So take a hint, and show some gratitude, instead of your jealous spite. We're not cranking out this tech for your thanks, but you could at least show some dignity when you accept our gifts.
/.
Cringe... Thank you Doc Ruby for bestowing your infinite wisdom and generosity upon us lowly non-americans!
Sure, there is a lot of great research and technology that have come out of the US, but the technologies that comprise what we call the Internet come from many different fields of research, institutions and countries.
Despite not wanting to get in to a polemic about the specifics, consider hypertext/HTML (T. Berners-Lee), CSS (W3C/Wium-Lie) etc. There are a myriad of protocols and infrastructure components that were not invented in the US that are needed to get your tripe posted to
US scientists, academics and politicians [sic] were pivotal in developing the internet, but it's only part of the story. Seriously mate get of your high horse: Your world view is embarassing.
I've read up on "government", or rather "State". It is possible to have "government" without having a State. See Ancient Ireland and Iceland.
In any event, your flawed utilitarian arguments that we need a State to have lawfulness and peace, do not justify robbery and coercive force.
All that a State is is a group of gangsters that has widespread respect, that taxes, and that prevents any competitition in the administration of justice. It is a universal law of economics that when competitition is prevented, the quality of service decreases and the price of service increases.
Using a simple analogy for a "State": me and 9 other people get together and "vote" that you should be "taxed" (read: robbed) for the "common good". If you protest, we assault and possibly murder you, and take your money.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I hosted a server through my PC with Comcast years ago.
I don't have the "right" to my social status -- and that is completely irrelevant for my arguemnt; I do, however, have the right to my property. As for the need for roads, safe water, law, etc, all of this can be provided by the free market, and in fact has been provided in the past, before big businessmen -- doomed to failing in free-market attempts to cartelize the industries -- turned to government to accomplish the task.
Private roads were provided in Old Europe, known as turnpikes. On this topic, see the Walter Block's publications CV, specifically Transportation Systems section. Free-market justice was provided -- absent a State -- in Ancient Iceland and Ancient Ireland. Ancient Ireland existed as a peaceful, and intellectually advanced, stateless society for almost a thousand years. In terms of respect for women's rights, their society was centuries ahead of its time. Regarding a general introduction to the argument for a statless libertarian society, see Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty .
Regarding a the desireability of States, no we do not want to "have one of these". In the past century, States have murdered 174 million of their own people during peacetime. That is, these are the number of people murdered in State-sponsored democide. Another 36 million people have been murdered by wars. That's 200 million people murdered by States.
Then there's DDT. See Englund, Eric. The Mosquito: Environmentalism's Weapon of Mass Destruction . Every year, 2.7 million people die of malaria; all of this is prevantable, provided the use of DDT, which is cheap and effective. Despite that, States have banned it.
And those are only the most obvious cases. There's also all of the people who die because of road-socialism (the over-use of roads and poor management, due to the inability to perform economic calculation when there is no private property, and the lack of incentives).
Absent States, these murders would not have occured. It isn't profitable on the free market to murder hundreds of millions of people. And anyone attempting to commit mass-murder in a private libertarian society, wouldn't be able to externalize the costs of his aggression onto others by taxing. He'd have to fund it himself. Obviously, one is much more likely to engage in aggressive action if one faces hardly no consequences of such actions. E.g., G.W. Bush does not -- in any significant way -- pay the price of war; he doesn't experience the death, nor is he burdened by its financing.
PS: Re, "if you don't like it, leave" -- a childish, silly and fallicious argument. A mafia organization invades your neighborhood, continually expropriates your property, and commits violence, and the response to any protest is "if you don't like it leave". That presumes the criminal -- in my example, the mafia members, representative of the State -- has a right to be there, and that you don't. Mere rhetoric.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Note that Old Europe was starkly divided on class lines, and life generally sucked for all but the top echelon of society.
I don't know anything about Ancient Ireland, but did you notice that it isn't around anymore?
The rest of your examples are specific problems with a particular government. It doesn't mean that all states are evil, or that it is bad as a concept.
Also, why do you have the right to your property. Any inherent reason? I'm sure most communists would disagree.
Anyway, you agree to our laws by living here. If you don't like it, leave, is a very valid sentiment. The only reason it wouldn't be is if this was some sort of state that prevented people from leaving.
Le français vous intéresse?
"Note that Old Europe was starkly divided on class lines, and life generally sucked for all but the top echelon of society."
Completely irrelevant.
"I don't know anything about Ancient Ireland, but did you notice that it isn't around anymore?"
An idiotic statement. No society has lasted from the dawn of mankind until present. Period. So this observation is meaningless. The US won't be around 1000 years from now either; Ancient Rome, Egypt, or Greece aren't around either. So what? 1000 years to the credit of Ancient Ireland is pretty significant.
Also, saying "it isn't around anymore" is a fallicious argument. Just because a given system "isn't anymore" doesn't mean it isn't the best possible system of political organization.
The rest of your examples are specific problems with a particular government. It doesn't mean that all states are evil, or that it is bad as a concept.All States are evil by definition: they tax (rob) and use violence to prevent competition. You also seem to be willfully ignornat of the reality of States: they allow individuals within them to externalize the costs of aggression, hence these individuals are more aggressive, ceteris paribus. It is an institutional problems of all States, although more-so in some than others (e.g., it is particularly problematic in Democracy, where rulers are only temporary, hence the tragedy of the commons exists from their perspective, as they have no incentive to bother with preserving anything, but only the expropriate as much as possible while they're in office).
"Also, why do you have the right to your property. Any inherent reason? I'm sure most communists would disagree."
You have the right to your property because you homesteaded it, and because that is the only non-arbitrary way to have property. The communist ideaology would mean death for mankind, as it would prevent the ownership of property, which is essential for survival. Capital could never be accumulated -- hence no long-term savings could occur, nor any planning for the future -- without private property ownership. As for property not homesteaded by the current owner, ownership can also be justified by voluntary exchanges from original homesteaders, or so-on down the line.
As for ultimate arguments for the justification of self-ownership and private property rights (homesteading), see Hans Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Also see Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Creed (search for Property Rights, case-sensitive).
"Anyway, you agree to our laws by living here. If you don't like it, leave, is a very valid sentiment. The only reason it wouldn't be is if this was some sort of state that prevented people from leaving."
That's pure BS. The argument that anything is justified so-long as emigration isn't restricted is pure and complete BS, and completely fails to understand what justice is. Anyone who could say such either has no conception of justice, or isn't thinking about what the implications of what he's saying. What you're saying is that if me and my neighbors have a peaceful neighborhood, and some mafia lord moves in and aggresses against us, "if we don't like it, we have to leave" otherwise we have no cause to complain. In the current context, your statement is fallicious, as it assumes what it's trying to prove: that the State is justified. If you didn't assume that the State was justified in the first place, you couldn't say, "if you don't like it, leave".
According to your "logic", somehow, Nazi Germany would have been justified if only Hitler had let the Jews leave. That is, if he gave them the choice to "leave or be exterminated". Of course, such an ultimatum would completely violate their property rights. It's like me coming into your house and saying, "If you leave, I won't murder you. If you stay, I will". According to your argument, somehow, there is nothing wrong with this.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I'm too tired to argue with you.
Yes, I will FULLY agree that from an ivory tower perspective, libertarianism is the best.
But in the real world, we have practical concerns.
Again, although I could respond to all your points (except the last one, which was very good), I am much too tired. Goodnight.
Le français vous intéresse?