Indeed. This issue is hush-hush, but antimatter is the only thing a General Products hull isn't proof against. That's why you need a Slaver stasis field. Oh, and GP Hulls may be immune to large tidal forces, say from a neutron star, but unfortunately, the things inside a GP hull are usually not so well constructed.
Libertarians don't believe in the possibility of abusive or natural monopolies. Only the government makes monopolies, and there's no such thing as market failure. If you believe in government intervention in markets at all then you don't believe in absolute property rights, and therefore are not even close to being a libertarian.
Although, I have to admit, I'm happy that a bunch of non-libertarians with some understanding of real world economics are cop-opting libertarianism. But you might want to take a look at other branches of anarchism to see if maybe there's a better fit for you out there. Your statement leads me to believe you are actually a minarchist. Libertarians, despite what they would have you believe, are a tiny and recent branch of anarchism.
You can't be a libertarian and be for anything less than getting rid of everything but the military. You don't get to redefine existing political movements to suit your personal philosophy just so you can go by a rebel moniker like 'libertarian.' There is a whole spectrum of existing political labels for you to choose from, don't bend one to fit you just because it's hip. No one is taking the most radical elements of libertarianism and using them as a strawman. We are taking libertarianism as it is officially defined. If that official definition offends you, maybe you aren't a libertarian at all. Maybe you are some other type of anarchist. And if 'no coercive government' (which includes coercion to pay for things like hubble) isn't part of your definition, then you aren't even an anarchist, let alone a libertarian.
Libertarians run the gamut of the libertarian spectrum, What libertartian spectrum? Libertarianism is cut and dried. Strong property rights, no coercive government, free association, that's it.
Maybe they aren't libertarians but some other form of anarchist. I'm sick an tired of libertarianism co-opting every form of anarchism as if they invented it. Libertarians that believe in government funding of anything aren't libertarians, and could be considered anarchists only by a large stretch of the definition. You don't get to redefine words to suit your personal philosophy.
Oh, this is too much fun. You keep responding, meaning this means a lot to you. You mean nothing more than a few minutes entertainment to me. Why do I matter so much to you? You obviously know me, have we argued before? Does putting other people down and slinging crude insults make you feel better about yourself? I'm honestly curious, I've never really encountered this much bile before. It really makes me feel special, that what I say matters that much to someone, so I suppose I should thank you.
Hehe, where did I mention political discrimination? Oh, you just THOUGHT that was what I said? See, I was responding to THIS part of the OP, "I should be allowed to employ whoever I want for my own business, that's right within free-association if you ask me." And I proved that wrong.
Oh SNAP, you just lost again. Want to try for three? I love making people like you angry. Call it schadenfreude.
Awww, poor AC got his little girl panties in a twist. So you are saying you can refuse to hire someone based on the color of their skin? You might want to read the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Section VII, specifically what types of employers are covered:
The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty-five or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or a State or political subdivision thereof, (2) a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) which is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954: Provided, That during the first year after the effective date prescribed in subsection (a) of section 716, persons having fewer than one hundred employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers, and, during the second year after such date, persons having fewer than seventy-five employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers, and, during the third year after such date, persons having fewer than fifty employees (and their agents) shall not be considered employers: Provided further, That it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy. Haha, you lose.
Couldn't we attach batteries to hamsters and let them carry the electricity where it's needed? Just set up hamster base stations with battery chargers and hamster food, and place small pellets of hamster food in the battery compartments of the device needing power. It's so simple and easy, I'm surprised no one has thought of this before.
What stops your boss already ordering you to use a button video camera to record your vote in the booth? The fact that you could sue his ass into oblivion? The fact that you could easily edit the video to remove the part where you get a second ballot?
What currently stops your boss from ordering you to come to his office and swear a solemn oath with God as your witness, that you voted as he told you to? Nothing. What stops you from lying?
Luckily, this is not how the law works in America. You may want it to be this way, but most of us don't. Well, maybe Ron Paul will get elected and make it legal for you to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Until then, sorry, we didn't ask you.
What, video yourself marking the ballot and putting it in the box? The poll workers would stop you. And it's still easy enough to fake, I can think of a dozen ways of invalidating the ballot, editing the video, or pulling some minor sleight of hand.
Your objections are ridiculous. The machine prints out a paper ballot, you check it, and put it in the box, just like you do with any other paper ballot. The paper ballot is there for hand recounts when the machine counted totals are disputed. Your objections make no sense, in that they are not even in the same league as the major objections towards purely electronic ballots. You are basically saying, "Well, some things can go wrong with any system, therefore all systems are equivalent." Which is patently untrue. Some systems have much greater problems than others.
It's important to note that in all these precincts the exit polls agreed with the actual results. So unless the machines made error s_and_ the voters lied at exit polling this is just sour grapes. That, or the exit polling companies are in on the shenanigans.
If ballots weren't secret, how would you keep people from coercing voters? How would you keep people from selling their votes? Ballots are secret for good reason.
Honestly, people who post racist comments to Slashdot aren't usually racists at all, any more than the guy who posts shit eating stories likes to eat shit, or the guy who posts mare-sex stories enjoys bestiality. What they do like is shocking and outraging people. You just made this asshole's whole week, thank you very much, and he will no doubt continue posting bullshit in the hopes of netting another one like you.
I never really understood the vehement opposition most conservatives have towards ending global warming until now. You actually think that the real goal is destruction of the capitalist system. Wow, I need some of what you're smoking.
Seriously, what evidence do you have that that is the goal?
Nothing goes out of existence, only changes form, eh? Okay, then self changes form into non self. All the matter, energy, and information that make up 'you' may still be there, but 'you' as a coherent pattern cease to exist when the conditions giving rise to that pattern change. As God created sin in the first place, I don't understand why God would then 'take steps' to eradicate it. Why would an omnipotent being 'take steps' anyway? They would just say, "there is no sin" and there would be none.
One can have free will without the possibility of sin. For instance, can you choose to fnargle a drimp? No, because those words are meaningless in our universe, even though they may have meaning in another. An omnipotent God could have created a universe where it was as impossible for you to choose to sin as it is for you to choose to fnargle a drimp.
As I've been nothing but confrontational, and you've been nothing but patient, I feel that I should add that although the inherent morality of Christianity sickens me, most of the Christians I've met have been very moral and compassionate people.
That other reply was mine! I was on too much cold medicine to remember the handicap principle. However, providing a nest for a mate is even more basic than the handicap principle as far as courtship goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Libertarians don't believe in the possibility of abusive or natural monopolies. Only the government makes monopolies, and there's no such thing as market failure. If you believe in government intervention in markets at all then you don't believe in absolute property rights, and therefore are not even close to being a libertarian.
Although, I have to admit, I'm happy that a bunch of non-libertarians with some understanding of real world economics are cop-opting libertarianism. But you might want to take a look at other branches of anarchism to see if maybe there's a better fit for you out there. Your statement leads me to believe you are actually a minarchist. Libertarians, despite what they would have you believe, are a tiny and recent branch of anarchism.
You can't be a libertarian and be for anything less than getting rid of everything but the military. You don't get to redefine existing political movements to suit your personal philosophy just so you can go by a rebel moniker like 'libertarian.' There is a whole spectrum of existing political labels for you to choose from, don't bend one to fit you just because it's hip. No one is taking the most radical elements of libertarianism and using them as a strawman. We are taking libertarianism as it is officially defined. If that official definition offends you, maybe you aren't a libertarian at all. Maybe you are some other type of anarchist. And if 'no coercive government' (which includes coercion to pay for things like hubble) isn't part of your definition, then you aren't even an anarchist, let alone a libertarian.
Maybe they aren't libertarians but some other form of anarchist. I'm sick an tired of libertarianism co-opting every form of anarchism as if they invented it. Libertarians that believe in government funding of anything aren't libertarians, and could be considered anarchists only by a large stretch of the definition. You don't get to redefine words to suit your personal philosophy.
Poor troll, does it hurt you to know you are that transparent?
Oh, this is too much fun. You keep responding, meaning this means a lot to you. You mean nothing more than a few minutes entertainment to me. Why do I matter so much to you? You obviously know me, have we argued before? Does putting other people down and slinging crude insults make you feel better about yourself? I'm honestly curious, I've never really encountered this much bile before. It really makes me feel special, that what I say matters that much to someone, so I suppose I should thank you.
Hehe, where did I mention political discrimination? Oh, you just THOUGHT that was what I said? See, I was responding to THIS part of the OP, "I should be allowed to employ whoever I want for my own business, that's right within free-association if you ask me." And I proved that wrong.
Oh SNAP, you just lost again. Want to try for three? I love making people like you angry. Call it schadenfreude.
Couldn't we attach batteries to hamsters and let them carry the electricity where it's needed? Just set up hamster base stations with battery chargers and hamster food, and place small pellets of hamster food in the battery compartments of the device needing power. It's so simple and easy, I'm surprised no one has thought of this before.
Who said they wouldn't stop you from taking a picture?
Ahhh, if these kids parents could afford laptops with better specs, I doubt they'd be getting OLPCs in the first place.
Luckily, this is not how the law works in America. You may want it to be this way, but most of us don't. Well, maybe Ron Paul will get elected and make it legal for you to discriminate against anyone for any reason. Until then, sorry, we didn't ask you.
What, video yourself marking the ballot and putting it in the box? The poll workers would stop you. And it's still easy enough to fake, I can think of a dozen ways of invalidating the ballot, editing the video, or pulling some minor sleight of hand.
How do secret ballots allow people to cheat?
Your objections are ridiculous. The machine prints out a paper ballot, you check it, and put it in the box, just like you do with any other paper ballot. The paper ballot is there for hand recounts when the machine counted totals are disputed. Your objections make no sense, in that they are not even in the same league as the major objections towards purely electronic ballots. You are basically saying, "Well, some things can go wrong with any system, therefore all systems are equivalent." Which is patently untrue. Some systems have much greater problems than others.
If ballots weren't secret, how would you keep people from coercing voters? How would you keep people from selling their votes? Ballots are secret for good reason.
Honestly, people who post racist comments to Slashdot aren't usually racists at all, any more than the guy who posts shit eating stories likes to eat shit, or the guy who posts mare-sex stories enjoys bestiality. What they do like is shocking and outraging people. You just made this asshole's whole week, thank you very much, and he will no doubt continue posting bullshit in the hopes of netting another one like you.
I never really understood the vehement opposition most conservatives have towards ending global warming until now. You actually think that the real goal is destruction of the capitalist system. Wow, I need some of what you're smoking.
Seriously, what evidence do you have that that is the goal?
The Slashdot crowd, circa 1998: We can't get laid 'cause we're all single.
The Slashdot crowd, circa 2008: We can't get laid 'cause we're all married.
Nothing goes out of existence, only changes form, eh? Okay, then self changes form into non self. All the matter, energy, and information that make up 'you' may still be there, but 'you' as a coherent pattern cease to exist when the conditions giving rise to that pattern change. As God created sin in the first place, I don't understand why God would then 'take steps' to eradicate it. Why would an omnipotent being 'take steps' anyway? They would just say, "there is no sin" and there would be none.
One can have free will without the possibility of sin. For instance, can you choose to fnargle a drimp? No, because those words are meaningless in our universe, even though they may have meaning in another. An omnipotent God could have created a universe where it was as impossible for you to choose to sin as it is for you to choose to fnargle a drimp.
As I've been nothing but confrontational, and you've been nothing but patient, I feel that I should add that although the inherent morality of Christianity sickens me, most of the Christians I've met have been very moral and compassionate people.
I believe rainwater is acceptable as well.
That other reply was mine! I was on too much cold medicine to remember the handicap principle. However, providing a nest for a mate is even more basic than the handicap principle as far as courtship goes.