Yes, the man getting his head slammed into the concrete repeatedly was clearly at fault. To answer your question, which of these actions you mention is considered sufficient provocation to warrant an assault that could have killed Zimmerman? To the contrary, you can claim self-defense even in such a case. Else you're claiming that one can have an even broader category of legal actions than the existing Florida law for killing someone.
In other words, if someone gets in my personal space while carrying a gun on their person, then they're fair game, right?
So, does libertarianism support slavery and segregation, or the government having more rights over your property than you have?
Of course not. It's like you don't even have a clue what libertarianism is. Your personal body and thoughts are your property and hence protected by libertarian tenets. I'll just note that this leads to similar though broader freedoms than the US citizen currently enjoys.
Segregation would usually be allowed (since it is a fair use of one's property), but not supported since there's no incentive to segregate. Even in the US one can still segregate, but only on things that aren't illegal to do (such as dress, "No shoes. No shirt. No service."). Finally, government doesn't have more rights over your property than you do. Government doesn't have any rights at all (merely powers and restrictions). And that's true of the US system as well which only has one amendment asserting any sort of "right" for a body of government (and that's just because the amendment in question is poorly written).
That was the issue, and you are avoiding it (quite gracefully, as if you've had lots of practice asking questions then dodging any returning questions).
How could I "dodge" something you never confronted me with? Look, I figured you were up to something. But trying to put me in a trap is a whole different game than simply asking me the question that supposedly was on your mind. And yes, I have a fair amount of practice with people pulling this sort of crap.
Why ask stupid and pointless questions, AK Marc?
You asked me to "Name a society where that's not true." and I did.
You merely asserted some things without any shred of evidence. For example, claiming that owning land in a libertarian society somehow grants you more rights, while the same is not true of the US, which to be honest, is not that far off a libertarian society. Here, the problem is that you use the double standard fallacy with a different definition of "rights" for the libertarian society (associating benefits of owning property with "rights") than for the US society (defining rights as what's specified or implied by the Constitution).
In all, that's what I expect from libertarians. They are a bunch of liars.
This is what we call confirmation bias.
Satan could make any promises to get elected, but we still wouldn't want him in office.
I guess you really are that stupid. Who really thinks a deity of deceit and treachery would have even the slightest difficulty navigating the US political scene? He wouldn't go the Ron Paul route, if you are even remotely concerned about that.
if, as the zionists contend, iran just wants to launch a suicidal massacre to kill as many jews as possible, they could have easily built and launched rocket packs which each contained ground up fuel rods, a sort of mother of all dirty bombs. launch 1000 military grade dirty bomb rockets, and 9000 regular rockets at the same time and even the best interceptor system would be so horribly overrun that it wouldn't matter, and even intercepted dirty rockets would be deadly.
There's no such thing as "military grade" dirty bombs. Radioactive material just isn't that dangerous. Israel's nuclear strike would be far deadlier.
having nukes would then force an end to economic sanctions in one of two ways, either they would be ended because they serve no purpose, or once proving the ability to build nukes they could negotiate an end of sanctions in return for inspections and no new construction of nukes
Given the second option, economic sanctions would continue to have a purpose, to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons. It might also slow everyone else in the region from trying to get them as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't going to be happy with a nuclear Iran. One wonders if Pakistan and India might beef up their nuclear forces as well.
I find it hilarious that you equate nuclear weapons to be a technology only for the sane and logical, when it would clearly take an act of insanity for anyone in any country at any time to actually use one.
Fucking. Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
Do you really think it'd be better to have crazy people using nukes frequently rather than sane people in a tense but peaceful standoff with nukes? I fail to see the dumbness of the argument.
I take it you've missed out on things like trade embargoes, Stuxnet, and assassination of Iranian scientists. There are reasons why Iran doesn't have fission bombs now and one of those reasons is because most of the rest of the world has been trying fairly hard and so far successfully to keep them from having nuclear weapons.
Think of reducing pressure on London and the South East as a "loss leader" to break the vicious circle of investing huge amounts of money in the South East to the detriment of the rest of the UK, which then makes the South East a more attractive place to live, which then increases the demand for investment in infrastructure in the South East, which...
If everyone wants to live in South East, then what's the point of building a high speed rail to a place where people don't want to live?
How much extra profit was made by companies in the UK and France being able to send people and equipment to each other very quickly?
You measure that by willingness to pay. If companies are making money from Chunnel services, they'll pay money for it. The ticket price itself becomes your feedback. This is the great simplification which a market-based system provides for such things.
If nobody is renting and you can't afford to buy, what do you do?
Well, what do you do in today's US? Move on or get creative. As it turns out, there's always someone renting or willing to barter your labor for a place to stay.
The USA. Everyone has the same personal rights in all locations. That's why the USA is one of the few places where they can post the "we reserve the right to search your bag at any time" signs, but they still have no right to search your bag. Your personal rights trump their property rights. Period. They can ask you to leave, but usually, by the time anyone is asking to look in a bag, you are walking out anyway, so there's nothing at all they can do, other than arrest you for shoplifting, which almost nobody ever does because citizens arrests open them up to lots of liability issues.
It looks to me like the only difference is that you might have some sort of citizen's arrest power in the libertarian case. Your bag is your personal property. The property owner doesn't get the authority to search that bag just because you're on their property.
Libertarianism isn't your tired old strawmen. You've been corrected many times on this sort of thing.
If they put up a "no blacks" sign, they are not allowed to kick black people out.
And when that was legal, they were allowed to kick black people out.
Where are you that you have no idea how US rights work?
That is probably just because your american and you whole way of life and cultural identity revolves around car use. It makes it far more difficult to see a world where cars simply cease to exist in their current form.
We've had a number of disaster movies where this happens. One merely needs to watch an alien invasion or zombie apocalypse movie to easily see a world without the car. So it's not hard at all.
What is hard is to come up with a competitive system that we'd voluntarily forego the car for. High speed rail just doesn't cut it as a rival.
The simple fact is that in the decades to come mass transit and densely populated cities where most of the population live is simply going to become more and more like the only option unless someone cracks a way of getting energy for nothing without drilling it up out of the ground like we do currently.
And there are already a number of ways to do that (biofuels as replacement for petroleum and electric cars, for example). So it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
Because the ability to move people and goods around very quickly efficiently and with minimal pollution is a good thing?
And what does that have to do with high speed rail? Keep in mind that the high speed rail projects of which California was the last hold out, were remarkably inefficient in their construction. Aside from the high cost, two of the lines, in Florida and California, would have started with particularly low demand routes that would have guaranteed low ridership for years in the beginning.
Second, no one bothered to connect any of these routes. There were a bunch of disconnected routes. You'd have to hop on an Amtrak or something else to connect between systems.
Even by the low standards of urban transportation systems, the US examples were remarkably inefficient and poorly thought out.
It's also worth noting that the US already has an efficient rail system for transporting goods. So there's no need for high speed rail for that purpose.
Frankly, I think the automobile system in conjunction with bikes and walking for short distances is the best system for point to point travel at minimum pollution. High speed rail might be useful, but it's got a remarkably poor business case for it.
I've never fully understood this concept that you build infrastructure to make money directly.
It's not complicated. Infrastructure which makes a profit is completely self-funded. And it's a reasonable measure to look at for something which has a lot of claimed value. Let's look at your example. If it really is beneficial to have more people live in Manchester and Birmingham rather than South East (and use the train), then they'll be willing to pay for the location change in one way or another.
For a government which can also be funded by property taxes, it is possible to make a profit even with an overly cheap train fare by increased property taxes on the land along the route (though such efforts usually ignore the areas that declined in value, such as a decline in South East property values in your example above).
As to the alleged transport, housing, water, and power costs, they'll have to be pretty high (and something actually paid by the government in question) to counter the cost of putting in a high speed rail line.
I see a bunch of name-calling here. What I don't see is a sane reason to build high speed rail.
As to California, they've already killed their HSR attempt with environmental regulation red tape. The project needs federal funds to work and those federal funds are conditional on California starting the project soon. But that just isn't going to happen due to the several year delay for preparing reports on the environmental impact of the project.
I figure the current leaders picked a face-saving way to back out without appearing to.
If you are building a new line, there is no good reason to not build HSR line.
Except if the igher cost of the high speed rail line outweighs the increase benefits of the line. A high speed rail line does cost more than a more modest approach. What I've been hearing worldwide is that most such HSR lines lose money. Meaning they aren't passing the most basic economics test (that is, having a positive ROI).
just so that selfish idiot human beings can all mindlessly squirt out dozens of offspring, and get into their cars and drive a half a block to Starbucks.
How about if those selfish idiot humans thoughtfully squirt out dozens of offspring while getting into their cars and driving that half block to Starbucks? Would it be ok then?
No, the US is not a counterexample. It is just an another example of my observations.
Then come up with a rebuttal rather than unfounded assertions.
No, the US had to make some tremendous sacrifices. It had to fight a civil war to free the slaves. Not every country had to do the same.
That's a very simplistic description of the Civil War. I sense some sort of conservation principle where sacrifice is required whenever you see a stirring story. It's worth remembering here that the slave states politically scored a huge victory in the years prior to the Civil War. They had a great deal of power which was threatened by the new president, Lincoln.
Now we can shoe-horn that into your narrative of "sacrifice is necessary". But what is the point? It didn't need to lead to a large war. The South didn't need to behave so aggressively and recklessly towards the North (such as the shelling of Fort Sumter which made passage of a declaration of war by the Northern states trivial). The North didn't need to declare war either. And after the war was over, it turns out that the same people in the South still kept a great deal of power despite the slave emancipation and the carpetbagging (putting Northerns into positions of power in order to cripple the power of Southern elites.
As to smuggling, that's a broken window fallacy. The farmers wouldn't have to do that if there was no tax in the first place.
No, that's not a broken window fallacy. There's no "broken window" leading to some sort of claimed benefit. The farmers had an easy way to work around the problem of the tax, so things didn't get changed for a couple of centuries.
No, it has been here since forever. Again, refer to the old laws I noted. Health care, pensions, welfare... those are just specific instances of the same general trend: some people are sacrificed so others benefit. The only difference being who's benefiting and who's getting sacrificed
And the size of the sacrifice being demanded. And that the sacrifice these days are for things that never required a sacrifice in the past. Let us not forget what is important here.
I don't know about the other guy, but I didn't accuse you of either. I pointed out your attitude is what enables empires to triumph. You may not actively support an empire, but you can still be used (perhaps unwittingly and unwillingly) to further the empire.
I just pointed out you are wrong here and how. You can continue to make noise. In which case, I'll continue to point out the error of your ways. There's a lot of delusion on this forum about people who think everyone else is being controlled.
It's kinda like how people who say they support addressing "moral" issues but end up doing the opposite.
That was my original point all along. Then I got accused of being "callous" and you started bleating about how I'm a tool to empire and such.
You have just argued successfully that microsoft is not a monopoly because it has strong credible competition.
At least I'm consistent. I argue in this post that Facebook, Amazon, Skype, Twitter, Apple, eBay and Google aren't monopolies. While I call Microsoft an "internet monopoly" (with a bit of sarcasm) in that post, I don't believe Microsoft ever had a monopoly either.
In the real world on the other hand, both are monopolies in their respective fields.
And as we see, the present of competition means not only that they haven't, but in the case of Microsoft, it's why the company has declined in recent years.
I've had many many people object to that, but none could explain the logical flaw.
Given how easy it is to either rent a place or buy your own land, what was the point of that argument?
The person owning the land you are standing on has more freedom than you.
Name a society where that's not true. In practice, while you have some limited "right of way" on most property, you do have to abide by the rules set forth by the land owner, public or private, or you have to leave.
So even libertarians believe the world will definitely *not* "somehow just work out"?
It's like most other beliefs. Some do have a belief that things will magically work out. Most don't.
10,000 years of civilization (or attempts thereof) have proven that the core ideals of libertarianism simply do not work.
Not at all. What's the point of asserting things that are clearly wrong?
Giving people unlimited freedom with punishment long after the wrong and more related to the ability to catch them than the act they did that was wrong is, in practice, no better than nothing.
This is a problem which has nothing to do with libertarianism. For starters, it's a weakness of most systems of law. The criminal is rarely caught in the act, but well afterward and punishment in turn comes well after that. We would have to be a lot more closely supervised than we are to have this responsive a law enforcement system.
If you allow for massive private armies and have little state power, someone will make a domestic army larger than the government.
Ok. I don't see the problem there. That's part of the implication of the government losing its monopoly on force. I'll note that the EU has no military forces of its own, all military forces are controlled, maintained, and funded by the member states meaning that even the smallest state effectively has a larger military than the EU. Yet no one gets worried that there's a domestic army larger than the EU government.
Eskarel, you have already been corrected several times. Why do you still choose to be wrong about basic tenets of libertarianism? Again, Libertarianism is about minimizing government not about eliminating government altogether.
Why are the red states the ones that get more from the government than they give?
What makes you think that? Just because money is spent in Iowa doesn't mean that it stays in Iowa. They aren't known for either their financial or IT industries. A lot of that money ends up elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the man getting his head slammed into the concrete repeatedly was clearly at fault. To answer your question, which of these actions you mention is considered sufficient provocation to warrant an assault that could have killed Zimmerman? To the contrary, you can claim self-defense even in such a case. Else you're claiming that one can have an even broader category of legal actions than the existing Florida law for killing someone.
In other words, if someone gets in my personal space while carrying a gun on their person, then they're fair game, right?
So, does libertarianism support slavery and segregation, or the government having more rights over your property than you have?
Of course not. It's like you don't even have a clue what libertarianism is. Your personal body and thoughts are your property and hence protected by libertarian tenets. I'll just note that this leads to similar though broader freedoms than the US citizen currently enjoys.
Segregation would usually be allowed (since it is a fair use of one's property), but not supported since there's no incentive to segregate. Even in the US one can still segregate, but only on things that aren't illegal to do (such as dress, "No shoes. No shirt. No service."). Finally, government doesn't have more rights over your property than you do. Government doesn't have any rights at all (merely powers and restrictions). And that's true of the US system as well which only has one amendment asserting any sort of "right" for a body of government (and that's just because the amendment in question is poorly written).
That was the issue, and you are avoiding it (quite gracefully, as if you've had lots of practice asking questions then dodging any returning questions).
How could I "dodge" something you never confronted me with? Look, I figured you were up to something. But trying to put me in a trap is a whole different game than simply asking me the question that supposedly was on your mind. And yes, I have a fair amount of practice with people pulling this sort of crap.
Why ask stupid and pointless questions, AK Marc?
You asked me to "Name a society where that's not true." and I did.
You merely asserted some things without any shred of evidence. For example, claiming that owning land in a libertarian society somehow grants you more rights, while the same is not true of the US, which to be honest, is not that far off a libertarian society. Here, the problem is that you use the double standard fallacy with a different definition of "rights" for the libertarian society (associating benefits of owning property with "rights") than for the US society (defining rights as what's specified or implied by the Constitution).
In all, that's what I expect from libertarians. They are a bunch of liars.
This is what we call confirmation bias.
Satan could make any promises to get elected, but we still wouldn't want him in office.
I guess you really are that stupid. Who really thinks a deity of deceit and treachery would have even the slightest difficulty navigating the US political scene? He wouldn't go the Ron Paul route, if you are even remotely concerned about that.
if, as the zionists contend, iran just wants to launch a suicidal massacre to kill as many jews as possible, they could have easily built and launched rocket packs which each contained ground up fuel rods, a sort of mother of all dirty bombs. launch 1000 military grade dirty bomb rockets, and 9000 regular rockets at the same time and even the best interceptor system would be so horribly overrun that it wouldn't matter, and even intercepted dirty rockets would be deadly.
There's no such thing as "military grade" dirty bombs. Radioactive material just isn't that dangerous. Israel's nuclear strike would be far deadlier.
having nukes would then force an end to economic sanctions in one of two ways, either they would be ended because they serve no purpose, or once proving the ability to build nukes they could negotiate an end of sanctions in return for inspections and no new construction of nukes
Given the second option, economic sanctions would continue to have a purpose, to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons. It might also slow everyone else in the region from trying to get them as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't going to be happy with a nuclear Iran. One wonders if Pakistan and India might beef up their nuclear forces as well.
I find it hilarious that you equate nuclear weapons to be a technology only for the sane and logical, when it would clearly take an act of insanity for anyone in any country at any time to actually use one.
Fucking. Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
Do you really think it'd be better to have crazy people using nukes frequently rather than sane people in a tense but peaceful standoff with nukes? I fail to see the dumbness of the argument.
I take it you've missed out on things like trade embargoes, Stuxnet, and assassination of Iranian scientists. There are reasons why Iran doesn't have fission bombs now and one of those reasons is because most of the rest of the world has been trying fairly hard and so far successfully to keep them from having nuclear weapons.
Think of reducing pressure on London and the South East as a "loss leader" to break the vicious circle of investing huge amounts of money in the South East to the detriment of the rest of the UK, which then makes the South East a more attractive place to live, which then increases the demand for investment in infrastructure in the South East, which...
If everyone wants to live in South East, then what's the point of building a high speed rail to a place where people don't want to live?
How much extra profit was made by companies in the UK and France being able to send people and equipment to each other very quickly?
You measure that by willingness to pay. If companies are making money from Chunnel services, they'll pay money for it. The ticket price itself becomes your feedback. This is the great simplification which a market-based system provides for such things.
I watched that documentary. Terrible situation, but at least they were able to work out a solution in the end. Not every tale has such a happy ending.
Kind of a reflex action you're showing, eh?
Perhaps, though a commonly (and in this case poorly) employed fallacy is a justifiable reason to have a rhetorical reflex.
So you are holding up the EU as an example of an ideal libertarian society?
No, merely pointing out that there's no expectation that a central government should have the largest military power.
If nobody is renting and you can't afford to buy, what do you do?
Well, what do you do in today's US? Move on or get creative. As it turns out, there's always someone renting or willing to barter your labor for a place to stay.
The USA. Everyone has the same personal rights in all locations. That's why the USA is one of the few places where they can post the "we reserve the right to search your bag at any time" signs, but they still have no right to search your bag. Your personal rights trump their property rights. Period. They can ask you to leave, but usually, by the time anyone is asking to look in a bag, you are walking out anyway, so there's nothing at all they can do, other than arrest you for shoplifting, which almost nobody ever does because citizens arrests open them up to lots of liability issues.
It looks to me like the only difference is that you might have some sort of citizen's arrest power in the libertarian case. Your bag is your personal property. The property owner doesn't get the authority to search that bag just because you're on their property.
Libertarianism isn't your tired old strawmen. You've been corrected many times on this sort of thing.
If they put up a "no blacks" sign, they are not allowed to kick black people out.
And when that was legal, they were allowed to kick black people out.
Where are you that you have no idea how US rights work?
Why ask stupid and pointless questions, AK Marc?
That is probably just because your american and you whole way of life and cultural identity revolves around car use. It makes it far more difficult to see a world where cars simply cease to exist in their current form.
We've had a number of disaster movies where this happens. One merely needs to watch an alien invasion or zombie apocalypse movie to easily see a world without the car. So it's not hard at all.
What is hard is to come up with a competitive system that we'd voluntarily forego the car for. High speed rail just doesn't cut it as a rival.
The simple fact is that in the decades to come mass transit and densely populated cities where most of the population live is simply going to become more and more like the only option unless someone cracks a way of getting energy for nothing without drilling it up out of the ground like we do currently.
And there are already a number of ways to do that (biofuels as replacement for petroleum and electric cars, for example). So it doesn't look like that's going to happen.
How do you calculate that?
Put a toll on them.
Because the ability to move people and goods around very quickly efficiently and with minimal pollution is a good thing?
And what does that have to do with high speed rail? Keep in mind that the high speed rail projects of which California was the last hold out, were remarkably inefficient in their construction. Aside from the high cost, two of the lines, in Florida and California, would have started with particularly low demand routes that would have guaranteed low ridership for years in the beginning.
Second, no one bothered to connect any of these routes. There were a bunch of disconnected routes. You'd have to hop on an Amtrak or something else to connect between systems.
Even by the low standards of urban transportation systems, the US examples were remarkably inefficient and poorly thought out.
It's also worth noting that the US already has an efficient rail system for transporting goods. So there's no need for high speed rail for that purpose.
Frankly, I think the automobile system in conjunction with bikes and walking for short distances is the best system for point to point travel at minimum pollution. High speed rail might be useful, but it's got a remarkably poor business case for it.
I've never fully understood this concept that you build infrastructure to make money directly.
It's not complicated. Infrastructure which makes a profit is completely self-funded. And it's a reasonable measure to look at for something which has a lot of claimed value. Let's look at your example. If it really is beneficial to have more people live in Manchester and Birmingham rather than South East (and use the train), then they'll be willing to pay for the location change in one way or another.
For a government which can also be funded by property taxes, it is possible to make a profit even with an overly cheap train fare by increased property taxes on the land along the route (though such efforts usually ignore the areas that declined in value, such as a decline in South East property values in your example above).
As to the alleged transport, housing, water, and power costs, they'll have to be pretty high (and something actually paid by the government in question) to counter the cost of putting in a high speed rail line.
I see a bunch of name-calling here. What I don't see is a sane reason to build high speed rail.
As to California, they've already killed their HSR attempt with environmental regulation red tape. The project needs federal funds to work and those federal funds are conditional on California starting the project soon. But that just isn't going to happen due to the several year delay for preparing reports on the environmental impact of the project.
I figure the current leaders picked a face-saving way to back out without appearing to.
If you are building a new line, there is no good reason to not build HSR line.
Except if the igher cost of the high speed rail line outweighs the increase benefits of the line. A high speed rail line does cost more than a more modest approach. What I've been hearing worldwide is that most such HSR lines lose money. Meaning they aren't passing the most basic economics test (that is, having a positive ROI).
I merely pointed out that neither Google or Microsoft in their given markets fits the definition of "monopoly".
just so that selfish idiot human beings can all mindlessly squirt out dozens of offspring, and get into their cars and drive a half a block to Starbucks.
How about if those selfish idiot humans thoughtfully squirt out dozens of offspring while getting into their cars and driving that half block to Starbucks? Would it be ok then?
No, the US is not a counterexample. It is just an another example of my observations.
Then come up with a rebuttal rather than unfounded assertions.
No, the US had to make some tremendous sacrifices. It had to fight a civil war to free the slaves. Not every country had to do the same.
That's a very simplistic description of the Civil War. I sense some sort of conservation principle where sacrifice is required whenever you see a stirring story. It's worth remembering here that the slave states politically scored a huge victory in the years prior to the Civil War. They had a great deal of power which was threatened by the new president, Lincoln.
Now we can shoe-horn that into your narrative of "sacrifice is necessary". But what is the point? It didn't need to lead to a large war. The South didn't need to behave so aggressively and recklessly towards the North (such as the shelling of Fort Sumter which made passage of a declaration of war by the Northern states trivial). The North didn't need to declare war either. And after the war was over, it turns out that the same people in the South still kept a great deal of power despite the slave emancipation and the carpetbagging (putting Northerns into positions of power in order to cripple the power of Southern elites.
As to smuggling, that's a broken window fallacy. The farmers wouldn't have to do that if there was no tax in the first place.
No, that's not a broken window fallacy. There's no "broken window" leading to some sort of claimed benefit. The farmers had an easy way to work around the problem of the tax, so things didn't get changed for a couple of centuries.
No, it has been here since forever. Again, refer to the old laws I noted. Health care, pensions, welfare... those are just specific instances of the same general trend: some people are sacrificed so others benefit. The only difference being who's benefiting and who's getting sacrificed
And the size of the sacrifice being demanded. And that the sacrifice these days are for things that never required a sacrifice in the past. Let us not forget what is important here.
I don't know about the other guy, but I didn't accuse you of either. I pointed out your attitude is what enables empires to triumph. You may not actively support an empire, but you can still be used (perhaps unwittingly and unwillingly) to further the empire.
I just pointed out you are wrong here and how. You can continue to make noise. In which case, I'll continue to point out the error of your ways. There's a lot of delusion on this forum about people who think everyone else is being controlled.
It's kinda like how people who say they support addressing "moral" issues but end up doing the opposite.
That was my original point all along. Then I got accused of being "callous" and you started bleating about how I'm a tool to empire and such.
You have just argued successfully that microsoft is not a monopoly because it has strong credible competition.
At least I'm consistent. I argue in this post that Facebook, Amazon, Skype, Twitter, Apple, eBay and Google aren't monopolies. While I call Microsoft an "internet monopoly" (with a bit of sarcasm) in that post, I don't believe Microsoft ever had a monopoly either.
In the real world on the other hand, both are monopolies in their respective fields.
And as we see, the present of competition means not only that they haven't, but in the case of Microsoft, it's why the company has declined in recent years.
I've had many many people object to that, but none could explain the logical flaw.
Given how easy it is to either rent a place or buy your own land, what was the point of that argument?
The person owning the land you are standing on has more freedom than you.
Name a society where that's not true. In practice, while you have some limited "right of way" on most property, you do have to abide by the rules set forth by the land owner, public or private, or you have to leave.
So even libertarians believe the world will definitely *not* "somehow just work out"?
It's like most other beliefs. Some do have a belief that things will magically work out. Most don't.
10,000 years of civilization (or attempts thereof) have proven that the core ideals of libertarianism simply do not work.
Not at all. What's the point of asserting things that are clearly wrong?
Giving people unlimited freedom with punishment long after the wrong and more related to the ability to catch them than the act they did that was wrong is, in practice, no better than nothing.
This is a problem which has nothing to do with libertarianism. For starters, it's a weakness of most systems of law. The criminal is rarely caught in the act, but well afterward and punishment in turn comes well after that. We would have to be a lot more closely supervised than we are to have this responsive a law enforcement system.
If you allow for massive private armies and have little state power, someone will make a domestic army larger than the government.
Ok. I don't see the problem there. That's part of the implication of the government losing its monopoly on force. I'll note that the EU has no military forces of its own, all military forces are controlled, maintained, and funded by the member states meaning that even the smallest state effectively has a larger military than the EU. Yet no one gets worried that there's a domestic army larger than the EU government.
Eskarel, you have already been corrected several times. Why do you still choose to be wrong about basic tenets of libertarianism? Again, Libertarianism is about minimizing government not about eliminating government altogether.
Why are the red states the ones that get more from the government than they give?
What makes you think that? Just because money is spent in Iowa doesn't mean that it stays in Iowa. They aren't known for either their financial or IT industries. A lot of that money ends up elsewhere.