Is it "your property" if you produced in in a partnership with several others, with one of the conditions of the partnership being its release?

That all depends on the contract signed by participating parties.

Naw, they'll just exempt themselves from it as they always do when they enact legislation that may negatively impact them.

Personally I believe there are far more common dangers to concern one's self with than lasers. For instance anybody with a credit card in hand can go fill a can with gasoline and honestly gasoline has for more destructive potential than any laser current on the market.

But the ultimate truth is stupid people will do stupid things and bad people with do bad things regardless of rules and regulations put into place.

Ah, yes. If something doesn't work we just need to try it again only harder!

Best Buy now buys and sells used games and many pawn shops have been buying and selling used games since the old NES days (probably earlier).

I think you're the one who's not understanding this. Under libertarian philosophy you have a right to self-defense which includes situations where you are reasonably sure your life is in immediate danger. For example if somebody with a bomb strapped to themselves came to your location you would be able to argue that you had a reasonable expectation that the man with the bomb strapped to himself was an immediate threat to either yourself or your property. Thus if you took actions to defend yourself it's likely any court would agree with your action and also unlikely a court would agree with the potential bomber's heirs if they tried to bring a case against you.

In addition to that property rights would further make this issue no more worrisome then it is today. Yes you have a right to strap a bomb to yourself, walk around, and even detonate it so long as that detonation won't harm another or the property of another. Your right stops at your property line, once you enter another person's property you must either play by their rules or leave. Most people are not going to be OK with some random guy coming on to their property with a bomb strapped to themselves and thus a person doing so it's a "law-abiding citizen." As the property owner would have a reasonable expectation that they or their property was in immediate danger they could take actions necessary to defend either.

Again I'll urge you to read the material I linked to (it's freely available at the link I provided) as it will likely clear up many of the misconceptions about libertarianism you seem to have.

First of all a suicide bomber would constitute an immediate threat to life granting anybody in the vicinity legitimate reason for self-defense. I'll recommend reading The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard as it answers most of the common questions and counters most of the common criticisms people have about libertarianism.

As for collecting compensation from a penniless dead man, you can't do that now, so it's not really a criticism of libertarianism but of modern technological limitations. There isn't a modern society on the planet that can bring a dead man back to life in order to enact justice against him. In such a case you would rely on insurance just as you do now.

You seem to be mistaking a libertarian society with one that lacks law. Libertarian philosophy does include provisions for law but the laws are solely against harming another or their property. It's called the non-aggression principle and if violated libertarian philosophy recognizes the violation as a crime and allows for the collection of compensation.

It's actually not that terribly difficult to replace the "non-replaceable" batteries in the unibody MacBook Pros.

I haven't ventured out to start my own business yet but my father did exactly as I described. He's an auto-mechanic who wasn't satisfied with the working conditions available to him so he worked just long enough to be able to secure a small business loan and started his own shop.

I didn't say there was a labor shortage but that one could be created based on the circumstances I described.

On the subject of political contributions I'm with you. This is mostly due to my political views but I'd be happy to see a political system where candidates and elected officials were unable to receive any donations.

Which competition are you going to take your skills to if ALL businesses decide to place "unreasonable consideration upon" people's employment?

If I'm unsatisfied with the offerings made available I have the option to either start my own business or find another industry to work in. Should enough people choose the latter case a labor shortage will develop in that industry forcing employers to improve conditions in order to attract people.

Don't get me wrong either, I'm not against employees voluntarily coming together to form a union in order to fight for better working conditions. That's a great option to get better benefits. What I am against though are unions trying to use the government's monopoly on the initiation of force to coerce employers into actions. This is what large unions paying money to members of political parties do and that's what I have a problem with.

It's impossible, because you people think any implementation of commons, having to give a crap about anyone else but people you care about, and having to pay for legitimate government oversight of industry is infringing on your freedom.

No. Libertarian philosophy follows a non-aggression principle. We don't believe caring about others is infringing on our freedoms, we believe government using their monopoly on the initiation of force to coerce us into action is against our freedom. In order to enact social programs they must be funded either through voluntary giving or taxation. Those who follow libertarian philosophy have no problem with voluntary giving.

What we have a problem with is the government putting a gun to our heads and taking a portion of the money we earned through our labor. You can debate whether or not the ends justify the means but you need to understand the point of conflict before making a statement about the philosophy. The point of conflict is the requirement of violence not our pocket books.

So they promote debate, they promote listening to dissenting opinions, they have people in their ranks who disagree with the party base and AREN'T made to be political outcasts by their fellow party members.

You must know different Democrats than I do. Most of the Democrats (and Republicans) I know are zealously loyal to their party and try everything they can to shout down any unapproved opinion. They don't try to foster debate, they try to yell over you in the hopes you'll stop pointing out potential fallacies in their ideologies.

Both sides have fanatics who try to shout down the Other Party. And that's the problem, fanatics. I know several non-fanatic Republicans and Democrats who are actually pleasurable to converse with even though my beliefs are not aligned with either of their ideologies.

What kind of a third-rate country are we going to become with these jackoffs in control?

The same kind of country we are now that they're already in control. The crux of your argument appears to be government corruption in the form of corporations being able to "buy" politicians. You mention the fact that GE was able to buy favorable tax laws, government has sold securities against Social Security causing it to cost money, and that the tax rate of the highest bracket affects the GDP. All these are conditions created by the government.

These jack offs are already in control, they're called politicians. The problem is most people look towards the government to fix these problems through legislation (making GE's accounting practices illegal for instance). Hoping to get government to fix the problems created by government isn't going to conclude with a favorable solution.