Just locate the "hot" end of the firing range along the MX border.

Anything that crosses into it...is a valid target. I figure after about 4-5 boxes of .50cal ammo, word will get around and we won't have the illegal crossing problems we currently are saddled with...

The most rapid general tech advancement is in a relatively free economy. This has been observed a hundred times over last century.

The prime driver is a free economy, regardless of any government assist, a different question.

Many endeavours fail, big surprise. At least it wasn't driven my a senator and congressman in exchange for a vote on some other bill.

Dig the moat, set mines....etc.

That would solve a LOT of problems and actually be within the mandates the federal govt has from the Constitution....protecting our borders.

classic case of, "I got mine"

Yes...and exactly what's wrong with this...?

..aim for the turban and beard.

Or...have the robot just yell out "Fuck Allah", or "Look, a woman driving alone" and if it gets a reaction, then shoot.

:)

...but you all still vote Republican.

No. We don't. I have not voted republican since well into the last century. Basically since I developed the perception that republicans don't give the south end of a northbound rat for the health of the nation as a whole - economically, biologically, ecologically. I find their "me first and the rest of you can DIAF" attitude to be as utterly reprehensible as it is dependable.

I vote Democrat and will continue to vote Democrat as long as the hint of humanity they exhibit exceeds that demonstrated by the republicans. Right now, the republicans are at an epic low in this regard, consequently them getting my vote is basically an outright impossibility.

I do not consider optimum agency (personal liberty) and comprehensive safety nets to be at worthy odds in a wealthy society. Which we are. That's me. The broad outcry against the ACA has taught me a great deal about how others think. I used to think I was too pessimistic, that everyone had a core of generally extendable compassion within them, no matter what it looked like.

Nope. Then there are the "little" lessons...

Some unmentionable person(s) ran over a kitten in the middle of the wide-open parking lot at the grocery store here six weeks ago. When Deb and I rolled up, all we could see was a little head sticking up from the crushed body, frantically swiveling around like it would do it some good to see the next filthy scumbag coming. The little wretch was in plain view of at least a hundred people, and somehow, not a one of them could seem to see it. Whereas it was the only thing we could see. Crushed pelvis, completely broken front leg, broken tail, abrasions... broke my heart -- and at the same time, it's really fortunate for me that I didn't see it happen, or I'd probably be in jail right now.

Instead, we saved the kitten... cast comes off this Friday, and although the pelvis will never be right, she can walk again. But I will never, ever, forget the lesson.

I think you need to take a breath and realize that there are people trying to enable corporate power, and there are people trying to enable responsible agency for intelligent beings, and that they are not the same people, but they both find themselves under the libertarian banner. Small l. Because that's the closest fit. Just like gun nuzzlers go republican because of the gun plank in the party (some of them would be very happy to have race-based governments.)

Sigh. Maybe we -- or I, at least -- just need a new 'ism.

In that case, the robot didn't make the decision. So, no.

The funny thing is that congress has set a huge precedent of roundly ignoring the constitution. Ex post facto laws, innumerable tramplings of the bill of rights, effective inversion of the commerce clause, boatloads of laws that are in no way specified or even implied in their enumerated powers... so if the President wants to say "Hey, you, know, you guys simply aren't doing your job, and so [insert action here]" there really isn't much of a reasonable leg to stand on to pose an objection.

And if the country likes what he does, it'll stick, too.

Those shades are really helping you with your feelings about the future, eh?

Well, let's just see if they actually let it expire. So far, their record of keeping intrusive, unconstitutional surveillance in place is pretty consistent. For the children, you know. And terrorists! And OMG immigrants!

But yeah, it'd be awesome if some of this utter crap just went away into the (a) sunset (clause.)

one of only four Republicans in favor of taking away Obama's surveillance state.

If you want to characterize the surveillance state as "Obama's", just remember, it was Bush's first -- it took a huge leap with the PATRIOT act which was instantiated (inflicted, more like) on his watch, and if the Republicans manage to put an electable candidate up next time around, it'll be theirs. None of which actually solves the problem, because it isn't a presidential issue.

The honest way to characterize it is as Congress's surveillance state since they're the ones who defined it, passed it into law, have not ameliorated it, and will continue it as long as the American Couch Potato Collective keeps leaving them in office.

Corporations are private individuals.

No. They aren't. Neither individual, or private. Other than as completely batshit legal fictions which no one with an honest interest in individual agency would support for a moment. Corporations, frankly, are imaginary constructs and as such deserve very little legal status, if any (I can't think of any they deserve, actually.)

People are inherently private individuals. Corporations are artificial constructs than have no fundamental initial merit of their own, and at most, they are/become what we make them. If we make more of them than they should be, then we've screwed up. Which is an excellent description of the present situation.

In fact, libertarians, much like conservatives, praise powerful corporations

Wrong. I'm a libertarian, and I don't praise corporations at all. Powerful or otherwise. I praise right action and properly allocated responsibility, things that have been excised from almost all corporate behavior by the error path created by the constant need to grow to satisfy shareholder interest, and in no way constrained by the libertarian idea that the corporation's ability to act, along with any person's ability to act in the corporation's stead, should be absolutely firewalled where it causes non-consenting individuals any direct harm, be it physical or in the pocketbook. Or severely punished if it breaches that firewall.

You want to be very careful when you start thinking you know what others consider fundamental based on just a label or two.

They're confusing the halting problem with the horizon pronlem in game theory.

Like a chess grandmaster who sees a trap 15 moves down the road that a lesser-skilled player cannot.

The good ones took advantage of this when playing compters. Kasparov is still convinced he could win a rematch.

The nicest thing you can say about libertarian philosophies is that they aren't as ignorant and poorly thought out as modern conservative ones.

That is just hand-wavy nonsense.

Take libertarian issues honestly one by one, and some are demonstrably quite reasonable, while others are about as screwed up as anything in the Democratic or Republican plank collection. And vice-versa.

For instance, on the Libertarian side, take agency. Let's see you reasonably defend policy that takes agency away from a person when the act at hand is personal (or consensual) and properly informed. Libertarians don't think you can do it (and so far, they've been right... there isn't a reasonable defense for this that's ever been penned to date.)

And in case that's too wordy, here: "You, competent-and-suppposedly-free-adult-person, you want a pizza? No, sorry, we've decided (though in many instances it's perfectly clear we're just lying) it's bad for you. Absolutely no pizza. Furthermore, if you do have one, or make one, or sell one, you're going to jail. For years." Defend that position.

On the Democratic side, the argument is that a healthy nation is a better nation, and it is worth a very significant cost to achieve that. Argue that it isn't.

On the Republican side, one plank states "We oppose the creation of any new race-based governments within the United States." Make an argument for a race-based government. Go ahead, try.