I think we'll probably have a few generations of warning. Ash is mostly silica, especially with Yellowstone eruptions. It won't be magnetic. And a bad eruption would be tens to hundreds of cubic kilometers of ash and stuff. You aren't going to push that around with wimpy balloons.

The ideal solution here is to build up a considerable global food supplies of several years and not be there when the volcano erupts.

The international law has to exist in the first place. There's a reasonable argument that Congress delegating its warmaking powers to the Executive Branch is unconstitutional, but your argument isn't going far, if you're going to claim that international law was broken.

I have to disagree. We need to keep in mind who kidnapped who and started this mess in the first place.

You have yet to mention a thing relevant to libertarians or their beliefs on markets.

So this is hard? So is virtually everything we use markets for.

They don't say "no", they just don't deliver at all. That's obviously a vast improvement. And of course, this has nothing to do with markets.

And most of the delay is due to California regulation. Again, we have that because this is "daunting", that somehow magically means it can't be done by a market.

What data? What reality? I notice you don't bring any up yourself. It's annoying when libertarians are supposed to provide all this data and reality while their Slashdot critics can merely observe that electricity is hard and make up straw men on the fly.

They aren't the last to ignore costs. After all, most of the harm from the externality of pollution has been dealt with, often at inordinate cost to the would-be polluter, yet developed world societies still ratchet up pollution standards to ever more ridiculous levels.

The Shadows sap all life energy with their traditional doomsday weapons. It's the Vorlons who blow things up.

No, their behavior is a far more solid indication of ignorance than whether or not they agree with me.

Stops don't show up in the book. You can only find them by triggering them.

Benghazi is an out of control government issue. A number of high level government officials, including Clinton, lied about a relatively mundane security problem because it might harm them in the 2014 elections.

Similarly, Clinton's email server is another out of control government issue. She committed a felony by using that server. And there is some speculation that she had legitimate reasons for doing so, namely, an adversarial relationship with the rest of the Obama administration who might have used those emails against her.

Grouping that (and ISIS) with "social issues" illustrates the principle about throwing stones in glass houses. If you really are concerned about an out of control security government bureaucracy, then you need to be consistently concerned about it. When an important official successfully dodges federal email usage and retention rules (which were intended to make a more open and accountable government), that will make your concerns worse. When government officials succeed in lying about national security affairs, even minor ones such as Benghazi, that will make your concerns worse.

When government officials ignore important security matters in allied countries and that results in the establishment of ISIS in an important region to the US, that is greatly relevant to making your concerns worse.

Even social matters often have huge security apparatus implications. For example, due to the mandates of Social Security, income tax, various bioinformation data bases (like the FBI fingerprint database), and Obamacare health record mandates (both the conditions of the individual mandate and electronic record keeping), the federal government collects a huge amount of information about the US citizenry. They have information right there about who you are, where you are, your financial status, biometric information, and part of your medical records. Combine that with the NSA spying on US cell phone and internet conversations, then they have enough to do Roman Republic-era proscriptions - the drawing up of lists of political opposition, real and potential in order to punish or outright destroy them.

I don't see the problem here. Your food is not worth my freedom.

Why mention one particular group, when the ignorance is far more widespread?

I wonder which generation would demonstrate the most ignorance on the Snowden affair, if you did that?

I notice how so many of the supposed examples of deregulation cited in this discussion are actually examples of government incompetence and malfeasance. Sure, you can deregulate in a way that is a disaster as you demonstrate. But just because California created a market which heavily favored Enron and then the governor of California deliberately forced those conditions to continue for about half a year until one of the three large electricity utilities were in bankruptcy and a second was about to file for bankruptcy, doesn't mean that there is anything inherently wrong with deregulation or markets,

Of course, they don't. Even the most anarchic of markets still have regulation else there is no support for trading, it's just regulation imposed by the traders instead of an external source like a government or powerful leader.

I'll just point out that markets are an ancient solution to the distributed control problem.

I disagree. If someone had bought those book orders, the trader would have honored them. And if you act a certain way in a stock market just because someone places a large book order, then don't be surprised that someone places large book orders just to get you to act that way.