You can't have corporations without a state.

It's a convenient tool to try and discredit libertarian ideas by trotting out the ideas of people who are decidedly non-libertarian. Most people aren't willing to look much past the surface, and take such accusations at face value, and so the lies spread.

Supporting business in general is not the same thing as corporatist cheerleading, but you wouldn't know that to listen to the gross generalizations made by people with an agenda that doesn't include integrity.

People frequently only remember encounters with the extremists of groups with whom they disagree. That's why talking heads tend to try to lump all Republicans or Democrats together as holding the same positions as the loudmouth douchebags in their respective camps who yell incessantly from places of ignorance.

As for myself, I am a libertarian who believes in absolute corporate subservience to the government under which its charter is written. As a legal construct, they have no rights whatsoever. Businesses run by an individual or group that operates without immunities unavailable to ordinary individuals are another matter entirely. They should be free to operate on the basis of free association and not be subject to State interference with their private contracts. They should be limited only by the same criminal and civil laws which apply to any other natural individual.

Many other libertarians also agree with the above logic, but it tends to require getting to know ordinary libertarians, rather than loudmouth extremists. The latter tend to be a poor representation of any particular group, especially one as diverse as libertarians.

True in an absolute sense, but completely irrelevant to anyone who is not handed money equal to the inflationary percentage multiplied by their assets (which is, well, almost everyone).

If your economy has $1,000 in assets for which there is a real demand, and 10 members each with $100 in currency notes, one or more will lose purchasing power unless each receives $10 of the printed money. Since only banks are allocated those new notes, every member of the economy loses purchasing power unless they can actively invest their money with a return rate at least equal to the inflationary rate. In the current US economy, that's a pretty small percentage of people given the average negative savings rate and the abysmal returns on invested amounts of less than 6 figures.

Powering the ringers on analog phones is a far cry from powering the entire network apparatus on a digital line. The transmission losses of DC current over long distances drastically limits the wattage available to all that connected equipment.

You mean long-distance phone lines aren't strung across those massive electrical transmission towers?

Or, alternatively, my last mile isn't the same as the last mile of every other person connected to the same substation?

*boggle* </sarcasm>

That's a problem with any wireline communication service, and will remain a problem regardless of whether the signal going down the wire is analog or digital. The problems being noted are in addition to physical disruptions.

To balance your anecdote with another anecdote, I can count on one hand the number of power outages that also took down phone service (that I was old enough to be aware of, obviously).

Whether the fallacy argument applies or not depends 100% on it trying to satisfy both the means and the ends.

"If I flap my arms, world peace will be achieved."

If I flap my arms, and my intent is to achieve world piece, I'm operating under the "arm-flapping" fallacy.

If I'm flapping my arms simply because doing so makes me happy, the "arm-flapping" fallacy does not apply. Yes, it is still true that flapping your arms will not bring about world peace, but who's the moron talking about world peace? Not me; I'm flapping my arms because it's entertaining.

The same thing applies to the broken window fallacy. It should only be invoked if the stated intent is to create net positive economic value through increased economic output. Last I checked, the people prosecuting this war in EVE weren't concerned about net positive economic value. That is true even if they were concerned about a personal economic net positive, which would be assumed to be at the expense of an economic net negative to be borne by the loser of the war. That last part (the recognition that a micro net positive relies on a macro net negative as a result of the destruction) is what separates the fallacy from the truth.

And, as with real life wars, others can have an economic benefit. Particularly those who hold large resource reserves, The price of which will skyrocket as these giant alliances work to rebuild their now-decimated fleets. Basic wartime economics.

Sure it will, they just won't be repossessing. Instead, they'll be destroying unauthorized reproductions.

But, but, I shouldn't have to worry about having the crap kicked out of me whenever I want to walk into a Hell's Angels club and piss on the shoes of the first person I see inside! Assault is not a laughing matter, and you shouldn't blame me for those bikers putting me into the hospital. It's THEIR fault!

No, contracts waiving parental rights are routinely overturned if it means the State can recoup money they spent. To legislators, fathers are nothing but a source of income. They have no actionable rights in many cases, but are still saddled with all the responsibilities.

His response if it's upheld should be to quit his job and collect welfare and food stamps. The best way to combat greedy asshole politicians is to cut off their money supply, unfortunately.

It may not actually disappear, but in many cases can effectively disappear into cycles that takes millions of years to complete. It all depends how and where it's used, and in what state it is in after that use.

Why would you project a model about human-influenced climate change to a time when there were no humans? Also, are you scaling your' Projections" to the total carbon output of the human race at the time? The carbon output of the Romans was quite a bit less per person than it is now, and the overall population was also significantly smaller.

Overall climate science is not about accurately predicting what weather we'll have in a given year. Anyone who believes that is a moron, as most deniers are. The point is that the models very accurately reflect average global trends.

Do you fit the profile of an average person in your area in every way? Oh, then those averages must be wrong, correct? Guess what, they're not. They're not a tool about specific cases, but about trends.

Honestly, I us the Wii more as a platform to watch movies than anything else. It's actually my most-used console, but I don't use it for gaming. At all.

If it had better development support, had a web browser that worked (come on Opera, really? You could've done so much better), and supported user-made applications without the need to essentially jailbreak it that would be excellent.

If they made something other than FPS games for consoles (yes, I know they do; that's called hyperbole) I might be interested in buying another one. Unfortunately, with the content they spew right now AAA publishers can fuck right the hell off.