You're forgetting the "plain sight" exception. Written in invisible ink, apparently.

A better analogy would be you want your neighbors to put a camera in their houses and provide the video feed to the police so that the thief can be apprehended. Camera and internet connection so the video files can be uploaded to the police are to be paid for by your neighbors. If you can't tell what's wrong with that scenario, we have nothing to talk about as we have exactly zero common ground from which to discuss it.

Because polygraphs are a useful interrogation tool. Not because they can detect lies, but because an interrogator can elicit confessions by playing head games with the person being polygraphed.

that's a relief.

Because putting them in jail makes their lives less miserable.

Everyone who sues might not win, but everyone who gets sued loses. Good luck getting the cost of your defense back from a copper thief.

Interesting point. The question that pops into my mind therefore is, with all those farmers running around shooting ultralight aircraft, why are cities still the place to be if you want to get shot?

The only people who have guns in Australia are the cops, what with guns being illegal. Better go sue the police.

You might want to examine article 28 of the fourth Geneva Convention.

The Palestinians can have a homeland right the hell now. For the asking. They cant have their 1967 borders because they made a bad choice to goad the arab nations into going to war with Israel, but they can have a large chunk of what they lost then anyway. They don't want it.

The Arabs could just as easily have not picked a fight with Israel in 1967 or, failing that, they could have won, in which case there would be no Israel today. But when you pick a fight and lose, sometimes instead of looting the other guys wealth and living in the other guys home, the other guy loots your wealth and lives in your home. That's what happened. I'm so worked up over their disappointed expectations that I'm practically crying [sob]

If true, imagine how much nicer it would be then if they didn't periodically and deliberately goad Israel into pounding them flat.

Good idea. In fact, that's the point of the posts you object to. The examination of racist tweets "called out" one specific kind of racism without any attempt to "call out" any other kind. Why would you defend that sort of conduct? And why would you defend it by accusing it's detractors of exactly the sort of shortsightedness that the examination of racist tweets suffers from?

White flight! RAAAAACIST!

Governments posses the authority to use force to compel people to do their bidding while corporations mostly don't try to force you to do anything. When corporations _do_ try to force you to do something, they employ government to do it for them. When one person has a gun and has demonstrated a willingness to use that gun to compel people to do their bidding while another has a whole bunch of money, I fear the guy with the gun more than the guy with the money.

Even simpler answer: during the 20th century governments slaughtered more people than any corrupt corporate evildoer could ever possibly hope to kill. The worst a corrupt corporate evildoer wants to do is enslave you or seize your posessions. They honestly don't care if people live or die, unlike government.

Governments are responsible for in excess of 100 million deaths, exclusive of casualties of war. Corporations haven't got nearly so bad a record as government.