I understand what you're saying but that's not the way the courts are currently interpreting it.

I had to go look this up. Apparently the distinction is that they must accept payment in dollars and may not require that you pay in rubles, pesos or pieces of eight but they're free to mandate what form those dollars take, electronic vs. paper for example.

Are you suggesting that non-libertarians can't be conservatives? Even as a libertarian I find that silly.

He definitely broke the law, I don't think that's in question. I do think the main reason he broke the law is that the current whistleblowing system doesn't work. Reporting this through proper channels would have either A) Produced no results or B) Resulted in him being disappeared or ruined. My personal opinion is that his releases, while embarrassing for the current government, weren't actually particularly damaging to the US Strategic position as a whole. Because he worked with a reputable journalist and filtered the releases (unlike Bradley Manning's straight dump, which was intolerable) I think the good he did outweighed the problems he caused, which is why I think he deserves a pardon.

Personally I think basic income is compatible with libertarianism though I'm sure many will disagree. After all, if you're compelled to sell your labor due to having no other choice but starvation are you really free at all? Imposing libertarianism without a frontier or a BI is essentially just license for capital to exploit labor with all the power on the capital end of things.

I'm not sure the government of that universe can be properly described as fascist just because they limited suffrage to veterans. My understanding was that it was still a mixed economy republic without the organized business and labor groups that would be required for a fascist system.

Regardless, a movie about Starship Troopers that doesn't include power armor isn't a proper re-telling of the story.

It what bizarro world are those two not conservatives?

My definition would be anyone on whom we've declared war (of course), since we don't do that as much any more I'd accept a congressional authorization of military force. In my opinion everyone else doesn't count even if we don't trust them or like them very much. I believe the only groups covered by this currently would be North Korea (armistice, not peace) and Al-Qaeda. (Apologies if I missed one) I'm sure the government would disagree and want to have the ability to add groups from an arbitrarily created list that has no oversight such as the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. I wouldn't be comfortable with that without congressional oversight and a formal approval vote for each entry.

Except in Texas where it's still a valid defense to say "He needed killing" and get off scott free if the jury agrees. Not a bad law in my opinion.

Traitor: One who commits treason
Treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

He didn't levy war on us, he didn't adhere to our enemies, nor did he give them comfort. There is a flimsy argument that perhaps his actions gave aid to our enemies but if you roll with that reasoning then all of the people he exposed are also traitors so I'm not sure that's an argument the government would want to make.

He may be a criminal under the current laws, but he's not a traitor. Furthermore, if what he did was illegal then it's the law that is wrong and should be changed. The correct action would be for him to receive a presidential pardon followed by congress strengthening the whistleblower laws and a big shakeup at the NSA to root out their culture of taking activities beyond what they are authorized for. I'm afraid we don't live in that rosy alternate universe however.

Yes, because everything in the world is binary and there are no shades of grey.

You're suggesting a culture where the majority of inhabitants have no hope for the future. To say that such a culture would be unstable is a vast understatement. The likely outcome would be bloody and violent revolution. War is economically wasteful and destructive to the environment, I don't think the result would be nearly as cheery as you seem to be assuming.

File a bug report.

Seems like what you need is a way to replicate that original process and let the brain re-learn its interface.

Well, not Human 1.0 anyways.