Well, as I said, he is cutting military spending substantially, and using those savings to avoid having to cut even more severely elsewhere.

Completely eliminating the DoD wouldn't actually give us a budget surplus, I don't think, or at least not a 'hefty' one. And certainly the growth of the rest of the budget would eventually run us into huge deficits again.

Instead of using an amorphous concept like a right I'll put this in terms of when the use of force is justified. I don't agree that your example is a case where the use of force is justified.

I do agree that it's wrong for the individual with excess not to be charitable or to put that excess to good use, but that's not the same as saying it's okay to use force to take that excess and be 'charitable' or do good with it.

Yes, absolutely. And this is best achieved when people recognize that it's not right for them to just take what they want from other people, even when they think they need it more than the people that have it. This rule of law is indeed an important pillar of civilization.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html

Yeah, LLVM and Clang are designed as libraries to be used by other client programs. One of the main developers actually worked on similar stuff at Microsoft.

Apple is making use of LLVM and Clang in their IDE for exactly the kinds of things talked about in the article, replacing custom parsers used for syntax highlighting or expression parsing in the debugger.

This is just the direction compilers are going these days. I wonder if older compilers like GCC will be able to adapt or if they'll just continue being monolithic.

It's only this article which is focusing on the small things. The actual budget proposal focuses on cutting big ticket items like DoD and whatnot. The cuts discussed in the article are about $12 billion while that's only a tiny portion of the $1 trillion in cuts in the actual proposal. So yes, let's keep the discussion on the big expenses.

That should read '10x' not '100x'

We've had long term plans for decades now. I support them too but so far they've done nothing.

Maybe this won't do anything either, but I think we're at the point where we really can't be picky. I see too much spending as one of the main underlying problems, so even if there are small-scale negative consequences as a result of this being implemented I think overall it will still be a big help.

The plan does include substantial cuts to the DoD and many of the other areas outside the DoD which are still military spending.

The plan cuts $1 trillion, not just the $11.4 billion pointed out in this article. Did you actually take a look at the plan?

All of those are eliminated or substantially cut. Did you actually look at the plan?

The plan actually cuts $1 trillion. The article is only focusing at some of the tiniest cuts for some reason.

Closing down the department of energy doesn't mean abandoning nuclear weapons. Although the plan doesn't mention it specifically it does move important functions from the eliminated departments to other departments. I've heard people in the Paul camp say that nuclear weapons should be in the DoD instead of hidden in the DoE. Presumably that's what would be done under this plan.

What do you mean "Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget?" Did you look at the plan? The very first item is cuts in the DoD. In fact the cuts there are well over 100x all the items you listed combined.

Right, these departments are tiny relative to the amount cut ($1 trillion). The proposal does cut the DoD budget as well. And it's still not enough to balance the budget.

This budget proposal cuts more than just a tiny sliver of the DoD. It starts with $200 billion in cuts (off the CBO baseline) in the DoD the first year.