Move to a star that isn't burning out at that time. In five billion years, you can move the Earth as well not just yourself. Solved that problem.

I'll meet your erroneous generalization with a real world counterexample.

Even in a world of strictly monetary values, very few own copyrights that held their value so long after creation. It's not everyone's monetary value that's being preserved, but rather that of a few. Limited duration IP has value even in the world of pure monetary value.

That's the power of a good ethics system. That it holds even with widely divergent moral viewpoints.

What a dumb thing to say.

Not true. We need to remember that there are more than 100 known caldera eruptions of the Yellowstone hotspot as it migrated from eastern Oregon to its present location over the past 16 million years. None of these eruptions, including the big eruption of 2 million years ago, are tied to known global extinction events over this time period.

Sure, if you were a plant or animal with a limited range too close to one of these supervolcano eruptions, you were out of luck, but we don't see global impact over the known lifespan of the hotspot. If it were remotely as bad as you claim, we would have seen some obvious signs of it in the fossil record, which we don't.

Further, why would the Earth's atmosphere become unbreathable? Sure, there's a lot of ash and gases released in a supervolcano eruption. But the Earth's atmosphere is much bigger than that and most of those gases, aside from carbon dioxide and other relatively insoluble gases, would wash out in rain. The remnant that remains in the stratosphere wouldn't have much effect precisely because of how little there is in the stratosphere.

Enough lead time and you can prep for anything nature throws at you other than universe-scale problems like the heat death of the universe. Maybe even that can be managed successfully though I'm not feeling up to it.

And if you look at how international law is created, such as the Geneva Conventions or the various nuclear nonproliferation treaties, your impression of the strangeness of international law would no doubt endure. This stuff is created by ad hoc groups of diplomats (which would be the bodies analogous to legislatures in the law making process) pulled together for the treaty in question. And they nakedly pursue the very specific interests they represent which may or may not be the specific interests they claim to represent. Legislatures have similar fig leaves, but those tend to be more carefully placed.

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

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.