We don't have to operate our society as a free market experiment if we don't want to. We're not really setup to live some kind of libertarian utopia, so what you suggest isn't going to work well without an overhaul of our system. Luckily there is already a system in place that has mostly worked well for modern society, so maybe we should use it.

We operate a representative democracy that [theoretically] answers to the people, and has a long history of actively preventing a tyranny of the majority by offering some protection to minority view points. (minority in the most general sense of the word). A community can assert certain standards of behavior from individuals if those standards do not illegal and ideally are not unethical.

You can interpret this as the government taking away your "rights", and get upset about the restriction. I prefer to view this as all of us collectively agreeing to some limitations on individuals in order to operate a desirable society. (agreeing, but not unanimously, and not necessarily formally)

I'm not sure how we romanticized each of us living as a rugged individual that answers to no one. King of our castle, and master of our domain.

I choose to live among other human beings and seek ways to coexist with them.

Is there not room for multiple viewpoints, or is there only one right answer?

If we choose freedom and liberty, but can see the potential to trigger for a major escalation of armed conflict are we remiss in discussing alternatives or in failing to choose to discuss those alternatives?

During hurricanes and floods the grocery store could choose to sell to the blonde and blue-eyed families first.

Doesn't seem like you have to have any hard rules, you can change why you refuse people service whenever you'd like without any announcement.

If I were serving prison lunches, yes. If not, then I'd wonder why they aren't in prison.

He has a right to the Pursuit of Happiness. And what makes him happy is to operate a business as a bigoted twit.

(no, he doesn't have a Constitutional right to operate a business under and terms he chooses)

Only marriages performed by the Roman Catholic Church are real. Protestant marriages aren't real.

But I'll make your kids a birthday cake, I mean assuming they've been baptized.

Jehovah's Witnesses would have a real tough time as a baker, not being able to celebrate birthdays and all. We should probably make a law to offset the amount of money they lost not being able to be competitive in the birthday cake business. Would be easy to structure it as a tax on all baked goods that is split among Jehovah's Witnesses.

I never said freedom of the press wasn't important.

joe, ersatz emacs, microEmacs, QEmacs, ...

Lots of choices out there for simple editors that don't need a lot of resources. But that said, emacs and vim run like a champ on my Raspberry Pi.

I need sed-like text manipulation integrated into my editor. I mean if there isn't already a full refactoring engine in it.

I usually test a few logins before logging out so I can revert any typos or whatever. I do the same even when using glorious Vi. Pity that nano decided to reformat lines, I wouldn't have expected that.

Matches work in places electric lights do not, so we should all switch to matches.

I didn't realize there was much to learn, can't people figure out how to use more than one text editor? We are talking about programmers and sysadmins aren't we, they're supposed to be experts in these matters.

A very Euro-American way to view the world.

Given that we're both common law systems, I see no reason why it's not going to go progress beyond that point.

Well, I'm not a true neckbeard, but merely a unix beard. But I question anyone's commitment to the Unix way if they are not using Traditional Vi. But I'm rather torn on the issue of facial hair and operating systems because a man I deeply respect has no beard at all!

So when some random loud mouth on India's side decided to post Mohammad jokes, is this going to devolve into a shooting war with Pakistan? And would the US and EU side with India, and the League of Arab States side with Pakistan. And next thing we're all fighting a multi-theater war triggered by something disproportionally small?

ps - I'm an American and was raised to believe the right to free speech is sacrosanct. But India's neighbor's aren't quite as friendly as the US's, and there can be serious repercussions to what would ordinarily be a purely domestic issue. While Pakistan's current government (the PML-N party) is fairly stable and has generally been interested with cooperating and trade with the US, EU and China, the PML-N has always been at odds with India of Kashmir, and the current PM was the same individual who escalated the nuclear tension in the region by ordering the first nuclear tests in Pakistan.