Wasn't talking about the party, but the other guy who responded to this provided a nice example of the very silly claims many libertarians make on this front.

Amusing that so many people claim the Constitution as their banner and claim it represents their precise political views, when it predates basically all modern political discourse and their own views are so reprehensible. Amusing that the Libertarians might claim to be the same party as the Democratic-Republican Party, or the Federalist Party, and claim all sides of the First Party System as themselves.

Yeah, that at-best/at-worst thing is what I'm getting at. Something as generic as better science education is broadly awesome, and avoiding a sponsor (provided they're not a demanding sponsor) for that is pretty dumb. The at-worst concern is worth thinking about though, as would be potential "cultural rot" caused by accepting aid for now and possibly needing to pull back from it later should it head over to type-2.

I can imagine there might be good and bad reasons to part ways, and I'm wondering if he's explained himself somewhere.

If the DARPA involvement is just to encourage cleverness and the sciences, I don't think he has a leg to stand on (or his principles are WAY different than mine), but if DARPA is having the kids build specific technologies being used for military applications, it might be worth parting ways over it.

This is an interesting step; in general countries are a lot more strict on entering their territory than leaving it. There are some circumstances where you'd want to control exit (if someone is fleeing law enforcement for some reason, avoiding child custody or the like), but I wonder if that's the intent of this policy shift or if it's something else.

The high profile journals weed out sensationalist claims more often than not (part of being high-profile is having a finely tuned bullshit meter). The number of retractions are also a sign of strength, as the mechanisms forcing people to correct their errors are getting better. This isn't to claim that the process doesn't have room for improvement, but the cited examples are rubbish.

It kinda makes my point that you're willing to make that comparison, Godwin's law and all.

Why do we want to crash the government? It's our tool to serve the public good. It's not perfect, but we're better off with it than against it.

The libertarian hostility to civilisation is very sad.

I'm sure what we'll find out in the end is that people vary; many of us have pretty strong notions of what's unacceptable, and provided those notions are met we'd accept profit.
Principles:
1) I do want an end to all IP protections, and to see development of custom features and support being the primary ways support happens
2) I don't want whatever companies exist that work with open source software to sit on closed extensions forever, or for them to reject donated code that duplicates any custom code they use to support themselves
3) I think features that are not of general interest should still be opensource but funded by those with the special interest.
4) New features, if they are to be funded, can be done through bounties, but not every bit of development should be done through a bounty; there should be a main course of development for most products that happens no matter what, even if at a slow pace
5) Patents and copyright should not be used to prevent forking, clones, or competition

I would accept profits happening along the way, provided these principles are met.