So the correct answer to this question was the one ESR asked - for who and for what?
That's why I asked him to specify criteria when he answered. IMNSHO, the answer is almost entirely dependent on the criteria, as evidenced by the poster above who mentioned the FNFAL, etc.
People are attacking libertarians over it because they don't know the difference between anarchist, minarchist, and libertarian.
Because we don't care about that any more than we care about whether you are in the People's Front of Judea or the Judean People's Front.
I thought the whole system was based on the fact that most of the individuals with bitcoin holdings were criminals, so that stealing anything would get you killed.
No, you've confused BTC with USD.
Yep, and now to the non sequiturs. And you think I am predictable?
Ideally the people of Ukraine. It really should be for foreign powers to say. I mean you realize many government have provisions to handle ousting members and reforming, right? Particularly many parliamentary systems, but others as well. Even the US has something via the 25th amendment. The vice president and either a majority of the cabinet or congress can declare the president unable to discharge his duties and oust him (go read it if you want more specifics). It isn't a situation of "Well they were elected, now they are there and there's nothing you can do until the next election!" There are processes for removal/recall in pretty much all political systems.
I don't know anything about Ukrainian law, but really, it is for them to decide internally. Their courts need to rule on their law. It is really up to the US or Russia to come and say "No we don't think you should have done it that way, you do it our way instead."
And not shilling, go educate yourself. Vice News has some good coverage, split in 5 pieces, on it:
The most important things to note:
1) The Russian forces are not wearing insignias, or identifying themselves as Russian military. They either refuse to identify themselves at all, or identify themselves as being from the non-existent "Ukrainian Self Defense Force."
2) They Russian units are surrounding and/or capturing Ukrainian military installations. They are not moving to their bases, they are taking over Ukrainian bases. The Ukrainian commanders have been keeping things very cool, to avoid Russia being able to say they were provoked, so there hasn't been any violence, but it is a military attack on military targets, make no mistake.
3) Speaking of provocation, the Russian military has been trying it. They've been moving in and taking over Ukrainian bases, then withdrawing, only to do it again later. They are trying to goad the Ukrainian military in to firing on them.
4) Russia has been importing other non-governmental groups like Serbian Paramilitary forces to do, well who knows, but it isn't likely anything good.
So no, it is nothing like the US in Japan. Now if suddenly troops showed up in Maizuru and blocked off the military port there, troops wearing American uniforms, speaking English, armed with American weapons but wearing no insignias, no identifiers, and refusing to answer questions. If they blockaded the base, and then later went in and took it over, well ya, I'd be saying that the US was invading Japan and that it was clearly underhanded and illegit.
Having bases in a country doesn't mean free run to do as you please.
But then you can't really complain about their goal to have more powerful weapons.
The thing is we come back to the question of what really is a country, what makes a nation a nation? Well there can be two situations:
The first and oldest is just the ability to act as one, the strength such that nobody can realistically question your status. This is what you see with something like the US. Even if another nation doesn't like the US, or doesn't think it should be valid, they can't question that it is because they can't do anything about it. They can't attack or threaten the US's status in any way, the US is in control of its territory because nobody can say otherwise. Obviously this is the kind of thing that changes sometimes, and countries have indeed been conquered, reformed, etc, etc.
The other is international recognition and protection. There are a number of countries with little to no military, they couldn't hold off an attack from even a fairly small force, yet they are secure as countries. The reason is that they are recognized by international treaties, and thus the big boys, as being countries. They agree they are sovereign and won't interfere, and further often agree to defend them if someone does. Iceland is like that. They have no real military, but they are a NATO member, due to their strategic location. So they have some NATO bases, and the commitment of all NATO members to defend them if they are attacked.
Now, as this applies to Ukraine. They've been invaded by Russia. Russia has sent in troops, who are not wearing any identification, to take over Ukrainian military bases in Crimea. They really can't do much about it. If they fire on the Russian soldiers. Russia will just use that as an excuse to go all out on an invasion (Russian soldiers have been trying to provoke them in to firing) and Ukraine lacks the troops to push that back.
So they have two choices for independence: Either the international community steps in and helps, or they get more powerful weapons, the kind Russia doesn't want to fuck with.
Thus regardless of if you think the US or other countries have any specific obligation to them, that is the general state of things.
1) China has successfully tested the ability of their stealth interceptor to take down a plane.
2) China demonstrates near-instantaneous ICBM launch capability.
Full of hipsters, "Makers" and trashy music.
Only the people who see nothing wrong with such monitoring would be doing the job.
They're currently trying to get a permit to do 24 hour construction, i only know about this because there have been people going around the neighborhood trying to get everyone to sign a petition to block the permit. The people pushing the petition are trying to make it sound like there would be construction going on 24 hours a day every day for the full 9 years. I'm sure that's not actually the case, for if no other reason than if they were doing 24 hour construction every day it would almost certainly take less than 9 years. However LA hasn't made it very clear how much time, if any, they expect to cut off the deadline if they do get the permit.
TLDR: The project is already scheduled to take forever. I don't think it really matters if they stop for awhile to take a look at some fossils. In fact if they're at least halfway competent they could probably work on another section while the fossils are being excavated.
Don't need to. Been there, done that..
Predictably, you lied about having ever done that.
Just tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country and give people part-time jobs fixing potholes or whatever.
Why the make-work? Just go with basic income where everybody gets a check that's enough for food, shelter and other necessities, with no means testing or anything. If you want a bigger house or flashier car or a lawn greener than the neighbors', then you can go out and get a job (profit motive) to supplement your income beyond this. But you still take the "or die" factor out of employment.
You're still refusing to ever provide any evidence to back up any of the claims you've ever made against me?