You must be American.
Most European nations do have their own military and France - and Great Britain, to a somewhat lesser extent - do pull their own weight.
Don't confuse imperialism with a benevolent will to protect people : whatever the US military does is first and foremost to further the interest of the US itself (be it through control of specific regions, or simply an increase of budget going toward it). The only difference with previous Imperialist powers is that they have to be somewhat more discreet about it, so the average American can still believe the "we're the good guys" mantra.
After all, not so long ago, it was pretty standard in fiction to talk about rape as "a fate worse than death".
I'm pretty sure quite a lot of people still feel the same, although they mostly won't admit it openly.
This goes against libertarian professed ideals and pretty much shows how internally inconsistant that standpoint is (except if you just want the Law of the Jungle, where might makes right): or you go right back to Ferguson analysis, with the "elite" free to do as they please - as they're the real creators, operating in a void where only their minds shine (I'm splicing Rand in here) - and the rable having lost any other ability than to work like drones, pay up when necessary, shut up and be happy about it.
At least Ferguson had the courtesy to lament this situation and to insist that such a separation was only the result of the way advanced society works. Heinlein, following Rand, believes that some simply are gifted and should lord over the rest (through being rich without contributing anything back in modern society). That's why I call it drivel : nobody works in a vacuum. If you want quotes, here's one:
If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants, by Newton.
Let's see, where to begin with... Ok, first of all, let me say I aknowledge Heinlein as one of the great SF writers, along the lines of Asimov or Clarke. I also do agree with most of his view on personal freedom (although incest?..)
That said, a great political philosopher he wasn't. Among other inconsistencies, taking on the one hand the libertarian drivel you've quoted here (it could copypasted from Rand), and the fact he was in favor of a strong, military, central government tells me that he either didn't think further than knee-jerk reaction, or he was a conservative who wrote things he didn't believe in to sell books.
And geez, quoting "Time Enough for Love"? One of his most ridiculous books with him, through his main character, rambling on and on about things he had no real clue about (mainly, expanded sexual promiscuity). You'd have been better off quoting from "Friday" or "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" (the Professor's speech to the Lunar assembly comes to mind)
From that point of view, beware of slipping down the path of XVIII century's concept of stages of civilization.
On my part, I would say wealth comes from the people, but it's only under a specific number of circumstances that it isn't sucked away by a small minority. The difference is that if you accept Ferguson's point of view, you accept that only the wealthy and privileged - the "better sort", to quote Madison - are real citizens. All the others simply are tools to be used, although they should be taken care of.
The point is, saying that wealth comes from the government is mistaking the source and the controler : case in point, most western societies where, to various degrees, the government has been used by a few to siphon off wealth. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that governments are evil and all that libertarian crap. But the idea of the balance of power clearly mostly has failed; since in the end a government is the ultimate power over a specific land, it also is the ultimate recourse of the people, so they MUST keep its workings under a very tight rein and they musn't believe anybody is, at any point in time, a saint who will do what is good for the others at their own expense.
That means, getting back to the actual problem of that company, if the locals have any way to say or do something about it (which I doubt, even in Northern European countries), they'd make that company keep paying its taxes where it ought to. Unfortunately, the way Europe works right now (encouraging a race to the bottom) means they probably are pretty much screwed.
What I'm saying is that it is a shame for us, as a species, that his interests weren't on something with a wider impact.
As such, the path he has chosen is good news for diseased children. However, humanity as a species isn't affected by those personnal tragedies he decided to focus on. On the other hand, there's a number of subjects in physics, genetics or even medecine that could have had a much wider impact.
Yes, I'm aware such a way of thinking classifies into the cold-hearted bastards category.
Just so you know, Samsung is a South Korean company.
Heard yesterday on the most important French national radio network, from the mouth of one person in the government, something that essentially was
All of this, of course, to satisfy the very much entrenched IP interests.
Nations like the US and EU
One mistake, there. The EU is not a nation.
Contrary to what may happen in the US, their rulings in such cases are completely driven by ideology (or personnal benefit which doesn't appear to the case here).
You can see this mix of the two driving forces: "competition must be upheld at all cost", and "private property is the most sacred right there is"
End result? The guilty companies are slammed with a penalty which probably amounts to less than what breaking the law allowed to rake in, and the only one who will really be hurt are the one who were screwed in the first place: the final consumer.