Appeal to authority logical fallacy. Whatever

I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong and would appreciate being pointed out to an accurate source of information. Perhaps a little bit more respect and less personal attack in responses?

It's not just as simple as the number of renewable energy sources used, or total output from those sources, you have to look at the total amount of energy that went into producing that renewable generation source. Solar panels with efficiency better than 10% require a slew of rare earth minerals. A large amount of fossil fuels go into the mining, and then the refining of those minerals. Then there is the mining and refining of the metals and conductors used. Then there is the fuel for the transportation.

When these renewable generation sources arrive, they are sitting at a large deficit in the amount of energy used from non-renewable sources in order to produce it. I'll need to go find the source, so please treat this as unverified, but I have read more than once that large wind turbines will be at an energy deficit for nearly 20 years before they are able to reach a net positive in terms of energy produced vs spent in production and transportation. If renewable energy sources could be used to produce renewable energy generation sources, then we'd have something good to go on, however some forms, like the smelting of metals and minerals it takes an enormous amount of electricity to be able to effectively do this on the scale needed to produce these sources.

It's not popular but when we reach the point of not being able to extract enough non-renewable sources to meet demand we're going to have to adapt to using less energy.

Corporate power depends entirely on the government enforcement of their artificial rights. For example, no monopoly could exist without a government protecting it from competitors entering the market.

I agree with the other poster stating that libertarians preferring corporate dictatorship being a strawman. A corporation is almost entirely reliant on the government enforcing rules which allow it to exist. Specifically the enforcement of contracts. I am also a libertarian and I do not support the existence of a limited liability organization, or corporate "personhood". If you are an owner, you should have liability. There should be no corporate shield. Personal responsibility at its finest. Would this mean that mega sized business would never form, or that the economies of scale we see might not flourish? Possibly however I don't care, and anything which shields individuals from the cost of choices they make is unnatural and has no place to be enforced through violence as all things done by the government are.

Well, since being imprisoned will make you safer, lets throw you in prison. What? You don't want that? Maybe because there are somethings that are more important than being safe? Like maybe being free?

He declares bankruptcy, and all his debts get wiped away. This could actually help his finances more than hurt them if he is like the typical American and has more debts than assets.

Why would it be a life sentence. There is this thing called bankruptcy. It can wipe even this judgement away.

It still remains that the work conditions would be illegal were they done in the United States, and absolutely all of Europe. They are a step up over lots of shops in that country, but that doesn't change the fact that the hours the employees work, the benefits, and overall conditions are not acceptable. So they are the best of a crumy lot. I have the firm belief that any product that is sold in this country, I mean the US, must have been produced in working conditions that are of the same, or better, as mandated here in the states. And that includes work hours.

You'll never be able to do that, however. Our leaders would gladly destroy all life on earth than let another military set foot on our soil. It is therefore academic. A stronger army matters not when you can blow up the entire planet many times over.

In the company I work for, I am a software developer, and I work in the Product Development department. We also have an IT department which is responsible for maintaining the computer network and servicing the companies computer assets. So I work in Product Development, not IT. IT is a subset of computer, and CS is not programming it is the study of things, both practical and theoretical, that can be processed by computers. Stop being a jack ass.

This is completely academic. The US is bankrupt. It is not possible to pay off our debt unless we do one of two things.

1. Default
2. Print the money to pay it, without borrowing the created money like we do right now

Why? A few reasons. For one reason there is more debt than there is money when you take into consideration the private debt as well. When you pay that much debt, reserves get drained and banks become insolvent, causing a classic fractional reserve deflationary spiral. That doesn't even take into account the 80 trillion in unfunded liabilities we have with the pension insurance program and others.

We're screwed. So we either default, or print the money. Borrowing it just keeps propagating and enforces the only two possible solutions.

The individual you responded to stated that it should only cover "simply to the environment as presented to the human in place, at human levels of perception." That nullifies your concern as that would be beyond the human level of perception.

That all depends on the state you are in in the US. In Georgia, there is a stand your ground law. This states that if a person is threatening you or your property, you stand there and warn them that you intend to use deadly force if they continue, if you have the opportunity to do so, and if they continue to their threatening action you can engage, and be immune from criminal and civil penalties resulting. So the family won't be able to sue if it was found that you warned the person off, or you were not given the opportunity to if it was a swift attack.

We don't really pay off debt as much as we keep rolling it over to another set of bonds. The best analogy would be using one credit card to pay for another. It doesn't really matter at all though as we can not pay off the debt under our current monetary and banking system. Even if done slowly, it would be a massive deflationary event that would remove more reserves from banks than could possibly be made up for by reserves from the Fed, which would have to be paid back, and the system would collapse. That's the price we pay for fractional reserve accounting.