It's also worked brilliantly for China.

Indeed. The larger the development, the cheaper it is to buy off a small number of local politicians in comparison to fairly compensating a large number of property owners.

If the US was broken up into a large number of smaller republics, it would also be easier for the populace of any one of them to deal with this type of politician in a manner they deserve.

I use propane, which is a gas you insensitive clod!

My credit union is great about reversing overdrafts, which are 1/3 that charged by banks anyway, and they do credit cards as well. The only differences between banks and credit unions anymore is lower charges and more responsive customer service at credit unions, plus an equal vote in elections for the board of directors.

I don't know any libertarians who oppose unions in general (to use an oft-trotted-out example of libertarian "heartlessness"). What they oppose is mandatory membership, or voluntary membership but mandatory dues payment. Most of the policies opposed are not opposed because of their intended ends, but because of their means. Calling someone heartless because they object to the manner in which something is done (such as the convenient ignoring of the legal process when expedient, and the inevitable protests when the other side does likewise with legislation you oppose) absolutely lacks integrity.

There is also frequently the issue that a particular problem is not the province of the Federal government, but that of the State governments. That horse was let out of the barn long ago though. The 9th and 10th Amendments are not enforced, and the expansion of the ICC and taxation authority have made the explicit statement within it that the Constitution is a limited grant of powers completely meaningless.

There's not a single right I fail to support, personally. I dare say I support more than are explicitly written into the Constitution, because of the implicit guarantees of the 9th and 10th Amendments. I can't say the same of many Democrats or Republicans.

You can't have corporations without a state.

It's a convenient tool to try and discredit libertarian ideas by trotting out the ideas of people who are decidedly non-libertarian. Most people aren't willing to look much past the surface, and take such accusations at face value, and so the lies spread.

Supporting business in general is not the same thing as corporatist cheerleading, but you wouldn't know that to listen to the gross generalizations made by people with an agenda that doesn't include integrity.

People frequently only remember encounters with the extremists of groups with whom they disagree. That's why talking heads tend to try to lump all Republicans or Democrats together as holding the same positions as the loudmouth douchebags in their respective camps who yell incessantly from places of ignorance.

As for myself, I am a libertarian who believes in absolute corporate subservience to the government under which its charter is written. As a legal construct, they have no rights whatsoever. Businesses run by an individual or group that operates without immunities unavailable to ordinary individuals are another matter entirely. They should be free to operate on the basis of free association and not be subject to State interference with their private contracts. They should be limited only by the same criminal and civil laws which apply to any other natural individual.

Many other libertarians also agree with the above logic, but it tends to require getting to know ordinary libertarians, rather than loudmouth extremists. The latter tend to be a poor representation of any particular group, especially one as diverse as libertarians.

True in an absolute sense, but completely irrelevant to anyone who is not handed money equal to the inflationary percentage multiplied by their assets (which is, well, almost everyone).

If your economy has $1,000 in assets for which there is a real demand, and 10 members each with $100 in currency notes, one or more will lose purchasing power unless each receives $10 of the printed money. Since only banks are allocated those new notes, every member of the economy loses purchasing power unless they can actively invest their money with a return rate at least equal to the inflationary rate. In the current US economy, that's a pretty small percentage of people given the average negative savings rate and the abysmal returns on invested amounts of less than 6 figures.

Powering the ringers on analog phones is a far cry from powering the entire network apparatus on a digital line. The transmission losses of DC current over long distances drastically limits the wattage available to all that connected equipment.

You mean long-distance phone lines aren't strung across those massive electrical transmission towers?

Or, alternatively, my last mile isn't the same as the last mile of every other person connected to the same substation?

*boggle* </sarcasm>

That's a problem with any wireline communication service, and will remain a problem regardless of whether the signal going down the wire is analog or digital. The problems being noted are in addition to physical disruptions.

To balance your anecdote with another anecdote, I can count on one hand the number of power outages that also took down phone service (that I was old enough to be aware of, obviously).

Whether the fallacy argument applies or not depends 100% on it trying to satisfy both the means and the ends.

"If I flap my arms, world peace will be achieved."

If I flap my arms, and my intent is to achieve world piece, I'm operating under the "arm-flapping" fallacy.

If I'm flapping my arms simply because doing so makes me happy, the "arm-flapping" fallacy does not apply. Yes, it is still true that flapping your arms will not bring about world peace, but who's the moron talking about world peace? Not me; I'm flapping my arms because it's entertaining.

The same thing applies to the broken window fallacy. It should only be invoked if the stated intent is to create net positive economic value through increased economic output. Last I checked, the people prosecuting this war in EVE weren't concerned about net positive economic value. That is true even if they were concerned about a personal economic net positive, which would be assumed to be at the expense of an economic net negative to be borne by the loser of the war. That last part (the recognition that a micro net positive relies on a macro net negative as a result of the destruction) is what separates the fallacy from the truth.

And, as with real life wars, others can have an economic benefit. Particularly those who hold large resource reserves, The price of which will skyrocket as these giant alliances work to rebuild their now-decimated fleets. Basic wartime economics.

Sure it will, they just won't be repossessing. Instead, they'll be destroying unauthorized reproductions.

But, but, I shouldn't have to worry about having the crap kicked out of me whenever I want to walk into a Hell's Angels club and piss on the shoes of the first person I see inside! Assault is not a laughing matter, and you shouldn't blame me for those bikers putting me into the hospital. It's THEIR fault!