Are there still security issues with having JS enabled?

There are security issues ANYTIME you let someone run code on your machine. Javascript is code. Therefore, yes, there are "still" (and always will be) security issues with having JS enabled.

Yes, sometimes -- very, very rarely, about 1-5% as often as clueless developers obsessed with shiny things think -- Javascript is needed for functionality. But if you can't make your site safe to access with JS turned off, you fail.

And of course this changes nothing. Folks don't turn off JS entirely these day, they use Noscript.

If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills, and when you don't have employees it's awfully hard to have a business.

Nope. If those programs didn't exist, people would still work at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart destroyed other local employers, leaving them little alternative.

it all boils down to government being the problem, as usual.

Only if you understand that Wal-Mart, like all corporations (indeed, all "property", as we know it) is a creation of a government.

Years ago, I tried wearing a wristwatch, but I found it gets in the way. It makes typing uncomfortable for me

Agreed, wrist watches are uncomfortable. For everyday carry, I have a clip watch clipped to a beltloop. It's far easier to check the time there than to dig my phone out of a pocket, plus I have also clipped a keychain-style LED flashlight to it. It's occasionally useful just to have a light-duty carabiner at hand. And I'll take it running or biking, when I usually leave my bulkier cell phone home.

For fancy dress, have some real style and get a pocket watch.

Yes, the initial costs were high, but most of the costs you cite are reaction costs. How much did a week of grounding all airlines cost? How much does additional TSA infrastructure cost? How mush of that $1.4 trillion lost stock valuation was real vs just numbers in a computer, and how much of that was due to panic reaction?

As the grandparent pointed out, if we'd reacted with the attitude "shit happens, deal with it" (as was, for example, the attitude in Britain after the first few days of the Blitz), that final cost would have been far smaller; still 3000 lives, but probably less than $0.01 trillion dollars.

As OP alluded to, bee stings don't kill people, the anaphylactic shock reaction does.

But Santa brings us presents. (Or, worst case, coal.) When was the last time NSA ever did anything nice for you?

And also markets that aren't artificially manipulated

And there's your fundamental flaw: since property is itself an artificial creation, there can be not exchange of it, no market, that does not involve artifice.

Overall, the vaccines are saver.

It depends on the vaccine, the disease and the patient.

The seasonal flu vaccine is pretty useless in healthy people, can have significant to serous side effect, and probably is not worth the risk in the general population. OTOH vaccines for polio, measles, and whooping cough are certainly safer for most folks than going unvaccinated.

All this does is get the public to curate their own data that is being mined. Instead, the FTC should allow you to intentionally corrupt the data.

This.

In fact, it's perfectly legal (or at least, it used to be; who knows these days) to give false information or a false name as long as you're not trying to commit fraud. (Or impede justice; don't lie to the cops, just remain silent.)

Why the hell would I want to do that?

I say lets inject even more noise into them. That won't matter if you're using the data for statistical purposes, and it gives some (alas, not much) plausible deniability for everything else.

In the USA, driving privileges are rarely revoked permanently.

It's a consequence of our public policy about development and mass transit. It is practically impossible for most of the population to remain gainfully employed without driving "privileges". We can tighten driving laws when and only when we improve mass transit and reduce sprawl.

Oh yeah, and he didn't support gay marriage a year ago...

He still doesn't. "Leave it to the states" is as unconstitutional and as evil in same-sex marriage as it would be in interracial marriage.

Why? Shouldn't everyone be able to exercise freedom of thought and speech as long as they don't commit any actual crimes?

Making a threat is an actual crime.

In some contexts, a public statement that "I'm going to do X!" is a threat. In others, it's not. To determine that context, you have to investigate.

costs me $5 in tolls
Or you could drive down Rt 7.

The birth control issue is about government forcing employers to pay for their employees' birth control.

No, it's about government forcing employers to pay for their employees' health insurance. Whether the employee uses that insurance to cover birth control or treatment for the clap or hemorrhoid surgery or a flu shot is none of the employer's fsck business.

The option, of course, would be to not have employers to pay for their employees' health insurance, and go to a rational "Medicare for all" system, but no one is willing to face the corporate monster that for-profit health care has created.

All the libertarians I know adopt the attitude "Leave me the hell alone". They don't want to be "given" anything. Just the right to keep the fruits of their own labor.

In the original sense, where libertarian == anarchist, that's true. But in the American sense, after capitalists hijacked the term and founded the so-called "Libertarian Party", we have a "Libertarianism" that wants to keep the fruits of other people's labor. That is, after all, the essence of capitalism: wealth for the owners of capital, a pittance for those who do the labor. Show me an American Libertarian who wants to tear up all government-issued land deeds, resource deeds, corporate charters, copyrights and patents: all the ways the investment class accumulates wealth without labor.