That's only true as long as carbon access is the limiting factor for plant growth. After all, there is plenty of air-born carbon in a bonfire, but not much plant growth.

Which the students did and in a court-of-law they proved the company failed to provide the required non-monetary compensation that had been promised.

I think that analogy over simplifies the problem. The real issue is that the interns were promised an internship which would teach them valuable movie production skills, and instead they were given no training and used as unpaid waiters. The bait and switch is on the type of work they were promised that they would be doing. The company broke the contract and now owes them monetary compensation because they failed to provide the agreed upon compensation (training in the art of movie production).

Can you prove that claim? I believe that if you remove the public schools, there will be many children who do not get a basic education. The pithier libertarians may claim this is already the case, but I'm reasonably sure the situation would be quite a bit worse. My reason is simple, and relates to the reason the public education system exists in the first place, the bottom 40% of the America public owns about 0.2% of it's wealth, which seems to work out to an average of around $1000 each. How much education is $1000 going to buy spread over 13 years?

Is it your contention that you are a captive of America and not free to leave? Or is merely that you think the rent is too high where you choose to live?

What are they currently bribing the government to do?

I'm not an anthropologist, but I recently read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond (who is an anthropologist) and according to several comments made in his book, bands didn't tend to have much society. Everyone in the band tended to be related to everyone else. When two bands came into conflict the victors tended to drive the losers out of the area, or if that wasn't an option, murder them (except for those women who could be forced into marriage). Even when the bands met peacefully to trade, it would not be uncommon for someone seeking vengeance to murder or be murdered over some greivance real or imagined. The rise of what we would call society can be jointly attributed to the rise of religion and larger political organizations such as chiefdoms and states. Even in modern hunter-gatherer societies the pattern has been repeated, the primary cause of death tends to be murder until missionaries and governments work together to pacify and settle the hunter-gatherers.

You should be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking of pre-state societies as noble savages.

I think the problem is that you have a world view conflict here:
Libertarians tend to view taxes as armed robbery.
Statists tend to view taxes as paying the bills of society.

Most libertarians wouldn't think taking a pair of shoes from a store without paying for it was just or reasonable, but when it comes to paying the bills for society, it suddenly becomes just and reasonable to take without paying. Most often this double-standard is explained by claiming that society's bills are unjust or immoral (sometimes they legitimately are). Libertarians may dismiss the bills as incurred by "parasites" who feed off of the "good" people. Most often, this is a failure to understand that the majority of people maintain a difference of opinion on what a legitimate expense for the state is.

Europeans, for example, seem to believe that making sure people don't starve is a fundamental duty of the state. This may seem insane to most libertarians, you're taking money from good people and giving it to people who can't even feed themselves. However, Europeans think they have good reasons to believe that is a legitimate expense. Consider for a moment that they have a longer history than America has, and it has been filled with more famines, wars and death than most Americans are even going to be aware of. For instance, France knows what happens when too many people are left to go hungry. I'm sure their neighbours have learned equally costly lessons. Thus is they believe that it is the duty of the state to maintain a stable society, and that a stable society is fundamental to having a prosperous society, then it clearly must be a duty of the state to feed the people (at least to some minimum extent).

On the otherhand, I do understand the Libertarian argument that you're taking the fruits of someone's labour to pay for society. But I fail to see how it's any different than paying any other shareholder his fair share of the profits. It is at least as legitimate to look at taxes as simply the cost of a prosperous society. The libertarian argument that it is forced through the barrel of gun fails for me, because the payment of any bill is ultimately enforced through the barrel of a gun. If you take things, like the before mentioned shoes, and refuse to pay for them, you will go to jail. Only the anarchists who dispute the very idea that property can be owned can use that argument and remain self-consistent.

So... Anyone who disagrees with your political opinion is clinically insane?

I guess we should subsidize the rich and the beautiful, then. What could possibly go wrong?

Isn't the problem in California that they can afford things, but because some libertarian had the great idea of making paying the bills optional, most choose not to pay?

According to the article, the FSP people passed a law that prevented local communities from overriding another law that the FSP people passed at the state level. Apparently some people need to have "freedom" forced on them no matter what they say they want.

Well, in a libertarian society, there would be people who collect the bodies of their own iniiative and sell the organs to the highest bidder whether that be the medical community and/or the daily-deal butcher. So the people who can afford to purchase the organs, would obviously not be a burden to the system. The system inherently considers everyone to be worthy of everything they can afford to purchase.

Well, instead of bribing politicians for favours, the rich simply do what they please. That's worse unless you're already rich enough to be your own unchecked god.

A consequence of libertarian policies is that the rich no longer need goverment favouritism.

I don't think the anarchists like being grouped with libertarians very much. To the anarchists, libertarians are want-to-be slave-holders who want everyone else to pay for the chains.