Snowden has deliberately murdered over a hundred informants.

Source? (And no, lack of evidence is not evidence)

1. Crucially, they didn't remove infringing material when put on notice. Instead, they just removed particular specified URLs.

Not all links are infringing, though. For example, imagine that if every time a video on Youtube got a take down notice, Youtube removed all copies of that video. How many official (and therefore non-infringing) videos would get removed?

It would be rather perverse if doing data de-duplication on identical files made someone guilty of contributory copyright infringement, given that the result would be fewer existing copies of the data than otherwise.

I am pretty sure that it isn't really a thing.

All of us anarcho-capitalists beg to differ.

Really. It is just putting together two opposite meaning words

Anarchy is categorized by a lack of rulers\the state. Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production are privately owned. There is no inherent contradiction.

Libertarianism fundamentally believes in government

Other than all those libertarians that don't fundamentally believe in government, you mean.

All anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.

And is there really a "huge difference"? Libertarians want less government. Anarcho-capitalists simply want a little less than that.

But how many births are caused by excessive drinking?

I do agree that the logical end of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. That's the old joke:

Q: What the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About six months!

The rest of your post amount to "Your views are extreme, therefore they are incorrect", which is simply an appeal to moderation, so I'm not certain exactly what it is I'm supposed to respond with.

"Nuh uh"?

Be mindful of how you use "libertarian". Most libertarians believe in a small government that executes a limited number of duties, including police, courts, and military, and thus your statement is directed towards the wrong group. The group you're looking for is "anarchists".

Be mindful of how you use "privatize". Trading an unaccountable, public monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers for an unaccountable, private monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers is not true privatization.

As an anarchist myself, this is obviously not what we mean when we say we want to privatize police. Once the police are (a) voluntarily funded and (b) no longer given a government-backed monopoly on security services, then you can declare an anarchist nirvana. :)

"Listen, the government gave you a choice between Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs in the last election, so you can't complain that Goldman Sachs is raping your future!"

Yes, that follows logically . . .

This may have been true of early pentile displays, but with increased resolution it hasn't been a problem in higher-end devices for quite some time.

1. They are already "increasing the money supply". They simply don't have enough physical bills now to hand out all the digital money they are inventing.
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.

Repeat it all you want. I will still defend your right to do so.

I don't know why you thought I had never considered "people saying mean, untrue things about me" when formulating my position.

My position here is complicated by the fact that I don't believe people should be forced to testify at all. But assuming voluntary testimony, have them enter into a contract beforehand.

No criminal penalties attached to any of those.

The holder of a government clearance has agreed via a voluntarily contract not to reveal certain information that the government wants to keep secret. A regular citizen has no such obligation to keep government secrets, even today.

First, thank you for much better edge cases than the usual "fire in a crowded theater!" and "slander!". Yours are much more interesting to talk about.

The nuclear example is the easiest to dispose of, since it involves an actual property crime (essentially trespassing).

The others are trickier, but I think the distinction in question isn't about what they did or didn't say, but rather that they aided and abetted an actual property crime. For example, we prosecute the driver of the get-away car just as much as we prosecute the people who actually rob the bank at gun point. This isn't because driving people around is illegal or requires close scrutiny, but because they were knowingly a party to an actual property crime.

Or, for a similar example involving speech, imagine that I pull a gun on you in a darkened alley and say "Your money or your life." Obviously a crime, right? Now add that we happen to be actors in a movie and I am reading from a script when I do so. Obviously not a crime. That is to say, it's not the speech that makes such a thing a crime, it's the actual property crime behind it that does so.

From that perspective, we can see that slander and libel should not properly be considered crimes, since there is no property crime to back them up (you can't have a property right in your reputation, since that exists solely in the minds of others). It's the same with calling Mohammed a pedophile, telling the king of Thailand to piss off, or simply transmitting information to the public at large about how to build a bomb from household ingredients.

Oh and could you give us your address ? We would like to go to yours hours, neighbors, and family, and tell them how much a child porn producer you are. And when you scream libel, lies , we will again laugh at your face.

You can't have my address, but on the off-chance you manage to dig it up yourself, feel free to tell anyone you want anything you wish to about me, true or not. I stand by my position.