embolism

Why don't you actually present a single piece of evidence, rather than just irrelevant innuendo?

Actually we do have a overall decrease in the number of states over the past few centuries. The USSR is a special case because it was actually based on ideology and not just strength.

We can equally ask why, if your libertarian philosophy is so naturally stable, it has not emerged into the world yet?

Isn't it obvious that anyone can accuse anyone of anything? Usually it's more meaningful when they have evidence.

[edit: since this is receiving downvotes - clearly we have evidence that the NSA is dangerously overreaching and should stop. We have absolutely zero evidence that it is their mission to keep an elite in power 'at any cost']

Something people should remember when talking as though bringing down the US government is a great option.

The price of an apartment is determined by supply and demand for housing units, not by dividing the price of a house occupying similar land area by the number of units.

Taxes are typically levied on the value of each housing unit.

Software in general is 'picking up steam and maturing a across the board'. We now have almost 2 billion consumers carrying a unix box in their pockets, not running open source.

If anything, the relevance of open source is dwindling by comparison.

Nobody is saying this is a random criminal prosecution. He's being pursued for fraudulently obtaining a security clearance and stealing classified state secrets.

It's an informative answer. Ellsberg remained on US soil and handed himself in to a US court. The court acquitted him.

Now consider how he would have been viewed by the US if he'd instead flown to Moscow and applied to Brezhnev for asylum.

Open source is not a magic security bullet.

It does allow many eyes to inspect source code - which is certainly important in developing cryptographic software.

However it currently does nothing to ensure the timely delivery of patches to consumers. Also, usability of open source security solutions is terrible, and unless people understand cryptographic signing, and the web of trust, and build all their software themselves they have no guarantee that their software isn't compromised.

Useful software takes a lot of time and effort to write, and there is a lot of investment in learning required to get to the point where one can do it.

Unless a person is independently wealthy, a significant portion of ones time and energy must be devoted to efforts that will be paid.

Therefore open source is either subsidized directly by other paying ventures e.g. corporations for whom it is strategic, of it is engaged in by individuals in the time left over after their paid work.

Until the world changes so that people don't need money to live, developer hours will flow preferentially to the ecosystem according to the available monetary rewards.

The ecosystem that makes it easiest for the most developers to get paid will attract the most developers.

This could be the "open source" ecosystem at some point depending on what business models prevail, but I see no reason why it should automatically be so.

That comment isn't well worded, but I've made similar ones.

It's a counterpoint to people saying that Snowden is being 'persecuted' and that the USA is now a place that freedom loving people flee from.

Whilst I agree with the view that we should not have mass surveillance and it would be horrifying if someone were persecuted for expressing that view, that is not why the US is chasing him.

He is being chased for intentionally stealing classified documents. Can you name a government that wouldn't pursue someone who did this?

Quite possibly not. If the revelation of such secrets allowed china or russia to rise to power we would be worse off.

Remember China is a country in which a policeman can send you to jail without trial for criticizing the government.

Snowden is not being persecuted for his views or criticism of the government.

He is being chased because of his intentional theft of classified government documents. Can you name a country in which that would be legal?

Snowden is not a persecuted person. He's someone who deliberately lied in order to gain access a government spy agency and then stole state secrets which he is selling to the press.

No government would consider that to be acceptable.

Note: This is no defense of the NSA. However it is dishonest to claim that people who criticize the US government are persecuted and need to flee.

The US is not chasing Snowden because he criticized them. They are chasing him because of the stolen documents.

Google has nothing to do with this project - it's just on a PR push to associate it's name with futuristic projects.

[edit: like a cigarette company sponsoring sports events]

No - an apartment usually costs more per sq metre than a house.

How does locking your bike prevent people from pointing a gun in your face?

I guess that assumes your country doesn't develop rapidly and experience the accompanying inflation of the cost of living.

How is this different from delivering textual advertising to children doing homework?

Taxes are usually linked to property value, not land area.

What does 'already having housing' mean? It's state provided? Even in a country without property taxes a property you own outright will require maintenance.

500k still seems low but might do it if you don't have rent to pay. I'd still love to hear the original commenter explain his or her reasoning - there might be some useful tips to learn from.

Therefore it never will.

Please do elaborate though - that figure seems about 10-20x too low.

What has justification got to do with anything?

People aren't arguing with you because they like the fact that the government uses force. The argument is that if you eliminated the government, the alternative (private dictatorships) would be even less accountable.

Certainly people are susceptible to a kind of strange loyalty to governments, but if you remove the government that won't just disappear. People will just become loyal to the most powerful mob for protection. That's what happened before. It's up to you to explain why it would be any different now.

Taking your two answers together, it seems that hiring a security company to provide armed guards to protect me would be perfectly acceptable to you.

What's to stop consolidation amongst the security companies? What would prevent them from using their monopoly of force to set up whatever government they liked?

That's essentially how central government formed in the first place. Why wouldn't it just happen again?

How do they resolve this without having him face a trial?

Also, there are some countries that are even less benign than then US who would like to take advantage of this situation if they can.

How will you stop people pointing a gun in your face once there is no government?

   You have just presented a justification for guy A killing guy B for now forking over his part of income to guy C.

Without the government, activities like that will take place without any justification.

I understand the point you're making, I just don't think it's obvious that the NSA is unimportant. As well as detecting terrorism, they may well be doing a lot of other things to protect the us against then machinations of others e.g. Russia and china.

Also, don't underestimate terrorism. Over decades, the IRA did a lot to disrupt the UK, including killing cabinet ministers, and two nearly successful assassination attempts against the prime minister. Ultimately the UK conceded and the new Irish government contained ministers who had been leaders of the terrorist movement.

it also deserves a whole load of other governments monitoring communications, some of which would be quite happy to take over if the us collapses