Libertarians like to pretend there is a gun at my head forcing me not to kill my neighbor. As much as I can't abide my christian neighbors, I really, honestly don't feel any desire to kill them. And my other neighbors, I am very happy are alive and my friends.

Yes the law states it is illegal to kill people and as much as I contemplate killing anyone, I know I will not and not because the government says I should not, but because I know it is what I would prefer not being done unto me - my bottom line of self-interest.

While I am white, middle class, living in a nice neighborhood where there may or may not be guns, I like not having to worry when I walk down the street that someone may randomly decide to shoot me.

In my, not so unique, part of the world, people are rich enough to, I hope, think kind of like me. Nevertheless murders still happen despite the proverbial gun of the state at their head. People are killing each other despite the government saying it is illegal. The benefit I hope is if the government is saying it is illegal to kill, it will make people think twice before killing me, breaking into my home, killing my husband and ruining my seemingly idyllic life.

I honestly don't feel coerced not to kill anyone, despite what the libertarians say. They say they'd prefer if i just decided not to kill anyone. Well I decided not to kill anyone already, but under extreme circumstances I can imagine being driven to the point of killing but only if it was to save one of the people I love, myself or someone I considered non-complicit in a life or death situation. I would also kill to defend my country or tribe, perhaps, if such a situation presented itself.

Recently a libertarian said she thought it was barbaric parents weren't allowed to circumcise sons in Germany. Personally, I have read that the country with the lowest incidence of cervix cancer was Israel thus lending support to the idea that male circumcision was a good thing. However, given Europe is beset by Muslims all wanting to perform genital mutilation on daughters, I can see why they ban male circumcision in an attempt to halt the slippery slope of perceived child abuse.

Yes I would put a gun at the head of anyone wanting to perform female genital mutilation on their daughters or "honor killings".

You may say I am being coerced into not killing someone, but I would prefer people think twice before killing me or a loved one or abusing their daughters or breaking into my home.

And no I don't think not putting a proverbial gun to their head to stop them doing it is a total deterrent. There will always be outliers in any system. We hardly know what makes people serial killers, why put people on an honor system when the current system doesn't fully stop people? You may say I am being coerced, but honestly, I don't feel the states gun at my head forcing me not to do those things that are illegal in our society because, yes I admit, I do sometimes get away with parking illegally.

FEMA was hardly at its best under the rein of W, the torturer.

I used to work at a military research institute and I cannot disclose what I did there or which one. Suffice to say I learned a hell of a lot about safety, amongst other things. One chemical I learned about was used to dissolve metals. If you get this on your skin you have an extremely limited time to get this off before it works its way in and starts dissolving your bones leading to an unavoidable and horrific death.

In libertarian world, if a disaster occurs, everyone pitches in and helps survivors. Not on your fucking life. Did anyone notice how those who rushed in to help with the collapse of the world trade center on 9/11 got no help? In Libertarian world you would be helped, I suppose, not sure who by, because all these details are mysteriously unclear. But lets say San Jose, the so-called capital of silicon valley, was leveled by earthquake, would i pitch in to help survivors? Gravely depends.

Peoples homes are full of all kinds of chemicals. Even smoke detectors are radioactive, while I can't remember what kind of emitters are used in smoke detectors, if it was crushed, I definitely wouldn't want its dust lodged in my lungs. I'm not sure how CO detectors work, but even assuming CO detectors are relatively safe, I cannot say for certain. I am not an average engineer (although kindly called so by electrical & electronic engineers), I wouldn't be able to run my eyes over a structure and determine how safe it would be to move this or that, to get pinned bodies out and perhaps I have a better eye at such things than the average, i wouldn't trust it.

As for a headquarters for R&D in Silicon Valley, not on your life. Anyone building proto-test chips, is also dissolving metals and dissolving metals is at least an acid even if its not the horror chemical I described above. The chemicals they use are none the less super dangerous, but building chips is all about dissolving metals.

If I was building a private FEMA it would work with local fire agencies to know what buildings contain what chemicals. Yes average personnel could learn what all the chemical symbols mean but without the appropriate equipment that's next to useless.

FEMA, like CDC, can access information on chemicals in use, experts on rotation, equipment and procedures. Wanna leave that to a bunch of amateurs who may or may not be sober when an emergency occurs? Even if civilians are given adequate training, who are they answerable to? Can they coordinate with military or co-operate with R&D centers?

So where do you concentrate your super skilled task force if you are FEMA? Obviously you would distribute FEMA resources but control it centrally. Deploy it when an emergency occurs but most of the time emergencies aren't occurring, fortunately. Who pays for those resources to be deployed? If this was a private organization, who would be paying for these people to be on call? Who organizes a roster? Who is paid to organize where resources are?

We try to prepare by having a (government paid for) weather bureau trying to predict when a tornado might rip through a town in the mid-west, we try to prepare by (having government paid for entities) predicting when an earthquake will hit on the west coast and we monitor for hurricanes and volcanoes (also paid for by the government). But in reality we don't know when a twister is going to wreak havoc or an earthquake.

Do we want Joe Blow having information about chemicals if he is a citizens' FEMA? Who knows, he may be a Timothy McVeigh. Libertarians will probably say they'd put in all those safe guards that will end up being exactly like the system we have in place already. So what have we gained in libertarian paradise? Absolutely nothing.

If a private organization does it, who is going to pay extra for all the profit they have to make on top of what it'll cost citizens to have the service? The same security authorizing NIST, CIA, FBI, NSA, Military clearances will be able to organize FEMA and CDC clearances. For a private organization, a separate service would have to be created to give security clearances and who knows, it may end up not being as good as the govt service, except it'll cost the tax payer more because the private enterprise will have to make a profit.

Libertarians are so naive.

Don't you get tired of people bemoaning welfare payments to the poor? I know I do. Do people think it really is a joy ride being poor? This guy thinks its a choice! I can so imagine waking up one morning saying: wouldn't it be cool to be poor, NOT! Clearly the education system failed him as we can see from the abundance of misspelled words.

Being criticized as being lazy when they probably applied for every job they could apply for, if they lost their job. I can't imagine how demoralizing it would be to be out of work, and the boredom!

I would sooner they get some kind of payment so they can live rather than breaking into my home stealing so they won't starve. How do they pay for their utilities, rent, food and any kind of entertainment if they have no income at all. The combined boredom and need for money drives many into selling drugs which creates crime.

What is outrageous is we give the rich a pass when it comes to doctors and hospitals charging ten times what they would normally charge when the patient is on medicare. Same with the military industrial complex, well known for ripping off the govt.

I am all for removing regulations, specifically that government is NOT to use its bulk purchasing power with medicare. Removing that one regulation would probably allow every single American medicare, and ease the burden on every household and business across the country.