Are you fucking high? I can't believe some of the stupidity coming from some of you people. This is even dumber than the ridiculous tack of @eric3579's comments (although I haven't read further than this comment yet, so maybe he pulled his head out later. EDIT: Nope!).

Bombing suspects weren't enough of a threat?!?! You mean the bombing suspects who detonated two bombs during the marathon, executed an MIT policeman while he sat in his car, committed a carjacking and didn't kill the driver only because he wasn't an American, then engaged Boston police in a car chase and gun battle during which they threw several explosives, and one of the "suspects" ran over his own fucking brother so he could get away? Those bombing suspects? "Just isn't any way" they were enough of a threat?

Look, I've been very vocal about my hatred of police, and it pisses me off to see the citizens of Boston engage in the pathetically effusive hero-worship of police who were just doing what taxpayers pay them to do, but this whole argument that the warrantless searching of homes in an area police believed the remaining suspect to be hiding is just daft and has NO MERIT, not unlike the suspicion that this was some sort of compliance test on the populace that @newtboy "heard some say", which is firmly in Alex Jones/Glenn Beck thousand-yarder territory. Maybe the government just really wanted to get into a few homes and look around without warrants, and the best idea they could come up with was to blow some people up, eh? What sorts of secrets do you think were surreptitiously gleaned from those searched homes that would justify such a huge and deadly ruse? Maybe they just wanted to find out if residents in a search area for an extremely and demonstrably violent suspect would be stupid enough to resist efforts to actually locate and apprehend him. Compliance test... give me a fucking break.

You believe the police should have whittled the the search area down to a single home, got a warrant, and then knocked on the door with their guns holstered? Do you also believe that the police can read minds, or have powers of perception that the rest of us don't? Maybe you think the movies are accurate, and anything that happens anywhere can be played back in HD by the police because some super-secret satellite gets it on video. They're dicks, but they don't have superpowers and can't know everything with certainty, and I think they did a good job in a relatively short period of time of homing in and getting those assholes. What I find amazing is the criticism being leveled at them for doing exactly what they were supposed to do. If I'm being held against my will by someone who just blew up a marathon, killed a cop, and ran over his own brother to get away, the cops sure as shit better be actively searching my neighborhood, and not holding back for lack of warrants or knowledge of exactly which house he's in.

Other people here have tried to explain what exigant circumstances are, and why they most definitely applied in this case, but some of you just prefer to see bogeymen everywhere. Maybe you need to, for some reason.

You asked a lot of questions, @dystopianfuturetoday. Let's jump in.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

Patently false. Slavery was held over from early British rule. And a lot of industrialized nations followed the same trend of slavery and child labor, but that's more endemic of the path of civilization than free markets. To think child labor or slavery would come back to the US if we deregulated the markets is ridiculous.

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

I had to reread that a couple times. Always results in massive unemployment? Where has that happened once in history? Regulations have lead to less employment, because less people can create jobs. If you want to open a florist in some states, you must pay several grand to take a test and get a license. Or be a barber. And so on. Regulations kill employment opportunity.

And inflation is caused mainly by growing the money supply. And you have the central bank system and the government to thank for that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

There was no evidence to suggest an individualist society would work prior to the US. Good thing they took a chance.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

What movement is that exactly? Not too many corporations are really for a free market. A free market would add unwanted competition that would decrease their profits. But I take it you meant the Koch brothers supporting CATO? That's hardly my movement.

But for every one corporation you find in favor of Libertarianism, I can find you twenty against it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

If you mean the Libertarian Party, then they're acting in accord with capitalism just as Democrats and Republicans are. Because that's the current economic system. You want a better system? Then offer one up... oh, oops, you can't because we're not allowed those kinds of freedoms in this society, are we? It's the US Dollar or else.

For those of us who are libertarian in name (not party), it doesn't have to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be money. It just has to be voluntary.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Interesting choice of words. The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

I doubt adoption of free markets is primarily done at the butt of the gun. I think you're alluding to Friedman and Chile. I doubt Friedman lead an army of Libertarians through Chile, but I know he was consulted regarding their economy. And according to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

But, to get back to your question, I don't know of any Libertarians that want to "bring" free markets to other countries; they just want to be able to freely provide for themselves and their families without other people telling them how to do it. Again, why not use your power of perception to look at the countless acts of violence perpetrated on the people by their government. And Chile is no different.

@NetRunner, it's not that Obama just inherited the war; it's that he's not ending it and, worse, extending it. I don't care if he says he has a plan to end the war, because that's all talk. Reagan talked about smaller government, but he his actions proved otherwise. Lincoln spoke favorably of the Constitution, but his actions illustrated a disregard for constitutional rights.

I don't know how many people or states would get behind a peace movement. Maybe very little. Maybe a lot. I have no basis for an accurate assessment, just speculation. I don't like to speculate.

@bcglorf, there are travesties all over the world. What are we supposed to do? Play world police with sovereign nations? What about the innocents the US has murdered in cold blood during the war in Iraq? Should that be considered an expected casualty during some elusive quest for peace? Come on.

You have the power of hindsight that allows you the self-assured ability to judge historic military scrimmages that lead to the winner's version of 'peace'. But I'd like to see people like you use your powers of perception to look into the future and tell me how some of those are going to turn out: Afghanistan, Iraq... Iran? Will peace be the verdict? Do tell.

"Then again, why does the boat move forward before he picks up the battery?"

Yes, your powers of perception are increasing.