Up here, any handgun magazine that holds more than 10 rounds gets classified as "prohibited" (not prohibited prohibited.  It's technically possible for someone to be licensed to possess "prohibited" weapons, but it's almost impossible to actually do so).  Handguns in general are "restricted" and far more rare than in the USA, and you can pretty much forget about carrying one around unless you're an armoured car guard or similar or can convince a judge you have a real good reason to carry one.

For semi-automatic centre-fire rifles (manual action rifles or anything using rim-fire ammunition can have as much magazine as you like), the limit is 5 rounds.

You USA people are scary when it comes to your human right to bear arms. UK has the best gun laws - ban'em.

Problem is it's an ecosystem supported top down by (for instance) Nike execs all the way down to the workers realistically will never be able to become a Nike exec. Nike parasites on the low position of these people and will work hard to keep the situation that way as long as possible. Nike fully knew these people were payed very very little and didn't make sure they were payed anything that we would consider reasonable. They tell excuses that these people get opportunities while they pay them salaries that would be completely unacceptable in the western world. They have the power to give those people more yet they choose to cultivate these environments of near slavery.
They are always responsible, they just didn't take that responsibility and there was noone to force them to do so.
It is just an example of what big companies naturally do when left to themselfs. They don't give a shit about people or the earth or governments or whatnot if they don't have to.
So the lesson here is that you need a force at least as big as the potential conglomerate you whish to run loose in your free economy to prevent things from going astray.

Microsoft had a near monopoly on operating systems and arranged for various vendor lock-in arrangements that basically slowly tricked society into getting hooked on microsoft products. They infiltrated some key structures and leveraged compatibility.
And coercion doesn't allways mean you push someone in a certain direction. It can also mean that you manipulate the choices people perceive to make them walk 'freely' in a direction you desire.
In that respect microsoft has been pretty abusive in the past, but more recently other companies like google and facebook really hit the nail when it comes to parasitic relations with their customers. No other companies have ever turned their customers into their product so successfully. A lot of psychology goes into those to make them seem 'non-evil' but that doesn't mean they aren't. At least their product base makes their lifes easier by providing detailed reports of their lifes. Broadcasting the message of 'we're not evil' becomes pretty simple if your receivers tell you how they want to hear it...
Caveat emptor is quite a risk when your livelyhood depends on a deal. This is not a mechanism most people would want to prevail in society. People want more security. They don't want someone to sell a huge party of poisonous wine so that 10% of the population dies while he goes of to live on an island. They also don't want to check every bottle on the market for poison. So some rules are desirable.
Well, if you didn't think those were examples of oppression then you sure have a shallow definition of freedom.
If i candidly pump the water from under your land and you have no idea why your crop fails and i sell the water to you on a free market, is that coercion? And can you still call such a market free? And how will you prevent such a thing without rules or laws that can be enforced with violence?

The state is the entity in control of water quality there, and I'm sure that Shell didn't have the troops, not Shell, so once again, the state fails.

I realy need to sleep, but i couldn't resist.

You do know that assholes are usually only a part of some larger organism, right?
It can be very profitable for a relatively non-evil company to do relatively evil things if you can handle the PR. If the many multinationals didn't play it on the edge of morality they wouldn't get over the edge so often. In the end they expand the edges of morality to gain new territory for profit. And that is an erosive force to society.

What planet are you from?
Never heared of Nike? Or Apple? Or Shell? Or Microsoft?
Nike knowingly support(s/ed) child labour.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/nike.htm
Apple likewise, but  they sure are no exception.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/7330986/Apple-admits-using-child-labour.html
Shell oppressed people in africa that didn't like them poisoning their water.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2013/01/2013130214524796.html
Microsoft oprressed competitors and was convicted for abusing their monopoly on the browser market.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
All big tech companies use patents to oppress each other and the new guys. Absolutely massive waste of resources.

And those are just the obvious ones and not even really monopolies. If they had the freedom to become more monopolistic there would be worse examples of disgressions.
But companies misbehave all the time. On any levels. I could go on and on stating court cases where companies were acting oppressingly against persons or other companies.

What is needed , and this counts equally well for a free market as for a regulated market or even a government, is a way for society to control the future of any large accumulation of capital. If these large structures are left to themselfs they can become increasingly selfish.
 

Eeh, haven't you noticed everyone wants to regulate cryptos these days?
But bitcoin is not FIAT so will be regulated a lot less. FIATs are at the core of all western society so they requires a lot of failsafes. If a FIAT goes down all basic stuff around it goes down. If bitcoin goes down nobody really cares. Not on the scale of the world, anyway.

Of course there are free-ish markets.

I don't see how reality is anything near this black and white.
So what's your definition of free market anyway? What aspects do you consider coercive? Regulations? Laws?

I have been arguing that when you start out with a free market that is not protected by some statist structure the assholes will win quicker. Assholes will be there, free market or not. It's just that a free market offers more opportunity to being played with. When the ante is small, that's ok. But when the ante is your livelyhood or your house, not so ok.
You will need some way to prevent monopolies without coercion. Monopolies completely destroy the idea of a free market. For a lot of things someone is going to be top dog because being a little better can get you all of the business. Not just because they are assholes, but because it is how the game of free markets is played. Monopolies give power and that will invariably get abused.

Some free market emerges, market gets so big it attracts criminals and tricksters, market gets hijacked by clever manipulation, not by providing best product to where its needed, public outcry for regulations. Rince, repeat.
That is why markets can only be relatively free. They will always start to abuse their freedom and so we get these regulations.

If purely free markets were possible then everyone would do that instead, right?

Free-ish markets also consume much more natural resources and are the least sustainable from that standpoint. Also, our western 'free' markets thrive on the backs of cheap labour countries. Without them things would not look so free anymore. The 'freedom' of the world markets is enforced with violence. "What did you say, Saddam? You want to sell oil to china and not to us? Fuck you, we will take your country and rape it for decades."
Free markets can be pretty abusive and selfish. So you have to ask yourself if the prosperity justifies the damage they can do. At the very least you would have to be ready with dealing with the inevitable scaling problems of free economies. People with moey and power are in the position to outgrow all and everyone.
So this is, unfortunately, not an optimum by itself. It will grow out of proportions because people are powerhungry assholes.

So my assertion is that you cannot have a large free market without some statist control. Free markets can only exist within other structures that guarantee the internal freedoms. The problem with markets is that on the outside, and even within if the market becomes more complex, the market does not care. Markets, if left uncontroled, are perfectly capable of destroying the very soil they get their produce from. People, on average, are not good in these games and this allows a small group of individuals to win the market.
The normal historical transaction is something like this: Some free market emerges, market gets so big it attracts criminals and tricksters, market gets hijacked by clever manipulation, not by providing best product to where its needed, public outcry for regulations. Rince, repeat.
That is why markets can only be relatively free. They will always start to abuse their freedom and so we get these regulations.

If purely free markets were possible then everyone would do that instead, right?


So my assertion is that you cannot have a large free market without some statist control.

Talking about logical fallacies  
Genetics is not a method, it is a research area.
What we find in the field of genetics has absolutely nothing to do with optimizing resources.
Genetics is all about adaptation for survival.
If resources are plenty then genetics does not care so optimizing for resources happens only when there is a real need for it.
Most of the time genetics just provides for better ways of reproducing.

The human mind is many things but only a small part of it is this local optima seeker.
The free market is an ideal fantasy thought up by theoretical economists. It can not exist unless forced because the human mind, as you note, often involves coercion as a solution. So by your own observation of the human mind you could not ever have emergence of truly free markets, simply because human minds do not work along those exact ideals.
The free market does not involve coercion because it does not realy exist.
Tell me, what IS an optimal distribution of wealth?

Surely you would agree that getting resources to where they are needed is the more optimal solution for the long run for any society, right?
So how does free market make sure resources get to where they're needed and not to where people pay the most?
I don't realy see it happen.

Are you sure you are not just confusing the word 'optimal' with the word 'efficient' ?

Human resourcing today and the phenomena of  free markets really are amazing despite their problems, but I'm sure most people agree that it could be improved upon, or at least better implemented. Keeping politics out of markets is a false dilemma if anyone is thinking that. Every action is in some way political, at least while humans are humans.

 

Fully automatic rifles were not mainly made for shooting more people more quickly. The vast majority of bullets fired in war never hit anyone. They are fired in order to make the enemy keep their heads down and allow friendly forces to advance and flank the enemy in order to win with minimum loss of life on BOTH SIDES. This is called 'suppressive fire' and the more bullets fired the better.

Fully automatic rifles fired in full auto mode are MUCH less accurate than single shot semi-automatics because each shot's recoil moves the following shots off target.

Conclusion:

The weapon a logical criminal sicko would choose for killing lots of unarmed people efficiently in a small space is the semi-automatic rifle.

Actually CIYAM is also a "programming environment" (although you *can* generate web apps easily also) - my point being that the next generation of programming is going to look a lot more like what I've demonstrated (I would also recommend looking at Intentional Software).

I am pretty sure that the future of software is "software manufacturing" (although maybe not my particular way of doing this of course).

Erm..... What are you asking?

As you may have guessed, I'm an AnCap as well, and I believe just as strongly in freedom as do you. If you can remain civil, I promise to, too.

Anger is a sign that you're taking an issue personally, that you are emotionally invested, and may not be thinking entirely logically. Perhaps you should step back and think about things for a few minutes.

It was a joke. Mb a little too subtle =P