Quote :

"It does, however, blow Lonesnark's argument in this very thread of "communism does not allow volunteering" out of the water."

On the contrary. This is proof that the only volunteering that can happen under the Cuban regime is that of the government. Castro, because he is the Government, can wake up tomorrow and volunteer as much of the country's resources as he wants to whatever cause he wants. Meanwhile, Cubans not in the government can barely get internet access, nevermind exclusive control of a server farm. If Castro ran the whole world, then Wikipedia as we know it would not have come into existence, and even this poor substitute, edits are only allowed with administrator approval.

But, for those living under capitalism, anything can be had for money, so those interested in trying to create Wikipedia had no trouble obtaining the resources to do so. Neither did the founders of Wikileaks.

[Edited on December 16, 2010 at 1:39 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/16/2010 1:35:11 AM

i'd trade internet access for healthcare. true story.

12/16/2010 7:28:29 AM

Quote :

"Capitalism requires private ownership, ownership requires property rights, property rights require government"

property rights require force.

12/16/2010 8:01:40 AM

Quote :

"I think it's fairly clear what he's saying."

Well sure - you've been arguing with him all along. To someone who hasn't pryed apart every post in this argument, his statements are very abstract. It's not a good way of getting his point across to anyone except the one person he's responding to.

12/16/2010 10:57:35 AM

Quote :

"property rights require force."

If the other party has the power to exclude you from his "property", why would he not exclude you from your "property"?

12/16/2010 5:21:08 PM

How is that an argument supporting the need for a State to enforce property rights? Perhaps he has enough force to defend his own property but not enough to defend his and take yours.

12/16/2010 5:33:29 PM

With the existence of firearms, it is far easier to defend property than it is to take it. One man with a riffle can easily hold off several men similarly armed. This is why the police usually bring a dozen or more people to take down one man asleep in bed, and even then sometimes an officer gets shot.

12/16/2010 5:43:40 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps he has enough force to defend his own property but not enough to defend his and take yours."

Then he'll just take whatever is the best he can get. The point is that no property rights are defined.

Quote :

"With the existence of firearms, it is far easier to defend property than it is to take it."

How? I can mug you just as easily with firearms as I can a knife if we both have the same. The key to winning that game is to be the first to use the force. It will always be either the person who is most willing to use the gun or the person with the most guns, defending or taking has nothing to do with it. Besides, I wouldn't even need to see you to take most of your property.

12/16/2010 5:56:15 PM

Government is force. That should be readily apparent to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of any government action (traffic ticket, late registration, taxes, etc.). It's the one thing that it's actually good at.

12/16/2010 6:41:33 PM

Kris, there is a reason American settlers were willing to go live in the middle of no where with nothing more than a riffle. It was no longer necessary to live constantly under the protection of professional knights with armor to keep the barbarians at bay. A group of gun owning farmers could do the same.

When all we have are sharp objects, the winner is going to be the one with the most practice. A dozen vikings could repeatedly overcome whole villages. But when it is firearms, the victor is far less certain: a professional can still miss and a novice can get in a lucky shot. Similarly armed Marauding Indians in the American West often found themselves driven off by settlers.

There was a reason the concept of "Barbarians" came to an end when it did. Guns make any society much less welcoming to violent actors.

12/16/2010 7:11:21 PM

Quote :

"Kris, there is a reason American settlers were willing to go live in the middle of no where with nothing more than a riffle. It was no longer necessary to live constantly under the protection of professional knights with armor to keep the barbarians at bay. A group of gun owning farmers could do the same."

They could because the rifle was nearly the top of military warfare at the time. Additionally they were able to survive without dealing with others often. Just because it worked then doesn't mean it would work now.

Quote :

"When all we have are sharp objects, the winner is going to be the one with the most practice."

Far more value would still be placed on striking first.

Quote :

"There was a reason the concept of "Barbarians" came to an end when it did."

Did it? They still exist in some form in some parts of the world, ironically it tends to be the places with the least government, similar to how it has always been.

12/16/2010 8:28:49 PM

Which places are those?

12/16/2010 8:59:34 PM

Starts with an 'A', is surrounded by pirates, and ends in 'FRICA'

12/16/2010 9:06:59 PM

Quote :

"Government is force. That should be readily apparent to anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of any government action (traffic ticket, late registration, taxes, etc.). It's the one thing that it's actually good at."

right...government is a form of force.

cavemen had property rights too...they clubbed the motherfucker who got too close to his cave.

12/17/2010 12:07:30 AM

Quote :

"Far more value would still be placed on striking first."

One would then wonder why fencing is considered a contest if skill has so little to do with it. That said, what do you mean by strike first? If attack was likely, farmers would often perform all their work with their riffle slung over their shoulder, so they were always ready to "strike first" against anyone approaching unannounced.

Quote :

"They could because the rifle was nearly the top of military warfare at the time."

Besides all the cannon, cavalry, and million man armies?

Quote :

"Just because it worked then doesn't mean it would work now."

Geeze, how come whenever you finally admit you were wrong, even on something as puny as this, you make it sound like it has ruined your whole day?

12/17/2010 1:15:55 AM

Quote :

"Starts with an 'A', is surrounded by pirates, and ends in 'FRICA'"

So in other words, you don't know off hand which specific places? Pirates aren't Barbarians. Try again little guy.

12/17/2010 6:57:44 AM

Quote :

"Kris, there is a reason American settlers were willing to go live in the middle of no where with nothing more than a riffle. It was no longer necessary to live constantly under the protection of professional knights with armor to keep the barbarians at bay. A group of gun owning farmers could do the same."

What the fuck? Europe hadn't been plagued by barbarians for centuries. I don't know what fucked up parallel world you live in, but seriously, what the fuck are you talking about with this one?

12/17/2010 9:14:15 AM

Quote :

"One would then wonder why fencing is considered a contest if skill has so little to do with it. If attack was likely, farmers would often perform all their work with their riffle slung over their shoulder, so they were always ready to "strike first" against anyone approaching unannounced"

Fencing is a sport. It was never really used in warfare. Nevertheless, in the sport of fencing, the winner is the one who strikes first. Also, your farmer scenario is unlikely. A farmer who is working is not a farmer who is prepared to fend off an attack.

Quote :

"Besides all the cannon, cavalry, and million man armies? "

Rifles came after cannons, and we still use rifles.
Rifle infantry are superior to calvalry.
"Million man armies" isn't really an innovation.

I'm not trying to take a side in this argument; I just play a lot of historical war games

12/17/2010 9:20:58 AM

Vikings, among others. Adam Smith wrote of his assisting in the defense of Oxford University from Barbarians during his first professorship. Cities were built like fortresses for more reason than just the odd war between nobles.

12/17/2010 9:23:43 AM

Quote :

"One would then wonder why fencing is considered a contest if skill has so little to do with it."

Fencing has little to do with actual battle, just like the duels of that time, especially when dealing with someone planning to mug you. Why would he challenge you to battle, allow you to draw your weapon, and then fight with you fairly? Why would he not sneak up on you, then simply kill you while your back is turned?

Quote :

"Besides all the cannon, cavalry, and million man armies?"

The rifle had an advantage on two of those, but regardless, the difference between civilian ownable weapons and the most destructive military weapons was very small at that time, it's not anymore.

Quote :

"Geeze, how come whenever you finally admit you were wrong, even on something as puny as this, you make it sound like it has ruined your whole day?"

What are you talking about?

Quote :

"So in other words, you don't know off hand which specific places?"

No, I stated one. Do you want me to start naming countries in africa, should I go down to cities, or do you want exact GPS coordinates of where one is?

Quote :

"Pirates aren't Barbarians"

By what definition? Are we talking about the literal "people who aren't greek" definition or are we talking about the "murderous groups of marauders who raid villages"? Because there are plenty of people and groups in africa that fit both of those definitions.

12/17/2010 10:22:28 AM

Quote :

"Why would he challenge you to battle, allow you to draw your weapon, and then fight with you fairly? Why would he not sneak up on you, then simply kill you while your back is turned?"

Because human beings find it difficult to sneak up on one another. We have acute hearing able to distinguish foot-falls of others from our own when we are traveling and we when we are not we lock doors and windows, requiring the intruder to make noise, both features providing enough time to draw our weapons and "stirke first".

Why are you hanging so much of your position on this absurd point? Is it really absolutely necessary to believe only the police can protect you in order to be a communist? I would still be a libertarian even in the time before guns, a time I freely admit civilians were 100% at the mercy of marauders.

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 10:33 AM. Reason : .,.]

12/17/2010 10:31:16 AM

Quote :

"Vikings, among others. Adam Smith wrote of his assisting in the defense of Oxford University from Barbarians during his first professorship. Cities were built like fortresses for more reason than just the odd war between nobles."

The Vikings age ended in 1066. Once christianized and given their own feudal estates they quit raiding Europe.

As for Oxford, the last time it came under attack was 1646 during the English Civil War.

Are you seriously retarded?

Barbarians haven't caused injury to Europe in close to a millenium.

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : .]

12/17/2010 10:37:34 AM

Quote :

"Because human beings find it difficult to sneak up on one another. We have acute hearing able to distinguish foot-falls of others from our own when we are traveling "

So you are walking through a crowd of people, you know which are the footsteps of someone who will kill you, or do you just generally attack anyone near you? It is not that tough to sneak up on someone and kill them, it's just difficult to get away with it thanks to laws enforced by a government.

Quote :

"Why are you hanging so much of your position on this absurd point?"

I'm not, why are you backpedalling from it?

Quote :

"Is it really absolutely necessary to believe only the police can protect you in order to be a communist?"

No, but the mad max style world that would result from liberitarian ideas seen through are one of the easiest ways to point out it's flaws.

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ]

12/17/2010 10:48:35 AM

Quote :

"No, but the mad max style world that would result from liberitarian ideas seen through are one of the easiest ways to point out it's flaws."

Libertarianism isn't anarchy, you idiot. The implementation of a Libertarian system wouldn't call for the elimination of government, it would call for a minimally intrusive government which sticks to performing its Constitutionally and legally defined roles. Such roles include national defense, a judicial system, law enforcement, etc.

12/17/2010 11:08:17 AM

Lonesnark isn't about that.

12/17/2010 11:09:44 AM

Quote :

"Fencing is a sport. It was never really used in warfare."

Side point, fencing was originally not a sport, and was originally taught as dirty fighting. Taking fencing lessons usually meant you were up to no good. It wasn't always the prim and proper sport we see today.

TMYK!

carry on.

12/17/2010 1:30:30 PM

Quote :

"So you are walking through a crowd of people, you know which are the footsteps of someone who will kill you, or do you just generally attack anyone near you? It is not that tough to sneak up on someone and kill them, it's just difficult to get away with it thanks to laws enforced by a government."

Whatever government that may be, be it a libertarian police force charged with retaliating against those that use force or fraud, or be it anarcho-capitalist security forces charged with retaliating against those that use force or fraud. What you can't rely upon is the Cuban police force, which first needs to check the rank of the attacker before they can pursue them. After-all, interfering with the Revolutionary Armed Forces can get a self respecting police officer himself brutalized.

Quote :

"I'm not, why are you backpedalling from it?"

It is you that has backpedaled. You have gone from "it is safe and easy to steal someone else's property, regardless of whether they have guns" to "it is easy to kill someone". Well, your new position is absolutely acceptable. It is absolutely easy to kill someone if you yourself care nothing for your own benefit or survival. But, guns make it far harder to kill someone else without substantial risk to yourself, especially to storm someone else's land and take it, the situation I started with and you have yet to address in any way, opting instead to move first to a dark alley where none of my property is and then to a crowded street where, again, none of my property can be found.

It also seems you now accept that Communism as practiced in, say, Cuba, would indeed rule out a citizen founded Wikipedia, accepting that in such societies the only source of enterprise that exists, be it volunteer or other, is that of Castro and fellow Government agents.

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 5:56 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/17/2010 5:52:53 PM

I'm still waiting to hear about these barbarians that were plaguing Europe as late as the 16th Century.

12/17/2010 6:26:20 PM

Smith wasn't talking about Viking barbarians.

12/17/2010 6:30:14 PM

Smith never had a professorship at Oxford either, but that is neither here nor there concerning these supposed barbarians

[Edited on December 17, 2010 at 6:35 PM. Reason : .]

12/17/2010 6:35:26 PM

Wtf? If you thought long and hard about the most irrelevant post you could think of, it couldn't have been any more irrelevant than that one.

12/17/2010 11:58:26 PM

It was from a Smith biography I read a few years ago, so I didn't remember it exactly right. But I managed to dig it up. He was studying at Oxford, not a professor. Around 1745 Oxford University and neighboring towns were attacked and extorted by Highland Clans rampaging across the countryside. Glasgow was ransacked and Smith's hometown, including his mother, was extorted for money to avoid the same fate.

12/18/2010 1:54:15 AM

I can't tell, are people really trying to argue that we should live in a society where you have to keep your rifle slung over your shoulder at all times, and if you see any weakness in another person you can just take his stuff with no repercussions?

Quote :

"So in other words, you don't know off hand which specific places? Pirates aren't Barbarians. Try again little guy."

Barbarians are anyone who doesn't speak Greek.

True story.

12/18/2010 1:56:32 AM

Quote :

"Whatever government that may be, be it a libertarian police force charged with retaliating against those that use force or fraud, or be it anarcho-capitalist security forces charged with retaliating against those that use force or fraud."

Private security forces are not government, although they would probably eventually become a feudalistic government-like force.

Quote :

"What you can't rely upon is the Cuban police force"

You may have confused them with the mexican police force which has a much weaker government, thus less oversight and more corruption. Cuba has one of the lowest crime rates in all of latin america, so I assume you've made a mistake.

Quote :

"You have gone from "it is safe and easy to steal someone else's property, regardless of whether they have guns" to "it is easy to kill someone"."

One is a subset of the other, I stand by both.

Quote :

"But, guns make it far harder to kill someone else without substantial risk to yourself"

No, they make it less, with a gun, I can kill you without you even being able to see me.

Quote :

"especially to storm someone else's land and take it, the situation I started with"

No it's not. You said:
With the existence of firearms, it is far easier to defend property than it is to take it.
Property is not just land.

But since that seems to be what you want to talk about, I'll address it. I'd be willing to bet you spend a good bit of your waking day outside your house or land, people do in the modern world. Thus it doesn't matter how much easier your gun makes it to defend your land as I could easily take it while you are gone and then I gain that advantage over you.

Quote :

"opting instead to move first to a dark alley where none of my property is and then to a crowded street where, again, none of my property can be found"

I assume you would have your property on you because you can't guard it when you are away from it. But suppose you have it somewhere else, the alley is the easiest place to kill you, so I'll kill you there and take it from wherever you have it stowed away.

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 2:49 AM. Reason : ]

12/18/2010 2:46:06 AM

Kris, you are so desperate that this discussion has become idiotic. My position is that guns make it easier to defend yourself. Something doesn't need to be 100% effective to represent a shift in the balance of power. This seems obvious to me, you clearly can't get the concept. If I go to town, I will feel much better off leaving my wife at home with a riffle than leaving her with a sword, even if it meant any attackers would also be limited to a sword. Is it still possible to sneak in and kill my wife? Hell yes. But before guns, you didn't need to sneak in, you could have just walked up and overpowered an entire extended family of people just because you are a practiced killer and they are not. Meanwhile, a 10 year old boy firing from a cabin window would make a frontal assault suicide. Yes, he could have been taken by surprise, but that could have been the outcome with a sword too.

"It also seems you now accept that Communism as practiced in, say, Cuba, would indeed rule out a citizen founded Wikipedia, accepting that in such societies the only source of enterprise that exists, be it volunteer or other, is that of Castro and fellow Government agents. "

As a communist, you should think this is a good thing. No more idiots wasting resources on their own projects. Economies of scale, rational economy, and all that?

12/18/2010 11:26:23 AM

Quote :

"It was from a Smith biography I read a few years ago, so I didn't remember it exactly right. But I managed to dig it up. He was studying at Oxford, not a professor. Around 1745 Oxford University and neighboring towns were attacked and extorted by Highland Clans rampaging across the countryside. Glasgow was ransacked and Smith's hometown, including his mother, was extorted for money to avoid the same fate."

1. Oxford is in Southeast England, not Scotland and was a Jacobite center of support and the rioters were subdued by the Crown and not the Jacobite armies

2. In 1745 it was the Jacobite Rising, in which supporters of Charles Stuart tried to replace the Hanovarian dynasty on the throne of Great Britain. They weren't barbarians, they were Catholic nobles. Jesus Christ, learn some history and geography. It might prevent you from making such retarded comments as

Quote :

"Kris, there is a reason 1. American settlers were willing to go live in the middle of no where with nothing more than a riffle. It was no longer necessary to live constantly under the protection of professional knights with armor to keep the barbarians at bay. A group of gun owning farmers could do the same. When all we have are sharp objects, the winner is going to be the one with the most practice. 2. A dozen vikings could repeatedly overcome whole villages. But when it is firearms, the victor is far less certain: a professional can still miss and a novice can get in a lucky shot. 3. Similarly armed Marauding Indians in the American West often found themselves driven off by settlers. 4. There was a reason the concept of "Barbarians" came to an end when it did. Guns make any society much less welcoming to violent actors."

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 11:58 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2010 11:49:37 AM

Are you saying supporters of Charles Stuart spoke Greek?

According to the text, "When he was a young man, studying at Oxford's Balliol College, the feudal Highland clans rose in the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745...Not only were Smith's feeling hurt at school, the Highlanders threatened his hometown at Kurkcaldy and extorted money from its citizens, among whom was Smith's mother. Glasgow, where smith had gone to the university, was overrun." Forgive my ignorance. The book did not elaborate on exactly where or what Balliol College was. And this is an internet forum, so I don't bother hitting the library every time I mention something I read several years ago. I only found this quote thanks to Amazon book search. That said, I don't know why you are angry; you were here to set everything straight, no need for the library and no harm done

But I give up. Weapons are not my area of expertise. I did not realize I was making such controversial statements. It seemed obvious that guns had changed how societies organize themselves. If everyone thinks Kris is right, and the only change from 1500 to today has been more effective police protection, so be it. This subject is well outside my areas of expertise and I have said all I can in defense of my position. Which, I admit, was not much of substance.

12/18/2010 12:10:37 PM

Quote :

"My position is that guns make it easier to defend yourself. Something doesn't need to be 100% effective to represent a shift in the balance of power."

It doesn’t really represent a shift in the balance of power if your attackers are equally equipped.

It probably takes less skill to use a gun than a sword, so it’s easier in that sense, but i don’t know if i’d say it shifts the balance of power.

Criminals are going to invest more in higher powered guns, since this is their business, than a homeowner would.

12/18/2010 12:19:21 PM

Quote :

"In 1745 it was the Jacobite Rising, in which supporters of Charles Stuart tried to replace the Hanovarian dynasty on the throne of Great Britain. They weren't barbarians, they were Catholic nobles. Jesus Christ, learn some history and geography. It might prevent you from making such retarded comments as"

Oh for fucks sake, you're either a history major or a wikipedia major this morning/afternoon. No one knows dates like that off hand, not even Ken Jennings.

12/18/2010 2:54:46 PM

It's called being educated, you should try not looking your nose down on it.

Lonesnark introduced the year 1745. I not being a retard, like you, knew 1745 coincided with the Jacobite Rising. I also know what the Jaboite Rising was about.

You should try getting out more and look at education as a thing that matters.

12/18/2010 5:56:22 PM

Quote :

"But I give up. Weapons are not my area of expertise. I did not realize I was making such controversial statements. It seemed obvious that guns had changed how societies organize themselves."

yes, feudalism was no longer necessary to protect the realm, which allowed for the growth of mercantilism, which then made the need for colonial expansion.

12/18/2010 6:01:43 PM

OMFG!!! DOUBLE POST!!! BAN SUSPEND TERMINATE!!!

12/18/2010 6:08:39 PM

Quote :

"It's called being educated, you should try not looking your nose down on it. "

I'm not looking down my nose at it. I just don't think you knew those dates or the history without resorting to wikipedia unless you happen to be a history major or have some other legit reason for knowing that history.

Are you a history major?

Quote :

"You should try getting out more and look at education as a thing that matters"

You tell me what is more contributory to society, me engineering things or you telling us what happened nearly 250 years ago?

12/18/2010 6:53:35 PM

don't hurt his feelings now, Chance...

12/18/2010 7:01:50 PM

It's cool that this guy knows history but can't seem to apply it to the discussion, that's fine. But god damn, don't try to act like knowing the details of the Jacobite Rebellion is some sort of evidence of an enlightened existence.

12/18/2010 7:10:55 PM

Quote :

"It's cool that this guy knows history but can't seem to apply it to the discussion, that's fine. But god damn, don't try to act like knowing the details of the Jacobite Rebellion is some sort of evidence of an enlightened existence."

It's actually very important to the discussion because our boy Lonesnark made the following claims:

Quote :

"1. American settlers were willing to go live in the middle of no where with nothing more than a riffle. It was no longer necessary to live constantly under the protection of professional knights with armor to keep the barbarians at bay."

I pointed out that Europe hadn't lived under the fear of barbarians for quite some time and didn't need to live under the protection of professional knights. The American experience isn't different in that regard.

Quote :

"2. A dozen vikings could repeatedly overcome whole villages. But when it is firearms, the victor is far less certain: a professional can still miss and a novice can get in a lucky shot."

The viking threat disappeared long before the advent of the fire arm. Needless to say that early fire arms were cumbersome and required quite a bit of training to utilized in an effective manner.

Quote :

"3. Similarly armed Marauding Indians in the American West often found themselves driven off by settlers."

Armed marauding Indians in the American West were armed with the same weapons as the settlers. It wasn't the armed settlers who drove the Indians off, it was the United States Army, first during the 7 Years War (British military then), then the Colonial militia during the Revolutionary War, then during the reign of Andrew Jackson, finally followed by the various Indian Wars in the late 19th Century who subjugated and anglicized them that stopped the raiding.

Quote :

"4. There was a reason the concept of "Barbarians" came to an end when it did. Guns make any society much less welcoming to violent actors.""

Yes, the reason the concept of Barbarians came to an end was the result of Christianizing the Barbarian tribes and the expansion of the Holy Roman Empire into Barbarian lands in the early Dark Ages.

In the end, it wasn't the gun that made societies less welcoming to violent actors, but trained professional military and paramilitary forces that kept the wolves at bay.

So yes, it is very valid to the discussion at hand. Too bad you aren't capable of thinking things through and require everyone to connect the dots for you.

Quote :

"I'm not looking down my nose at it. I just don't think you knew those dates or the history without resorting to wikipedia unless you happen to be a history major or have some other legit reason for knowing that history. Are you a history major?"

knowledge isn't esoteric.

Quote :

"You tell me what is more contributory to society, me engineering things or you telling us what happened nearly 250 years ago?"

Congratulations on being an engineer. You still aren't cultured and you shouldn't take such pride in being a philistine.

[Edited on December 18, 2010 at 8:34 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2010 8:26:53 PM

Quote :

"Kris, you are so desperate that this discussion has become idiotic. My position is that guns make it easier to defend yourself. Something doesn't need to be 100% effective to represent a shift in the balance of power. "

You are trying to really stretch the "colt made them equal" thing way too far. Frontiersmen owned weapons more to hunt and protect livestock than to kill people, that was just an added benefit. In the modern world not only would the gun be useless to me for any purpose other than killing people, but I would need a whole range of weapons to effectively protect myself. Colt may have made men equal at one time, but tanks and planes and explosives have made them unequal.

I don't know why you've chosen such a silly point (as you've pointed out) as some sort of defense of libertarianism.

Quote :

"Is it still possible to sneak in and kill my wife?"

Or I could just burn the whole house down.

12/19/2010 11:43:45 AM

Quote :

"I pointed out that Europe hadn't lived under the fear of barbarians for quite some time and didn't need to live under the protection of professional knights."

So what? He got the exacthistorical chronology wrong based on a book he read years ago. It turns out, his recalling of what he read isn't terribly off as Smith indeed does state that firearms are a great equalizer and effectively stopped the cycle of growth and barbarian invasion. If you have a problem with this telling of history, please take it up with Adam Smith.

Quote :

"In the end, it wasn't the gun that made societies less welcoming to violent actors, but trained professional military and paramilitary forces that kept the wolves at bay"

And yet the concept of property rights was hammered out and maintained in the Wild West without a government or military force to enforce them.

Quote :

"Too bad you aren't capable of thinking things through and require everyone to connect the dots for you"

What the fuck are you talking about? I hadn't registered an argument in this discussion other than to say you're a raging fucking douche bag for assuming that everyone can be a history major.

Quote :

"knowledge isn't esoteric"

Then stop acting like it is.

Quote :

"Congratulations on being an engineer. You still aren't cultured and you shouldn't take such pride in being a philistine"

You're on an internet message board preaching about being cultured? Can you also tell me what it's like to be self deluded, because I obviously can't grasp that concept either.

12/19/2010 12:04:51 PM

Quote :

"And yet the concept of property rights was hammered out and maintained in the Wild West without a government or military force to enforce them. "

LOLs

How do you think it got the name the “WILD west?”

There were plenty of shenanigans that went on, that forced the gov. to step in, and even the military. It was precisely because people COULDN’T handle their shit that the federal gov. had to grow its powers to mitigate land disputes. You know the University of Oklahoma football team is called the “Sooners”? What do you think this is in reference to?

The Wild West wasn’t some place of libertarian bliss and tranquility. It was the wild west and the people living their begged for the gov. to step in and keep things organized and safe, which is how the Department of the Interior was eventually formed.

12/19/2010 12:25:05 PM

Quote :

"And yet the concept of property rights was hammered out and maintained in the Wild West without a government or military force to enforce them."

Maybe for white people. But even for them, there's a reason that era is specifically remembered today for widespread banditry.

12/19/2010 12:42:41 PM