What the hell is libertarianism?

[Young Mage]

It would be quite a challenge; mentoring you, I mean.

Give it your best shot.

[CitizenCain]

Off topic here: but should I be concerned that the ice cream man in my mother's neighborhood was playing his music and driving around after 9 last week? Hmmm....

Not unless someone has stolen my idea. I stop using the ice cream truck to troll for kiddies around 7:30 at night.

There is always dominance. I don't think any two people can be on the same footing at the same time. Oddly the roles change in individual relationships. When you go out partying with your buddy and you get in a fight, you might take the dominant roll because of your rippling biceps and your eight years of karate training. However, because you're dumb with computers, when you can't get your wireless network set up, your buddy takes on a dominant role while helping you. I think these little interpersonal relationship dominances are the seeds that ultimately lead to the stratification of human society at all levels. No two people are ever equal in their own minds.

Enh. If you say so. But I've seen plenty of power structures with no clearly dominant party.

I still maintain that the issue with anarchism is that a truly null power structure doesn't exist anywhere in nature, and cannot be stable for any significant period of time - so the whole basis of anarchism is infeasible. And whether or not it's possible to have a power structure without a clearly dominant party doesn't say anything about the viability of a null power structure.

Cain, human civilization today, as we know it, is entirely without social, political, economic and technological precedent. There is no past civilization you can point to and say "that was like we are today, and we're going to end up like them." I'm not saying we're high flying magical super technocrats that can't have a total collapse, but there is no historical precedent like you are arguing. I believe I've predicted before the odds are our civlization's going to collapse in the next hundred years and I believe its a better than 50/50 chance. But it will be a different kind of collapse than ever before and for entirely different reasons.

Lol. Love the hubris of that. Because our toys are new and better, we're fundamentally different and better than those who came before us, immune to the problems that felled them.

Interestingly, that's a rather common attitude amongst now fallen empires.

You're socially liberal and economically conservative. Before Reagan started the GOP down its disaster, it seems the party brass were a lot like you, though perhaps not as extreme.

Not really - the right wing (in America, at least) has always had a thing about controlling immoral/undesirable behaviors - they've always been somewhat authoritarian in that social axis, and even when claiming that they don't want government controlling their lives, they've been perfectly happy with the idea of government enforcing a certain code of morality (theirs).

It's not at all. And you know it. Government investment in the economic, educational and technological infrastructure of this country over the last 80 years +/- is what has made us into a great nation. If Libertarians were running the country all that time, none of that would have happened and we'd be like Mexico. Or worese.

Oh, please. The *only* thing that's made us into a great nation in the past 80 years is a combination of war profiteering and the fact that we didn't get our industries bombed into rubble, like the rest of the world did. Nothing to do with government regulation, investment, or any of that shit, and everything to do with the fact that we're practically the only technologically modern nation on the planet that hasn't had to rebuild itself from the ashes in recent history. Sorry, but America owes its greatness to geography, and not to some superior national character or millions page long regulatory clusterfuck.

You might as well credit Switzerland's success with governmental investment... while ignoring the billions (in 1930's currency) that they got to keep when Adolf killed all the clients who had deposited money in their banks.

Regarding China, I'm beginning to wonder if their model of civilization might be superior to ours. They're wildly economically successful with their mix of capitalism and protectionism and they're able to make very long term plans, which we are not. As long as their government is competent in its planning and reasonably so in its governing, they're going to be amazing. And that's the trick - with a totalitarian government, they don't have a good way of ensuring competent leadership, so far as I can tell. Time will tell...

Living there, even for a short period of time would answer all your questions, and I'm sure you'd give up the fantastical notion that totalitarianism is superior to liberalism... or even that their government approaches anything near competence. It's corrupt as hell, and any nation on the planet would be able to be wildly economically successful with a billion or so slave laborers to command.

You'll want to watch your cornhole if you are going to be under Cain.

Good advice for us all, I think.

It would be quite a challenge; mentoring you, I mean.

Only if you adhere to foolish definitions of the word "mentor," whereby the mentored party is supposed to be improved or bettered or so on.

[Young Mage]

Only if you adhere to foolish definitions of the word "mentor," whereby the mentored party is supposed to be improved or bettered or so on.

I may have just made a pact with the Devil himself....

[GGT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ciFTP_KRy4&feature=fvw

[Young Mage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEf6L...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ciFTP_KRy4&feature=fvw

Isn't that the movie where he's having sex with a girl underneath a table or something? I think i've seen this movie 5 years ago.

[CitizenCain]

It's from Amadeus, if that's what you mean... though I don't specifically remember that scene. Possibly because there are so many better options for films on sekzing.

[EyeKhan]

I still maintain that the issue with anarchism is that a truly null power structure doesn't exist anywhere in nature, and cannot be stable for any significant period of time - so the whole basis of anarchism is infeasible. And whether or not it's possible to have a power structure without a clearly dominant party doesn't say anything about the viability of a null power structure.

I'd swear this is more or less exactly what I was saying.

Lol. Love the hubris of that. Because our toys are new and better, we're fundamentally different and better than those who came before us, immune to the problems that felled them.

I did NOT say that. I even went so far as to say I wasn't saying that. Just that there is no historical precendent for our current civlization.

Oh, please. The *only* thing that's made us into a great nation in the past 80 years is a combination of war profiteering and the fact that we didn't get our industries bombed into rubble, like the rest of the world did. Nothing to do with government regulation, investment, or any of that shit, and everything to do with the fact that we're practically the only technologically modern nation on the planet that hasn't had to rebuild itself from the ashes in recent history. Sorry, but America owes its greatness to geography, and not to some superior national character or millions page long regulatory clusterfuck.

That's odd, becasue the worlds #2 and #3 economies were destroyed in the wars - China (which technically didn't have much of an economy anyway before it was attacked by Japan) and Japan. And Germany just lost the #1 spot of largest export economy in the world. Kind of flies in the face of your theory there. One thing all those countries do have is healthy investment in their economic, educational and technological infrastructure by the government via tax dollars. Dude, you have to face it - libertarianism would be the death of this nation as any kind of a world power - military, economic or technological.

Living there, even for a short period of time would answer all your questions, and I'm sure you'd give up the fantastical notion that totalitarianism is superior to liberalism... or even that their government approaches anything near competence. It's corrupt as hell, and any nation on the planet would be able to be wildly economically successful with a billion or so slave laborers to command.

Of course we disagree on this. The interesting question, aside from the disagreement, goes to what the point/ purpose of a government, or even a nation, really is.

Only if you adhere to foolish definitions of the word "mentor," whereby the mentored party is supposed to be improved or bettered or so on.

[CitizenCain]

I'd swear this is more or less exactly what I was saying.

If you say so... could be I'm just splitting hairs again. <shrug> It's something to do while I'm waiting to die of fin rot...

I did NOT say that. I even went so far as to say I wasn't saying that. Just that there is no historical precendent for our current civlization.

Sure, but you base that belief (or seem to) on the fact that our toys are newer and shinier. Seems like that's pretty much the same thing as saying we're better because our toys are.

That's odd, becasue the worlds #2 and #3 economies were destroyed in the wars - China (which technically didn't have much of an economy anyway before it was attacked by Japan) and Japan. And Germany just lost the #1 spot of largest export economy in the world. Kind of flies in the face of your theory there.

Not really, since practically *every* other economy in the world was destroyed too. Certainly every other economy of note... and someone has to be second and third, so the fact that the 2nd and 3rd place economies were also destroyed in WWII doesn't mean much. But the fact that practically every economy in the world was destroyed does explain why there's such a big gap between first place (USA) and everyone else. We account for ~5% of the world's population and ~one third of its GDP. If you've got another explanation for why, I'm all ears.

One thing all those countries do have is healthy investment in their economic, educational and technological infrastructure by the government via tax dollars. Dude, you have to face it - libertarianism would be the death of this nation as any kind of a world power - military, economic or technological.

And, by that logic, the way to solidify our status as a world power is to go communist. Brilliant!

[Nessus]

And, by that logic, the way to solidify our status as a world power is to go communist. Brilliant!

You've conflated socialism with communism in a couple of threads now, is this intentional and if so, do you think it's honest?

[Young Mage]

Socialism = 1984?
Communism = impossible to achieve, a self-sufficient egalitarian eutopia is impossible.

or am I like waaaaay off?

[Nessus]

[LittleFuzzy]

Not really, since practically *every* other economy in the world was destroyed too. Certainly every other economy of note... and someone has to be second and third, so the fact that the 2nd and 3rd place economies were also destroyed in WWII doesn't mean much. But the fact that practically every economy in the world was destroyed does explain why there's such a big gap between first place (USA) and everyone else. We account for ~5% of the world's population and ~one third of its GDP. If you've got another explanation for why, I'm all ears.

Even back then, we were the largest developed economy by a very substantial margin *the British Empire was larger, but was structured rather differently* We'd followed the same industrial development track at roughly the same time as the other most developed powers, but were at least half-again the size of the others in population and larger still in area and presented rather more investment opportunities as a result, meaning, all other things being equal, our economy would probably continue to grow faster anyway. *Russia would probably have been a better option for global capital flows, but since it was coming over all Soviet, it took itself out of the pool for a great deal of investment* We were also already in the process of reorienting the global financial markets to be centered in our country rather than Britain, and that also seems to be an economic multiplier. The shift was certainly accelerated by the way the US State and Treasury departments deliberately set out to beggar the British Empire in WWII, and without it maybe something might have happened which would have turned things around, but it was already happening.

You can go ahead and say "geography" still, if you want, but it's not mostly because of WWI and II.

[Young Mage]

That's not an answer.

[Nessus]

You're perceptive sometimes

[Young Mage]

Wanna answer it?

[CitizenCain]

You've conflated socialism with communism in a couple of threads now, is this intentional and if so, do you think it's honest?

No, I've said that socialism taken to its logical conclusion is communism. Where the government owns the other half of you.

You can go ahead and say "geography" still, if you want, but it's not mostly because of WWI and II.

You really think so? That the economic gap between the USA and the rest of the world isn't primarily related to the rest of the world blowing itself up? Sure, we had enough advantages to be #1 either way, but I don't think they [nearly] account for the difference.

[LittleFuzzy]

You really think so? That the economic gap between the USA and the rest of the world isn't primarily related to the rest of the world blowing itself up? Sure, we had enough advantages to be #1 either way, but I don't think they [nearly] account for the difference.

The loss to labor would have been and is the most far-reaching effect, and it is plainly not the primary determinative anymore, despite the obsessive focus on the "Boomer" generation *which is actually more narcisstic than it is based on reality*

[CitizenCain]

The loss to labor would have been and is the most far-reaching effect

Really? Not the loss of capital and infrastructure? It's not that hard to create new labor (I hear that it's caused by sexual intercourse, which is a fairly regular occurrence), but private coitus almost never leads to the generation of new capital or the construction of a new skyscraper.

[LittleFuzzy]

Really? Not the loss of capital and infrastructure? It's not that hard to create new labor (I hear that it's caused by sexual intercourse, which is a fairly regular occurrence), but private coitus almost never leads to the generation of new capital or the construction of a new skyscraper.

The infrastructure of Western Europe was repaired and rebuilt with remarkable speed, *which also restored their capital, naturally* and their economies, like ours, have transitioned to post-industrial since then anyway. Bringing them back from the devastation happened rather quicker than the demographics turned around *and they've turned around again since then, with the collapse of birth-rates which followed the post-industrial economy*

[Loki]

Keep in mind that part of the reason why they recovered so quickly is that the US both allowed almost total access of their products to the American market while tolerating European trade barriers against the US. I'm not sure if I'd say that ~25 years is remarkable speed either, and even then, the Germans were the only ones with consistently high economic growth.

[CitizenCain]

Keep in mind that part of the reason why they recovered so quickly is that the US both allowed almost total access of their products to the American market while tolerating European trade barriers against the US.

In addition to giving them mountains of money to rebuild their economies...

[Loki]

In addition to giving them mountains of money to rebuild their economies...

From what I've read, the impact of the Marshall Plan is grossly exaggerated. The CIA had a larger role to play in making sure commies didn't get elected in Western Europe.

[CitizenCain]

From what I've read, the impact of the Marshall Plan is grossly exaggerated. The CIA had a larger role to play in making sure commies didn't get elected in Western Europe.

Fair enough... but CIA ops burn mountains of money too. Stupid fucking Americans should have worried more about all the commies elected to office in Canada since WWII. Why haven't they killed off the NDP yet?

[Nessus]

Because you touch yourself at night

[CitizenCain]

Because you touch yourself at night

I do not.

I do that at work, like all normal employed people.

[Veldan Rath]

I do not.

I do that at work, like all normal employed people.

Well, I work from home 2 days a week...so would that be considered double dipping? (so to speak?)

[CitizenCain]

I dunno what you'd call that... but it sounds like a big perk to me. Maybe you should talk to HR about putting that in the recruitment pamphlets.

[']['ear]

Not really, since practically *every* other economy in the world was destroyed too. Certainly every other economy of note... and someone has to be second and third, so the fact that the 2nd and 3rd place economies were also destroyed in WWII doesn't mean much. But the fact that practically every economy in the world was destroyed does explain why there's such a big gap between first place (USA) and everyone else. We account for ~5% of the world's population and ~one third of its GDP. If you've got another explanation for why, I'm all ears.

Wait, are you saying that the US is economically dominant because of WWII? Really? 65 years later?!?!

Every commentator I ever read considered that over and done 30 years after at the latest. Otherwise, how could German and Japanese economies have kicked such serious butt in the 80s?

Try parsimony: the US invested far more than anybody else in basic research, and our economic dominance is based almost exclusively on science and technology. In contrast, our manufacturing dominance was gone decades ago. Hey, around the time that Japan and Germany surged in the 80s!

Correlation doesn't mean causation, but it sure as hell should make you stop and think.

Socialism = 1984?
Communism = impossible to achieve, a self-sufficient egalitarian eutopia is impossible.

or am I like waaaaay off?

Well, part of your post is accurate. What is that Mark Twain quote?

[EyeKhan]

Sure, but you base that belief (or seem to) on the fact that our toys are newer and shinier. Seems like that's pretty much the same thing as saying we're better because our toys are.

It's not just about technology. It's about culture, population, communication, all rolled together. TBH I can't remember what the hell this is about, just that I didn't mean technology alone. So cut it out.

And, by that logic, the way to solidify our status as a world power is to go communist. Brilliant!

No it isn't. What it means is there are many 'projects' which are key to producing a great nation that a government is required to accomplish precisely because the government is (*often*) concerned with making a great nation whereas the private sector is chiefly concerned with serving itself even at the expense of making a great nation.

[Loki]

Fair enough... but CIA ops burn mountains of money too. Stupid fucking Americans should have worried more about all the commies elected to office in Canada since WWII. Why haven't they killed off the NDP yet?

Well yes. The CIA was mostly incompetent in special ops. They mainly got influence through mass bribery of politicians.

Wait, are you saying that the US is economically dominant because of WWII? Really? 65 years later?!?!

Every commentator I ever read considered that over and done 30 years after at the latest. Otherwise, how could German and Japanese economies have kicked such serious butt in the 80s?

Try parsimony: the US invested far more than anybody else in basic research, and our economic dominance is based almost exclusively on science and technology. In contrast, our manufacturing dominance was gone decades ago. Hey, around the time that Japan and Germany surged in the 80s!

US per capita economic growth has actually been no higher than of most Western European countries since WWII. Part of the reason we had higher overall GDP growth is because our population grew quicker. The US isn't exactly unique when it comes to funding basic research either.