Another problem with Paul is his inability to understand that his concept of liberty is far from subjective and far from universal. He believes in a type of liberty called 'negative liberty', which is defined as freedom from laws and regulation. The big flaw in negative liberty it gives powerful people the liberty to take away the liberty of less powerful people.

Positive liberty, by contrast, is a liberty of empowerment, a liberty based on working together to solve problems. Liberty from sickness and disease through science and medicine. Liberty from oppression through labor laws and civil liberties. Liberty from ignorance through education. I could go on... but I've got to go right now.

The history of the human race is an arc from negative liberty to positive liberty. Let's not regress. I have no interest in going back to the stone age.

America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still.


Well... the US did grow quickly in the 19th century as it utilized its tremendous, largely untapped natural resources, but it didn't take its "super-power" position in the world until after WWII. And then it took the position by default; Europe was a series of craters.

Now clearly the US did well post revolution (I mean, compare it to other places in the Americas with similar opportunities), but I don't think we can ascribe this to specifically American stuff. Its advantages: good organization, infrastructure ideas, lack of corruption, strong property rights, rule of law, and empowerment culture - these were all borrowed ideas. No, its prime differentiator was fantastic natural wealth. By the time America was ascendant, countries in Europe (especially Britain) had to import tremendous amounts of raw resources while in America you could - for example - just cut down a tree if you needed wood, or wander over a few more miles if you wanted land and water and minerals and (later) oil.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good things about American culture and institutions. But using its economic and innovation success as proof of that is a little too convenient.

Did you read beyond the headline? "Asian Americans endure far more bullying at US schools than members of other ethnic group". "Gay" isn't an ethnic group.

The problem is that it is the LGBTs are the group most affected by this clause, "statement[s] of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction". No religion gets away with overt racism so abuse against Asian Americans doesn't have this escape clause. I very much doubt you can get away with claiming white supremacy as a religious belief or a moral conviction and you should not be able to get away with homophobia as a moral conviction either.

I don't think any other minority is as affected but if there is, then they shouldn't have abuse against them legitimised like this.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?
You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.
One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.
The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.
Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.
At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.




>> ^Quboid:
>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

Good catch, @Quboid. If Asian kids are the "most" bullied than that means more so than any other group.

Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.

How about not bullying anyone?

You make the point for me. If this is an anti-bullying measure, then it has no bearing on whether or not the victim is gay, Asian, etc. Presumably it increases punishment of the bullies.

One third of the population are fuckups and will be no matter what you do. It's called The Bell Curve. The incapability of dealing with children bullying is a small scale example of the grand failure that is liberalism, and the dearth of common fucking sense and lack of personal empowerment that liberalism promotes amplify these evils.

The Bowing Kenyawaiian tries to placate dictators and the hopelessly swamped and time-wasting state government and government school bureaucracy tries to make a network of laws and rules that only end up strangling freedoms in the name of safety.

Do gay kids deserve equal protection? Yup. Do they deserve special protection that infringes on others' freedom? Nope.

At this stage of the game, if a gay kid is self-aware he should already be learning how to to fight, because just as 9-1-1 is government-sponsored dial-a-prayer for those who don't own guns, no teacher or camera is always going to be there to protect every bullied child.








>> ^Quboid:

>> ^quantumushroom:
But wait! Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids.

Where does that article state that "Asian kids are bullied far more than gay kids", or anything even remotely like that?
Aside from your ludicrous implication that because one group is getting it worse then another group should shut up, the bases for this implication seems to be built on absolutely nothing.
How about not bullying anyone?

I want to repeat first your original claim is the US outproduced the rest of the world many fold from 1700 to 1900, which as I stated is absurdly false.

Percentage of increases is NOT total GDP. Just because we grew more doesn't mean we outproduced another country. Higher GDP = higher production.

Right now, China's economy is growing faster than the US economy. Does that mean their GDP is higher? According to you, apparently, the answer is yes, but it's not. US GDP is higher than China.

Of course, this also doesn't take into account that population impacts GDP, as the larger your population, the more labor resources you have to produce goods and services. GDP per capita also comes into play in factoring relative productivity.

Using your own link, Great Britain's total GDP was higher than the US all the way up to 1913. Therefore, sometime between 1870 and 1913, the US GDP surpassed Britain and every other country on earth in raw amounts, but to claim we did from 1820 - 1913 is by your own data patently false. We outgrew everyone else, this is true, but we did not outproduce everyone else that entire time. In fact, for most of that time, we were outproduced by several Western European countries in raw amounts.

Then there's the question of GDP per capita.

In 1913, US population is estimated to be about 100,000,000. 517,000/100000000=0.00517

In 1913, the British population is estimated to be about 45,000,000. 225000/45000000 = 0.005.

IE, RIGHT ABOUT around 1913 the US began to be more productive per capita than Great Britain, but for most of 1870 to 1913 (and prior), Great Britain outproduced the US per capita. Therefore, your assertion the US outproduced every other country on earth per capita is wrong, and Great Britain outproduced the US in raw amount in 1870.

As I said, most historians do not consider the US an economic superpower until at least WWI. There's ample explanation for this. Great Britain industrialized before the US did. The US also suffered a massive interruption in economic production due to the US Civil War in the 1860s. This is plain as day fact, even with your own data you're providing.

And btw, what were the contributing factors to the US surge in production? Industrialization coupled with massive immigration. To discount the role of immigration into the US as a key contributor and say it was all about free market economics is ridiculous. Are you suggesting we need to allow Mexicans and anyone else to immigrate into the US again?! We also cashed in on imperialist gains at the expense of Mexico, gaining a massive amount of natural resources in the Mexican Cession. You don't honestly think the US Industrial Revolution would have been as wildly successful as it was without that massive resource of various metals, do you? So we're supposed to start taking land from other countries because it's god's will?

And now, to my absolute favorite part of your analysis. You attempted to show the US's slowing economic growth in the 20th century compared to the previous century, because that central banking and regulation we got post 1913 apparently really hurt us.

1820 - 1870 = 50 years
1870 - 1913 = 43 years
1913 - 1950 = 37 years
1950 - 1973 = 23 years
1973 - 1998 = 25 years

So how much did we grow comparing 1870-1913 vs 1950 - 1998, over a comparable time span?

526% vs. (7394598-1455916)/1455916 = 407%

Considering how unproductive humans were before and after industrialization, improving on top of that another 407% is EXTREMELY impressive. On top of that, US economic output was severely reduced because of the Civil War in the 1860s and had not recovered from it by any stretch of the imagination, so simply recovering from that would fuel a massive percentage increase. By 1950, we had already recovered from the Great Depression, and we STILL managed to grow the US economy 4x in the next 50 years.

Now, on top of that, keep in mind that with smaller numbers, percentage growth gets exaggerated compared to bigger numbers. IE, it's easier to double when you start with 1 than 1,000,000.

From 1820 to 1913, US GDP went from 12,548 to 517,383. From 1913 to 1998, we went from 517,383 to 7,394,598! That's less successful?! OH POOR US!

Compared to the rest of the world, we didn't grow as fast percentage wise from 1950-1998. We did however grow the most in raw amounts. By your analysis, Mexico has done a better job growing their economy from 1973 to 1998 than the US did because of percentage growth. Uhh, seriously?! growing 279,302 to 655,910 is more impressive than 3,536,622 to 7,394,598?! Then WHY ARE MEXICANS TRYING TO IMMIGRATE HERE!?

Why is Africa, Asia, etc. growing so much faster than we did? Because they are industrializing, which results in percentage gains greater than the switch to info tech because they're starting from a very low number. That doesn't mean they're outproducing us. It means they have more low hanging fruit to improve their productivity than we do. You're also cherrypicking another historically convenient time. Europe and Asia in 1950 were still recovering from the destruction of WWII, where entire cities were leveled. Simply rebuilding from that would give a massive boost. US industrial capacity was never threatened during WWII. Therefore, we won't start suddenly artificially lower in 1950 compared to a Japan, China, Germany, Britain, France, or Russia.

Your historical analysis is laughable. I have never seen anyone claim that the US economy was better off from 1800-1900 than they have been from 1900-2000. Kudos for attempting to provide statistics for your crackpot retelling of American history.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf
We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.
In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.
From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.
Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%
And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.
But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.
Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


Slvry

>> ^heropsycho:

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.
Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.
You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?



Don't let facts get in the way of your clouded thinking.
http://www.theworldeconomy.org/MaddisonTables/MaddisontableB-18.pdf

We were the most prosperous country in the world prior to income taxes and the federal reserve.

In 1820, US GDP was less than 2% of the world's GDP. By 1913, US GDP was more than double any other country and 1/5 of the world's. Funny thing about freedom, it works.

From 1820 to 1870, US GDP increased 784% while the world GDP had only increased 59%. From 1870 to 1913, US GDP increased 526% while the world GDP had only increased 246%.

Period, Increase in US GDP, Increase in World GDP
1820 to 1870, 784%, 59%
1870 to 1913, 526%, 246%
1913 to 1950, 281%, 197%
1950 to 1973, 243%, 300%
1973 to 1998, 209%, 210%

And if you do the math per capita, the numbers are even uglier for the US 20th century.

But not surprising one thinks that printing money to pay for bombs and tanks makes a country prosperous. How's that government stimulus working out present day? Funny we still haven't paid off that debt from WWII stimulus. We've being paying the interest on it though.

Did expanding the monetary base (i.e. inflation) make us richer? The father of the theory that government stimulus is the way to fight severe downturns, John Maynard Keynes, famously said about inflation:
By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?


the US didn't become a world power until WWII really, and it became a SUPERPOWER during the 50's... check the taxation rate then

Except you're completely, utterly, 100% wrong about when the US became an economic superpower.

Most historians do not recognize the US as a global economic or military superpower until at least WWI, and it's hard to argue that even then because the US paled in comparison to the likes of Britain until WWII, so your claim we outproduced every other country many times over from 1700-1900 is absurdly and patently false. The 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913 (just prior to WWI), which allowed constitutionally for the first time a federal income tax. The Federal Reserve Bank was also established in 1913, which I guess is what you're referring to as "central banking". The US was undoubtedly recognized as a global Superpower, both economically and militarily, by the end of WWII, some 30+ years later, and it's been one undoubtedly ever since, with the FED and the federal income tax in existence that entire time. During that time, the US has outproduced economically every other country on earth with the dreaded "central bank" and federal income tax you think is destroying our economy.

You might actually want to look stuff up before you say something that grossly incorrect.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^raverman:
... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...
Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.
Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

>> ^raverman:

... Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.
Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.
...

Look a little bit closer, like 1700-1900, where there was no tax on production (i.e. income tax) and limited periods of economic central planning (i.e. central banking). The US became an economic powerhouse, outperforming the rest of the world many times over.

Imagine that, economic freedom leading to economic prosperity. What a fluke, right?

Class Warfare never created a job...

Let me introduce you to the period of history from 1700 - 2000.

Specifically the industrial revolution, the breaking of the class system in the UK, the empowerment of the middle class as both consumers and producers.

You might have been thinking more of the earlier BC era where the richer the Egpytian Emperor was the better the levels of employment (of slaves) was.

If by "home" you mean "windowless van" and "sex" you mean "chloroform puppetry", then no. It's all about empowerment!

That's pretty much where I am coming from. Although, I wouldn't call my system dualistic if the sense is that they are equal forces. Now, this kind of evil may seem mundane, even banal, but really that is the worst kind. Slow change over time turns the good bad and the bad good. Satan uses and abuses whatever access he has, which is every person who sins, and he has a worldwide plan of deception built into every facet of modern life. Most of the corrupting ideas he insinuates into society have the same basic principles:

Get people to worship anything other than God..ie, other gods, money, power, themselves..etc

Get people to worship the creation rather than the Creator..ie, the pagans, deists and animists, environmentalists

Get people to believe that they can change reality through will power or do things under their own power..ie, the new age movement, secular humanists etc

Everything which is going on has a spiritual dimension, which is basically a war between the forces of good and evil. There is no space which isn't claimed, so everything which can be claimed is in dispute. While this might be a little thing in the grand deception, it helps reinforce the self-empowerment theology that many ascribe to.



>> ^Krupo:
No worries, I get lazy sometimes and just ascribe my comments to upvotes and downvotes.
To go along with your desire to ban 'craaazy' thoughts, that's where the downvote function comes in handy. To play "anti-devil's advocate" (if you see what I did there), despite what you may think, shiny made a valid point, grounded in some pretty logical teaching in a dualistic sort of systme (not really usign the right terms, but let's move on) -> if you do believe in the supernatural (and many do), if you're not embracing spiritual power from God / the "positive" source, then everything else is coming from the negative source (e.g. Satan or the evil equivalent you suscribe to).
Now, drawing a link between a TV scam and the Prince of Darkness is a bit of a stretch, but if you see "scams" as evil, and Satan as "the boss of evil", then this isn't as crazy as it sounds. And certainly not ban-worthy.
Fun discussion though. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">
Incidentally, in the thread, which isn't really 'mine' but belnoging to the video, I was more shocked taht I hadn't put this into the eia channel as ant did for me. For surely, if you see someone of your favorite gender wearing one, it'll make you reconsider things.
>> ^Boise_Lib:
@EvilDeathBee - Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
"Nothing he's said has been extremely offensive or outrageous." I agree.
"Also, who knows? Maybe us challenging him all the time may lead him to start questioning all the nonsense that has been shoveled upon him." I disagree--any comments which don't agree with his previous mindset will only be seen as an "attack" on his "faith" (read delusions). This will actually only harden his resolve to chastise the sinners.
"...banning him simply for speaking his beliefs would simply be hypocritical on this site." I agree--that's why I stated above, "If sb just stated his/her beliefs that would be a different story, but this insistence on continually attacking over--and over--and over gets real old, real fast." For example take qm, I completely disagree with almost everything he says (and I think he might be an unstable person), but I would fight to keep him from being banned just for that. When qm has something to say--he says it--then moves on; he doesn't take over the whole thread and trash someones posting spouting trite crap.
About the ignore button--I'm not really sure how it works. Does it wipe out all the replies? Some of the replies are gold and I wouldn't want to miss them. If I ignore someone does that mean I wouldn't see their comments on a video I posted? I wouldn't want that because I want to see all activity on my posts.
Now, banning may not be the only solution available to the site admin here. If his comments could be limited to one per video that might be a viable solution--with out invoking the dreaded ban. As @Payback has said before if everyone simply ignored him the whole problem would go away--but that's (almost) against human nature.
Thanks again for the discussion, and Sorry @Krupo for taking up so much of your thread.

Thanks for quoting me correctly. I appreciate it.

I'm not sure of your point, though. Illinois and Massachusetts, two states out of 50, have weird laws. The citizens of those states should protest to their legislators. ACLU should be called in and see if these laws are constitutional.

What do you want me to think?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Remember, you said
>> ^bareboards2:
Love the cameras. Cameras and the internet are weaving a web of protection around each citizen.
Too cool, baby!

And before you said
>> ^bareboards2:
[edit] Allowing for hyperbole and "all" and "yearn" ....
1. Yes
2. Yes.
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@bareboards2
1 - Was all that stuff invented & perpetuated out of a sincere need to protect you?
2 - Do you sincerely believe that 95% of police wake up yearning to prevent every citizen, as much as possible, from being robbed or raped or murdered?
Those are simple questions you've refused to address so far.


Just in case you're still havin' trouble letting it all sink in..
>> ^bareboards2:
I said that I am glad that cops have cameras on their cars. Transparency.
I am glad that the internet is spreading the videos far and wide. Public empowerment.
This is how we protect ourselves.
Replay what Anna says at min 2:55 a few times
Hah. Kumquat?