" History has proven that to be a blatant falsehood. Giving money to government programs does not reduce poverty, help the poor, or in any way improve the issues in society."

What history books are you reading Winstonfield? Never in the entire history of civilization has a "Libertarian fiscal conservative" government ever succeeded in creating a stable social environment. Not once! Why? Because it flies in the face of human nature. The world is not so super simple that we can teach everyone to be rugged individualists and then we will not need government at all. Before it will even have a chance to work you need an even playing field, and that does not exist and probably never will exist, thanks to human nature again.

Conservative thinkers know this, which is why pure conservatism = dictatorship. If you don't believe me, turn off the talk radio and crack open a book. Read the philosophers that inspire conservatism, like Plato and his "Philosopher King" or John Burke's defense of royal fiat.

Conservatism does not create a paradise like Galt's Gulch, it leads to places like Haiti, and Zimbabwe, and Somalia. "Liberalism" leads to high standards of living, like Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the fast recovery of Germany. These countries are technologically more advanced, better educated, have higher average incomes, better medical care, and longer life spans than us Americans. Yet they are (falsely) labeled "socialist" and are considered places we should not follow as examples.

Think for yourself!

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.
I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.
Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.


Aye all good points, i just wish there was more of an emphasis on birth control in these places that currently get food aid, not that i am against giving hungry children food, but just feeding a few of them doesn't solve the core problems (i'm not saying just birth control will either). The death rates per country (as you mentioned was missing) closely matches that of the birth rates given in my earlier link, the top 40 is pretty much all African nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_death_rate

I realise some work goes into education (in regards to use of condoms etc) in these countries with rampant poverty, but there is still much ignorance, in no small part because pretty much all the major religions oppose the use of condoms because of their view that chastity is "the only sure way of preventing the spread of HIV and Aids" (Pope Benedict). When ignorance of this magnitude is present in the world, bad things happen.
edit: just saw your name is Jesusfreak, hopefully you realise i dont mean to use the religious view on condoms as a personal attack.

That chart fails to show death rates in comparison with birth rates...Afghanistan is hardly a dense place yet has an astounding birth rate. As with all things, it isn't as simple as A) more people = better for all people, or B) Less people = better for all people...there will always be haves and have not's. However, having MORE people does tend to show higher levels of specialization. For instance, in the US, we have some of the largest and most varied amount of professional athletes.

I think it is better to understand birthrates/death rates in tandem WITH the national economic context they are in. Healthy economic condition would see peoples standards of living increase as more people are added to the equation. There is a fundamental limit on this which is mainly technological in nature (traffic,food,pollution,ect). In other words, you have to compare apples to apples and realize that correlation isn't causation. Zimbabwe would not be cured if their population was halved, their condition is much more a result of political bungling then shear population size. Really, I think population isn't an issue yet on a macro level...micro though it makes all the difference. The difference of the quality of life of someone that has 5 kids and 2 is undeniable. But when the 7 kids are all older, that is 7 people to potentially contribute to the world with all their gifts and talents.

Also, what birth and death rates don't tell you about total population is immigration. Look at the US for that, birth rates here are below 2 on average (last stat I saw was 1.98), but US has always had strong immigration tendencies and our population still continues to grow. Not taking into account migration is to not paint a complete picture of the world.

>> ^Crake:
>> ^gwiz665:
"No one has a right to medical care"
Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.
Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.

Seems like a pretty knee-jerk response to moral philosophy to me. Just because morality is messy, doesn't mean it's relative.


Nor the other way around. There are no "natural rights", we may want to think there are, such as freedom to live, but really they only exist because we evolved such that we like to think that - the good of the tribe. Some of these feelings are pretty hard-wired, but many are not, and are taught through our upbringing. (Nature/nurture all over again.) Still, even if they are hard-wired and ingrained in us, that does not mean they are in-alienable and that they are objectively, absolutely right.

There is no Morality Scale that we can measure ourselves to.

>> ^Crake:
>> ^gwiz665:
"No one has a right to medical care"
Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.
Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.

Seems like a pretty knee-jerk response to moral philosophy to me. Just because morality is messy, doesn't mean it's relative.


My morality is better than your morality.

>> ^gwiz665:
"No one has a right to medical care"
Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.
Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.


Seems like a pretty knee-jerk response to moral philosophy to me. Just because morality is messy, doesn't mean it's relative.

"No one has a right to medical care"

Sure they do, if we decide so. We don't have a right to own land either, only because we've all agreed that it ought to be a right. White people don't have that right in Zimbabwe for instance, but that's only because the people there accept Mugabe's claim that they should not own anything.

Laws are not immutable, they follow a cultural zeitgeist. Rights are decided, not given. Morality is not absolute, it is relative.

By "tough on savers", what you mean is traders at the expense of savers. Traders are still free to trade in a hard currency system, they just can't wildly speculate...which has been a major problem anyway in terms of recessions and panics. How many times have savers caused an economic downturn vs how many massive speculations, panics, contagions sown by freeish money made available through government fiscal policy and lose central banking.

You are right though, there is an incentive to destroy the environment for hard currency when that currency is gold. Look at Zimbabwe, they are destroying their rivers and other live giving infrastructure. You could use something other than metals, but really, metals aren't going anywhere, the are going to be mined milled and used in other areas. Not having them as a basis of currency isn't going to stop people from wanting gold, silver, oil or whatever we wanted to choose. In fact, it is BECAUSE they are valued and hard to obtain that we wanted to select it as a currency denomination.

As I see it, when you favor Fiat currency, the evils you make are inflation (which can be rightfully called a tax), larger business cycles, and the debt monster which will one day eat your currency alive when exponential growth is no longer possible.

SS is no answer to this at all, our current SS policy is a ponzi scheme. It requires more investors to pay out dividends to the old ones. At some point, that will bust, and to the detriment of everyone alive at the time to watch it.

In short, I think central bankers morgage the future for current gains. This is at the direct cost of the savers, they are being exploited the whole while. The recent bank bust is just more case to this. The savers forced to bail out the massive speculators. Not only does their money get debased, but they have to bail them out when massive speculation made possible by freeish money finally comes crashing down.

Big Bill Clinton: "Don't thank me, ladies, it is I who thanks you (and Obama for sending Hillary to Zimbabwe). Our new video 2 Asian Girls, 1 XXX-President will premiere soon!"

Racism can be interracial, as much as against other races. Someone refusing to date someone because their skin color is too dark is 'racism', whether you like that or not. That falls into the same line as someone being too white, or too yellow.

Truthfully, I can't believe you're naive enough to think that people don't exist in the sociodemographic circles in other countries, where someone who lives in a country won't be subjected to some form of racism regardless of the situation. Since this is where you obviously missed it in my original post, and yes. A black in S.Africa, or Zimbabwe will just as equally be as racist to a white, if not more so.

Unfortunately you've missed the point of my original statement which is your own problem. Go out and live in the larger world, and you'll see it.

Mashiki, what metrics are you using to measure racism? I think your saying one group or another is most racist based on nothing but your feelings and anecdotes is ridiculous. What tangible, measurable results were there from blacks hating blacker people, for example? That's how I determine who is the most racist.

And in the US, whites are able to and do enforce their bigoted sentiment on other groups quite often and quite easily. Look at redlining, the criminal justice system, job discrimination, hate violence, etc. How have american blacks oppressed american whites? Sure, you can dig and find a some very rare cases of individuals doing this, but show me where the average american white man gets the bum deal that the average Zimbabwean white man would get from their black (or latino, or asian) countrymen.

It's not a perfect world for american whites by any means, but I don't know any american white crazy enough to trade places with an american black. Maybe you do, since you think minorities get a "free ride". It-is-to-laugh.

As I said pp, racism is a matter of perspective. The countries I cited are making demonstrable efforts to be egalitarian with respect to ethnicity, just like we in the US are. In Singapore, a chinese was jailed for posting a racist anti-malay website; if america had the same standards, how many would be jailed? In Malaysia, several ethnic and religious groups take part in the government; while Americans have only recently seen their first muslim congressman. South Africa has shown great restraint to the white population there in light of the history of apartheid. Kenya is actively making strides and overtures to its Muslim population and for reconciliation of its various tribal groups; even african whites fled there from Zimbabwe. And finally, like it or not, in 20 years blacks will dominate brasil; the demographic math there is more pronounced than for arabs in Israel. Even now brasilian blacks are fighting discrimination and making measurable gains.

All of these examples still don't help your flimsy racial theory that puts whites as the most angelic beings in the universe. A Singaporean chinese will say the same. A Kenyan black will say the same. A Malay Malaysian will say the same. Any number of ethnic people who dominate their respective countries sing the same tune. Hell, even the arabs in this video would say the same.

But, only a cursory glance at (even recent) history would show that is simply not the case for any of these groups.

I don't think it's worth the effort finding sources and news reports for your longde, but:

Singapore
The Chinese in Singapore are extremely ethnocentric. See the treatment of Indians, Africans and Filipina/o workers that have no legal recourse in this Chinese-centered meritocracy.

Malaysia
You must be joking. It's illegal to change your religion in this country, unless you’re converting to Islam. Ethnic Malays have an easy-going business process while the Chinese are kept down in bureaucracy and the expectation of bribes.

South Africa
Again, are you serious? How about their treatment of "refugees" from Zimbabwe last summer.

Kenya
Now I know you're joking. Kenya, like most of Africa is completely engaged in ethnic squabbles. The Luo people are particularly violent. Cities and slums are frequently broken down into sectors where different ethnic groups live. Sporadic violence is common place and the influx of Sudanese which are left to amass wherever they can find a spot is adding more kindle to the fire. Elections are a particularly dangerous period where candidates are endorsed by riots.

Brazil
If your skin is darker than #999966, expect to paid about half what a paler person makes. In no other country in the Americas is being black such a handicap.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'zimbabwe, great zimbabwe, archeology' to 'zimbabwe, great zimbabwe, archeology, archaeology' - edited by BreaksTheEarth

>> ^blankfist:
Why are dogs so racist?

"Legend" has it these dogs were bred then brought to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and used as hunting dogs. Supposedly, lion hunting dogs. Well, since hunting for sport was primarily a white person's past time, they were primarily owned by white families. They probably also had used them for protection and quite possibly trained them to be biased based on the color of a possible intruder's skin. Now, I don't know if racism can be bred into an animal, but I do know the amount of alert that dog would have depending on a new person's skin color was noticeable. Of course after introductions, Ella would be keen to that person and only tell jokes about their race when they weren't there.

>> ^arvana:
I had three different high schools; they were all in Zimbabwe. I don't see any chance I will be going to a reunion... but on the upside, just think of what I will save in stripper fees.


I don't know, it would be interesting to pay a trillion dollars for a stripper.