Libertarians Are Sociopaths

[I.Goldstein]

Eh, the most murder occurs in African civil wars my friend. Millions of lives. The UN rapes the remains.

Are those what he was referring to by "tribal wars"?

I don't know if these civil wars are tribe-based or not. I haven't look at the cultures nor the countries. I am pretty ignorant in terms of geography. As for Somalia, that's tribal for sure.

[JA37]

So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what?

Not even in the same ball park as the wars waged by nation-states, if they can even be called wars at all.

Or the drug wars in South America?

You mean the ones caused by nation states prohibiting the production, distribution, and use of certain substances?

Have a look at what happened in Rwanda and tell me that it can't be called a war at all.
Saying it's not even in the same ball park is ignorant to the point of being offensive.
Or have a look at Darfur.

Yes, the drug wars where cartels are fighting both each other and the local government, and quite successfully too.
Not even the big bad government can fight the cartels and are now surrendering and starting to embrace legalization.
How many civilians are killed each year in drug related violence each year? I don't have the exact number, but I know it's several thousand. Each year.

[I.Goldstein]

The cartels only have the power that they do is because of the prohibition and demand from the United States. Otherwise, it would be small gang skirmishes on a Detroit level resulting from local drug laws.

[BitterTea]

Have a look at what happened in Rwanda and tell me that it can't be called a war at all.

Sure. Who committed the atrocities?

Saying it's not even in the same ball park is ignorant to the point of being offensive.

You said tribal wars. I was expecting you were talking about actual tribes, not nation-states.

Or have a look at Darfur.

You'll have to refresh me, what happened and who did it?

Not even the big bad government can fight the cartels

They can destroy the violent drug cartels in one simple way: end drug prohibition.

[JA37]

Sure. Who committed the atrocities?

You said tribal wars. I was expecting you were talking about actual tribes, not nation-states.

You'll have to refresh me, what happened and who did it?

They can destroy the violent drug cartels in one simple way: end drug prohibition.

In Rwanda. Hutus. A tribe in war with Tutsi.

In Darfur. SLA and JEM two tribal groups vs Janjaweed militia, a collection of arabic tribes.

Destroy violent drug cartels simple? Only in a simple mind. Explain to me what you think happens if they end drug prohibition.

[MoonShadow]

So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what?

Not even in the same ball park as the wars waged by nation-states, if they can even be called wars at all.

Or the drug wars in South America?

You mean the ones caused by nation states prohibiting the production, distribution, and use of certain substances?

Have a look at what happened in Rwanda and tell me that it can't be called a war at all.

That's not exactly fair, is it?  That was a civil war based upon tribal differences, but one tribe had a complete lock on government, and thus is was also an ethnic cleaning by a government.  That fact gave one tribe an unacceptable force advantage over the other.

[BitterTea]

In Rwanda. Hutus. A tribe in war with Tutsi.

I'm not really familiar with this so I'm just going to cherry pick some quotes from Wikipedia. Feel free to poke holes in my limited understanding...

It was the culmination of longstanding ethnic competition and tensions between the minority Tutsi, who had controlled power for centuries, and the majority Hutu peoples, who had come to power in the rebellion of 1959–62 and overthrown the Tutsi monarchy.

The assassination of Habyarimana in April 1994 set off a violent reaction, during which Hutu groups conducted mass killings of Tutsis (and also pro-peace Hutus, who were portrayed as "traitors" and "collaborationists"). This genocide had been planned by members of the Hutu power group known as the Akazu, many of whom occupied positions at top levels of the national government; the genocide was supported and coordinated by the national government as well as by local military and civil officials and mass media.

Can you say with a straight face that the Rwandan genocide would have occurred without nation-states?

In Darfur. SLA and JEM two tribal groups vs Janjaweed militia, a collection of arabic tribes.

You mean versus Janjaweed militia, the Sudanese Armed Forces, and the Sudanese Police Foreign Mercenaries?

Destroy violent drug cartels simple? Only in a simple mind. Explain to me what you think happens if they end drug prohibition.

If it's legal, the cartels no longer have a monopoly and will have to compete with legitimate businesses. In exactly the same way that the end of alcohol prohibition neutered (I won't say killed) the mafia.

[RandyFolds]

You know what else those mentioned private industries have in common? The poor can't afford to use them. We already have very nearly the worst social mobility in the First World, and you guys are chomping at the bit to make it even worse.

I don't see why poor people could not afford some education.  Surely not as good an education as the one a child of a rich family could afford, but still they could get some.  And they would certainly be some good people who would be happy to provide free education, just by generosity.

Wow....just...wow. What hell did you crawl out of?

[BitterTea]

Wow....just...wow. What hell did you crawl out of?

Your incredulity rebuts itself. You are obviously happy to provide education to the poor, thus you and the others like you, would be happy to provide education to the poor in a stateless society. You would do it without the bureaucratic overhead of a state.

[RandyFolds]

Wow....just...wow. What hell did you crawl out of?

Your incredulity rebuts itself. You are obviously happy to provide education to the poor, thus you and the others like you, would be happy to provide education to the poor in a stateless society.

I am going to be completely honest here; I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say with the post quoted above.

[BitterTea]

I am going to be completely honest here; I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say with the post quoted above.

Would you charitably contribute to the education of poor children, were you not forced to do so by a government?

[RandyFolds]

I am going to be completely honest here; I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say with the post quoted above.

Would you charitably contribute to the education of poor children, were you not forced to do so by a government?

I currently do so. I do not understand its relevance with regards to my involvement in this thread.

http://www.schoolonwheels.org/

It's a very good organization. Give them your crappy fiat.

[cbeast]

There have been dozens of studies like this.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

[BitterTea]

I currently do so. I do not understand its relevance with regards to my involvement in this thread..

You seemed to express incredulity that education for the poor could be provided voluntarily. I was suggesting that since you and others currently voluntarily do so, or at least would voluntarily do so if they were not forced to do so, that they would continue to do so without being forced.

[BitterTea]

...

Conservatives != libertarians

[I.Goldstein]

There have been dozens of studies like this.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

I don't recall there being a single conservative here. Maybe Red but that's about it.

[RandyFolds]

There have been dozens of studies like this.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

I, for one, am afraid that the fags and liberals will mind-sodomize my children into their corrupt and immoral way of thinking. GW2008freedomain'tfreelet'sbuildawallforthembrownfolks.com...check out my blog.

[cbeast]

There have been dozens of studies like this.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html

The work, to be reported today in the journal Nature Neuroscience, grew out of decades of previous research suggesting that political orientation is linked to certain personality traits or styles of thinking. A review of that research published in 2003 found that conservatives tend to be more rigid and closed-minded, less tolerant of ambiguity and less open to new experiences. Some of the traits associated with conservatives in that review were decidedly unflattering, including fear, aggression and tolerance of inequality. That evoked outrage from conservative pundits.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/28/conservatives-fear-center-brain/

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

I don't recall there being a single conservative here. Maybe Red but that's about it.

Great, so everyone but Red is all for publicly funded education and healthcare. Those two things go a long way to creating a powerhouse economy and a prospering middle class.

[BitterTea]

Great, so everyone but Red is all for publicly funded education and healthcare. Those two things go a long way to creating a powerhouse economy and a prospering middle class.

Another beautiful fallacy. Being against coercively funded education or healthcare != conservative.

Keep them coming.

I'm also against coercively funded food and shelter, but I bet you are too.

[RandyFolds]

I currently do so. I do not understand its relevance with regards to my involvement in this thread..

You seemed to express incredulity that education for the poor could be provided voluntarily. I was suggesting that since you and others currently voluntarily do so, or at least would voluntarily do so if they were not forced to do so, that they would continue to do so without being forced.

I expressed incredulity that anyone would be so naive as to think that the little bit of volunteering is anywhere near sufficient to compare to public institutions, or that poor people can afford any sort of education at all. It sounds like serfdom to me. Anyone who truly believes that the poor can pick up and educate themselves has never spent time in a third world country...or the southeastern united states.

I would keep doing supplemental tutoring with four children who have nothing. I don't think my meager efforts would save them if they weren't allowed a public education.