The Dunning-Kruger Effect: Are the Stupid Too Stupid to Realize They’re Stupid?

Has it ever seemed to you that less competent people rate their competence higher than it actually is, while more competent people humbly rate theirs lower?

It’s not just your imagination. This is a genuine cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

The Dunning-Kruger experiments behind the research focused on cognitive tasks (logic, grammar, and evaluating humor), but similar disparities exist in other areas. In self-assessment of IQ, below-average people overestimated their score and those above average underestimated.

Studies of healthy and unhealthy behaviors are handicapped when they rely on self-reporting because test subjects tend to improve their evaluation. In self-evaluations of driving ability, job performance, and even immunity to bias, we tend to polish our image.

This is called the Lake Wobegone Effect, named after the town where “all the children are above average.”

Notice that there are two different categories of error:

(1) the error where there is a preferred answer and most people are biased toward giving that answer (“How much snack food do you eat?” or “How popular would you say you are?” or “How good a driver are you?”), and

(2) the error where bias changes depending on actual competence, with the less and more competent groups rating themselves too high and too low, respectively.

Let’s look at the second category, where the two extremes make opposite errors. The Dunning-Kruger research hypothesizes that the competent overestimate others’ skill levels. But the error is more complicated for the incompetent—they overestimate their own skill level and they lack the metacognition to realize their error. In other words, they were too incompetent to recognize their own incompetence. Improving their metacognitive skills drove down their self-assessment scores as they became better evaluators of their own limitations.

The original paper was titled, “Unskilled and Unaware of It,” for which the authors won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2000.

The trouble with the world
is that the stupid are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt.
— Bertrand Russell

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 8/25/12.)

Photo credit:  Robert Orr, flickr, CC

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Dys

    I would be remiss if I didn’t provide the video of Monty Python’s John Cleese on the subject. Because he’s awesome.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      “There are two things infinite; the universe and human stupidity
      and I’m not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein

      • http://superman-news.com/ Greg

        lol

        • adam

          Funny how your stupidity has no limits?

        • https://instagurum.com/ instagram images

          This is called the Lake Wobegone Effect, named after the town where “all the children are above average.”

      • johzek

        I recently heard this Einstein quote. “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.”

      • RichardSRussell

        I heard something similar about the difference between the Universe and the NBA playoffs, in that we know the Universe will eventually come to an end.

    • RichardSRussell

      You know what else is awesome? Right after that video is done running, YouTube offers up still shots of 4 similar videos you might also like. 2 of them are more Cleese, 1 is George Carlin, and 1 is Sarah Palin.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Oh, I see. All people dedicated to making us laugh. Nice.

    • https://www.clippp.com/kathrynmarshall/zhang-tattoo Zhang Tattoo ideas

      “There are two things infinite; the universe and human stupidity
      and I’m not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein

    • https://instagurum.com/ instagram images

      (2) the error where bias changes depending on actual competence, with the less and more competent groups rating themselves too high and too low, respectively.

  • ElRay

    They’re not too stupid to realize they’re stupid. They’re too arrogant to even conceive that they’re ignorant and need to learn something.

    • David Andrew Kearney

      Well, both can be true.

    • Kodie

      I definitely know one guy like that. If he learns something he likes, it goes in his personal bible. If you say something, usually offhand, he will chime in that that’s wrong because he read somewhere else a long time ago and it was chiseled in stone as far as he’s concerned. His credentials give him a lot of confidence as well – graduated from an Ivy League school more than 40 years ago. His impression of himself is a guy whose stories are wonderful and everyone will gather ’round to hear about him, or read the really really long facebook updates about his time at the airport or his time at the doctor, or whatever. He’s proud of some of his incompetence, as people who are just too important to ever have learned how to grocery shop or get himself dressed without putting something on inside-out often seem to have a “self-deprecating” humor about how difficult easy things are for them.

      • Aram McLean

        I think I know that guy.

    • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

      oh…so if they just buckled down in school they will equal the A students. Thanks for enlightening me dude.

  • mobathome

    Dunning and Kruger don’t discuss “the stupid”. Their study us about self-perception in particular classes of tasks. They are careful to say that people can be competent in one area, while being incompetent in another.

    • Ann Kah

      Second verse, same as the first. We all know people who are very good at one thing and bad at another. The word “stupid” is a paraphrase which explains the concept just the same.

      • RichardSRussell

        It’s not the same, tho. It’s a meta-analysis.

        For instance, I am good at databases and terrible at cooking, but I know I’m terrible at cooking. The Dunning-Kruger Effect refers to people who are so incompetent they don’t know how incompetent they are and actually think they’re good. The term covers a broader range than just intelligence, but it certainly includes stupid people who think they’re smart.

        It also includes climate-change deniers who think they’re scientists; they actually believe they know better than the overwhelming consensus of actual, practicing, well informed, well trained climatologists — and they indignantly proclaim as much at every opportunity. Classic D-K.

        • Kodie

          More meta than that – they don’t think they’re smarter than scientists, but they think they’re smart enough to discern who is telling them the truth. Liars very often use someone’s perceived intelligence to hook them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The evolution or climate-change denier argument to me is always some variant of “Think for yourself!”

          That’s normally good advice, and it feels good–that I’m smart enough to decide for myself, not have some ivory-tower egghead tell me what to think–and yet it’s complete bullshit.

    • Greg G.

      When the press got ahold of it, one of the examples was a bank robber who didn’t wear a mask. When arrested, he was saying he had used the juice. He had got the idea that lemon juice would render his face invisible to cameras. He tested it by trying to take a selfie with old camera and only got the wall.

  • 90Lew90

    I often find myself thinking “Dunning-Kruger” in discussions with religious people, particularly when they start listing questionable “credentials”. Like our Greg the “lawyer” who posts here. I try not to fire off that charge unless they’re being completely stupid because I’m well aware and unabashed that I’m nothing more than a dilettante. Religion interests me, but less and less so daily, I’m finding. Plants and animals interest me more and more daily. Every decent job I’ve held down I feel like I’ve bluffed my way into. I’ve never been sacked, but people much better qualified than me on paper have come and gone either for lack of diligence or sheer incompetence. The situations in which I’ve managed to pass myself off as plausible during my youth make me shudder now. Irish terrorists. Yardies in London. Street people. Been there, done that. And at the opposite end of the social spectrum, particularly in London, fashion crowds, establishment journalists, artistic crowds, important young academics. I’ve never felt as though I fitted into any of the circles I’ve moved in, from the seriously violent and criminal to the seriously sophisticated and privileged to the just plain fucked up. I’ve been a little barfly. The older I get (I’m only just into my late-30s), the more I find I’d just like to read more and spend some time writing my own truth. Nothing shocks me any more. I wonder what Dunning and Kruger would have to say about that. It’s a difficult job to be honest — really, really honest — and it is the job of any writer to try to be honest. If anything, since childhood, I’ve always thought I’d be a writer. I’d quite like to have a go at that. I suppose I’ll either have to order a Kevlar suit or move into the woods and live in a tent.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Sounds exciting. Aside from “write what’s true,” do you know what you’d want to focus on? Is your journalism working for you, or do you want to move on to books?

      • 90Lew90

        I got out of reporting very quickly because I didn’t like what I was being asked to do (basically screwing people over and making stories out of non-stories at editors’ behest). I had another go at it when I came back to Northern Ireland from London but the editor I was working under there was a disaster. He very nearly sank the paper. So most of my newspaper work has been as a sub-editor (copy editor), writing headlines, cleaning up and cutting copy, shielding the paper from libel suits because some of the reporters didn’t seem to understand that you can’t convict people before an actual judge does. That sort of thing.

        As regards my own writing, I’m not sure. Everyone thinks they have a book in them and it would be daunting. I’ve thought about blogging but a blog needs consistency. I’ve only really started thinking about it in the past couple of months. I’ll have to give it some more serious thought. I know a guy who’s a great character and a very accomplished writer. He’s published a lot and ran a writing group in a prison which resulted in two books, so I suppose my first move would be to get some ideas together and approach him. It’s good to bash ideas around though, thanks for the interest!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It may be a misery-loves-company kind of thing, but I’m always interested in other people getting more into writing. For me, it was lots of solitary work, but I was pleased with the result.

          I think everyone thinks they’ll get more sales than they do, which gets back to the idea of writing to satisfy yourself. If you do that, then the project is successful even before it winds up in paper form.

        • TheNuszAbides

          He’s published a lot and ran a writing group in a prison which resulted in two books, so I suppose my first move would be to get some ideas together

          it’s inspiring that your first move isn’t to prison! (not to say that there’s no reason to work in/with one…)

        • 90Lew90

          Hope not! I went to the launch of the first anthology though (it’s called ‘The Magilligan Sentence’ if you’re interested) and the contributors who were able to make it gave readings from their work, before we all got thoroughly drunk together and the stories got even more colourful than the ones in the book.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’m very interested, thanks!

    • Kodie

      I don’t like to write and think I’m terrible at it, and even I have a pseudonym all picked out.

      • Max Doubt

        “I don’t like to write and think I’m terrible at it, and even I have a pseudonym all picked out.”

        I got kicked out on the first day of a creative writing course at the community college. The instructor asked if I had a pen name. I said, “Yes, it’s Papermate.”

        • Kodie

          Was your professor unimpressed by your quick wit or just unwilling to teach someone unfamiliar with the term?

        • Greg G.

          I would quill for a nom de plume like that.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Reminds me of a line in “Dumb and Dumber.” The boys are looking for a guy whose briefcase they have. They’re trying to remember his name and then one of them has the clever idea to check to see if it’s printed on the briefcase somewhere.

          They decide that his name must be “Samsonite.”

        • busterggi

          The ancient Hebrews conquered the Samsonites – with Yahweh on their side victory was in the bag.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And weren’t the Samsonites the strong guys with the long hair?

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        You do a good job at writing here–a little in need of tightening sometimes but your word pictures are without equal.

        But if you dislike it, then I guess that’s that.

        • Kodie

          If I can think of what to say, I just have to say it. If I have to go over it, that’s the dreadful part. If it’s a short post, not so dreadful, but could become a longer post. I mean longer.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Interesting. I’m usually the opposite with my editing. If I am writing about something I care about (as opposed to some sort of drudgery), I’m usually interested in rereading it and improving it.

        • Kodie

          Once I get involved with my writing as an editor, all I do is think of more stuff to add in, and hardly anything to take out or tighten up as you say. If it’s a one-liner, I could say it sometimes takes a while to get that, but it’s only one line. If it’s already a lot of lines, it’s just going to become more lines. And I will also tell you that if I am going on, about half the time, editing says post, and half the time, editing says delete the motherfucker. So.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve heard the writerly advice, “Kill your darlings”?

          It ain’t easy.

        • TheNuszAbides

          it seems especially galling when most of one’s darlings are parts of occasionally-argumentative exchanges, and one doesn’t wish to compromise on turning one more parenthetically-embedded phrase… no matter how few others will ever be inclined to tease out any inadvertent substance…

        • Greg G.

          That’s how I do it. I even do that with when I write Javacripts.

        • 90Lew90

          Your writing is well polished, the effort you put in is obvious. If I’m writing *for* something as opposed to commenting on blogs I usually write in the morning, re-read at night and again the following day. A bit of a problem with me is that my “voice” tends to change. When I’m reading this blog for example, I’m “hearing” it all in an American accent, especially with your writing because I’ve actually heard you speak, and I catch myself slipping into American idiom. I’m also fully aware that sometimes I come across as insufferably pompous, but I had Queen’s-English rules drummed into me and try to aim for clarity. I practically idolise Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Hitchens, Joyce and (perhaps an odd one, this) Nabokov for achieving that so brilliantly and seemingly effortlessly.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I have the same problem. Sometimes after I watch an engaging movie, I’ll feel like one of the characters that I connected with, and that changes how I speak, act, and write. But of course the upside of that is that if you’re writing a scene with a particular quality, you can watch a movie (or listen to music) to get you in the right mood.

          I’ve never gotten a sense of pomposity from your writing. If you often corrected others’ grammar, that might get annoying, but you don’t. (I’m occasionally tempted, especially since it’s always the Christians with the atrocious grammar, but my comments are poorly edited and I make mistakes myself.)

        • CandideThirtythree

          When I was a kid, I would imitate how different people spoke. It was fun, I got laughs, so I kept doing it until one day I realized that I didn’t remember how I was supposed to sound.

          It made my mother furious so of course that was another reason for doing it until she ordered me to stop and I couldn’t. She slapped me in the face repeatedly and I still couldn’t so I had to just stop talking for a few days.

          I had gotten many of those ‘voices’ out of books and I still think the best writers give their characters voices.

        • Dys

          And that’s why I usually have anywhere from 3-4 edits on my comments, lol.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ah–that’s why your thoughts flow better. You cheat!

      • MNb

        For someone who’s terrible at writing you quite often formulate better what I think and feel than I myself.

        • Kodie

          I swear I wasn’t fishing for compliments but thanks. I don’t think I’m a good writer and I take Bob’s critique as pretty much why. I don’t map out where I’m going, and I don’t look back, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think I pass some pretty good material on the way. If I edit any of my comments after post, it’s mostly because of verb tense, break a paragraph or two (somewhat arbitrarily), or I thought of something else I needed to say. I don’t think an occasional spontaneous keen observation or turn of phrase makes a person good at writing.

          The point was I’m not a writer nor do I aspire to be one, I sort of hate the idea of it, but I mentally record an episode of life here and there, and think it might be part of a good story (of the “truth is sometimes stranger than fiction” category), if I felt like writing it. Lew’s ideal to tell the truth was to either face the music and take his beatings or hide in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, why hide that far away if you can just make up a fake name.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I have a long-standing habit of obsessing over my textual output for a thoroughly randomized amount of time before ‘letting it go’ but I have never been consistent academically, nor even remotely inclined professionally to “have a go at it”. (perhaps an allergy to the notion of selling creativity…) it’s pure accident when i can even begin to evaluate the efforts of others, let alone describe them coherently to a third party.

          but weirdly, i find myself coming out of a certain sort of fog/fugue and noticing that [x amount of time] has been spent in various nooks and crannies of the blogosphere, half-wittingly dispensing utterly unasked-for advice regarding the argument-constructions of others. on some puny level, i’m only trying to help! but sometimes (particularly when you were letting Bob have it for the ‘witch hunt’ post) i’m just worried enough about giving the wrong impression that I blur that distinction. fortunately i tend to end up battling alongside folks who recognize more than “you’re either with us or against us” mentality…

          so, thanks for that. 😉

      • 90Lew90

        I like how you write. There’s often a lot of passion in there!

        • Kodie

          Thanks, Lew. Honestly, I like everyone’s writing how they are, their own voice. Good luck with your writing, make up a pseudonym, that’s the fun part. You get out a pad of paper or open your text program, and you can’t get any ideas, mind wandering yadda yadda yadda – pen name.

        • TheNuszAbides

          The Elements of Style 2.0
          by Yadda Yadda Yadda

    • Greg G.

      I sometimes cast Dunning-Kruger as a general aspersion but I am very careful to spell it correctly. Otherwise, it would look like a self-diagnosis.

      Fortunately, my spell-checker recognizes it so it doesn’t “correct” it. Yesterday, it turned “Kodie” into “Kodiak” when I wasn’t watching.

      • Kodie

        Don’t think I didn’t see it either.

        • Greg G.

          My cell phone has a Freudian chip.

        • Kodie

          Don’t have a problem admitting that took me a couple seconds. :)

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        She is kind of a grizzly bear when she is in a certain mood.

      • busterggi

        Shoulda taken a selfie when you typed that – it was a Kodak moment.

      • 90Lew90

        I use Wordpad for longer posts here because it doesn’t auto-correct and keeps the formatting you choose.

        • Greg G.

          The options are limited on the cell phone. I often use Notepad on my laptop, especially when I’ve hit the “Load More Comments” at the bottom of the page a few times and Disqus has been brought to its knees.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i simply eschew anything that doesn’t permit autocorrect {SPIT!} to be Banished With Extreme Prejudice.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t mind when it corrects my mistake and it probably fixes a lot that I was unaware of. But when I type in a word correctly and it changes it to something that makes no sense and changing back requires re-typing it, it gets disturbing. Tihs is mdae wsroe bceuase teh hamun mnid cna wrok out meespllisd wdors fi olny the frist adn lsat letetr aer ni teh ccorert oderr.

        • TheNuszAbides

          to mitigate my spite, i cannot lay claim to the sheer output (or sheer purpose of said output) of any number of individuals who at least occasionally benefit from That Damned Thing.

    • RichardSRussell

      it is the job of any writer to try to be honest.

      I should introduce you to a whole category of books that goes under the collective description “fiction”.

      • Kodie

        “Write what you know”. Or don’t.

      • 90Lew90

        Chuckle. A lot of fiction writers would argue strongly that they aim at truth.

      • MNb

        In addition to Lew: the great Dutch writer Gerard Reve once said that authors lie the truth.

      • Isabelle Ashura

        Fiction is actually the most honest form of writing – because the only thing people will know about the universe in which your work takes place, is what your write about it. So you can’t really lie about it, and if your work starts contradicting itself readers will notice it is. A fictional universe needs to be coherent, or it will cease to exist (see : stories about time travel).
        The only case of fiction being actually dishonest is when the narrator lies on purpose, and generally the author gives enough clues about the fact the narrator is unreliable, so it’s not about the author being dishonest, but one of his characters.

  • Kodie

    The thing about these people is, when they don’t know anything about something, they either think it’s impossible and are easily impressed, or incredibly easy and if they took a whack at it, their results would be much more amazing, so what’s the big deal, why you want praise/ higher pay/ any attention whatsoever. But they want a parade for everything they do, no matter how shitty it is.

  • RichardSRussell

    There’s a related phenomenon, called Imposter Syndrome, wherein competent but insecure people are afraid that everyone will find out they’ve been faking it and aren’t really worthy of credit for their actual abilities and accomplishments.

  • Rob

    All a smart person has to do to convince a stupid person that they are are themselves stupid is to say something that the stupid person doesn’t understand.
    -me, 2015

    “Never argue with a stupid person, they will bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience!”

    -Mark Twain, during history

  • Sophia Sadek

    Don’t let stupid people find out about this or they will start to act humble just to appear to be smarter than they really are.

    • 90Lew90

      Or smart people like Pope Ha-Ha will act stupid to appear more humble.

      • Sophia Sadek

        There is a Roman legend about a guy named Brutus who pretended to be stupid in order to be elected king. He knew that the plutocracy wanted a king they could manipulate.

        • hisxmark

          Actually the original Brutus acted stupid so he wouldn’t be killed. It is dangerous to be openly intelligent.
          As John Lennon sang, “They hate you if you’re clever and they despise a fool.” The safest course is to blend in.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      That’s always the problem, isn’t it? Stupid people acting smart. Or something.

    • Greg G.

      The stupid people will still think they are one of the smart ones so they won’t try to act differently.

  • CandideThirtythree

    My daughter is an actual card carrying genius, I taught her to read and write in just a couple of months…when she was four!
    She was reading the newspaper to her grandfather every morning by the time she turned five. She was doing medical research for the military when she was 17. She is now an epidemiologist and she has told me numerous times in her life that she did not feel particularly smart.

    She has said that it is terrifying to her that if she is one of the smartest people, she has to wonder just how stupid the stupid people really are.

    Most of us know that someone is deemed mentally impared if they possess an IQ lower than 70 but do we really know what the true definition of stupid is?

    America is collectively below average in the IQ department, we are not even in the top 25 of countries with average or above IQ. Scary isn’t it?

    • Greg G.

      You must be one heck of a good teacher.

      • CandideThirtythree

        I was pretty good at it, I am retired now.

    • RichardSRussell

      She has said that it is terrifying to her that if she is one of the smartest people, she has to wonder just how stupid the stupid people really are.

      “Think about how stupid the average person is, then reflect on the fact that half the population is dumber than that.”

      —George Carlin

      • CandideThirtythree

        I loved George! And yes, that is a scary thought. LOL

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      On the topic of IQ, I touch on the Flynn Effect here. You might find that interesting.

      • CandideThirtythree

        Thanks

    • TheNuszAbides

      what’s scary to me is an educator crediting IQ testing with too much significance. Sturgeon’s Law is all I need to prompt despair/disgust over the majority of Human Endeavor; the perverting of Binet’s noble efforts just compound that despair.
      not, in any way, to defend the imaginary dignity of the collective mental prowess of any nation, mind you.

      • CandideThirtythree

        Did you not understand the part about a 4 year old learning to read and write in 2 months?

        I thought not, the whole comment was so far over your head that you didn’t even catch a breeze from it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          maybe i should have said “any” educator; if you thought i was accusing particular-you of anything, please disabuse yourself of the notion.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and you are correct that i wasn’t addressing your startling personal anecdote; but if you require all tangents to be explicitly labeled as such, i issue a blanket apology in advance.

    • Gregory Mullaley

      Yes, I know 535 who are deemed mentally impaired, they are called politicians. These folks are grossly overestimate their intelligence, with a much higher percentage of those at the bottom rung being found in the Republican Party. In a world of Idiots and Imbeciles, a Moron is king; or speaker of the House.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Reminds me of the scene in “Religulous” where a Kentucky senator (?) is excusing his not knowing something fairly important by saying, “Well, you know there’s no intelligence test for being a senator.”

        Oops.

      • CandideThirtythree

        Brilliantly put ole boy!

        They are called “The Stupid Party” and they earned every syllable of that epithet!

    • https://antiavidanime.wordpress.com/ The Other Weirdo

      So the Time Lord Effect™? “Funny little human brains; how do you get around in those?”

  • RichardSRussell

    An exuberant Dag van de Revolutie to our friends in Suriname.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Wednesday is Suriname’s Independence Day? I didn’t know.

      Yay!

  • 90Lew90

    An 8-year-old goes to war on the Dunning-Kruger affected.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fT-jX11poU

  • 90Lew90
  • 2too

    Isn’t it obvious that the less you know, what you know, is a larger part of what you think there is to know, than if you know there is so much you don’t know?

    • Metis

      Socrates first pointed that out, according to Plato.

      “The phrase “I know that I know nothing” or “I know one thing: that I know nothing”, sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato’s account of the Greek philosopher Socrates.

      This saying is also connected or conflated with the answer to a question Socrates (Xenophon) or Chaerephon (Plato) is said to have posed to the Pythia, the oracle of Delphi, in which the Oracle stated something like Socrates is the wisest.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

  • Metis

    This reminds me also about unusually brave and heroic people such as those who protected Jews in Europe during World War II. I’ve often heard such heroes quoted saying they were only doing the right thing that anyone would have done. They never give themselves a lot of credit.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Bravery and modesty? That’s an interesting new domain.

      If you’re right, I wonder if there’s the opposite side–the people who are not particularly heroic but who once did something unselfish and then their friends and family never hear the end of it.

      • Metis

        I wonder if a lot of people who brag like that are exaggerating if not actually prevaricating. OR…if what they think is heroic is in reality just brutality.

      • Kodie

        I know that guy.

    • Lookingup73

      Very good point. So many brave and heroic people or others deserving of admiration are rarely the first to point out their accomplishments.

      Even in everyday life, if someone gives me his or her resume (in conversation, orally) or tells me where he or she went to school (when it had nothing to do with the real conversation) I immediately know this person is not worth anything close to what he or she is saying he or she is. After 22 years in the professional world (business world, academia, and even 2 years in seminary) I have never been wrong.

      • Metis

        At the risk of gaining your dislike, may I make a slight grammatical correction? So sorry to quibble, but “someone” does not agree with “their,” since the former is singular and the latter is plural. You’d have to use “his or her” to be correct. I’ve been on a grammar site lately so forgive me.

        • Lookingup73

          Oh good catch – definitely! Correcting it.

        • Lookingup73

          Although, technically their and they are becoming more common and accepted. Even by “grammar authorities”. I forgot to mention that in my previous response to you. (It is also not a necessarily new development in English). Language bends toward simplification over time and saying “his or her” becomes cumbersome.

        • Metis

          You are correct. Language does indeed bend, but some of us resist. “His or her” is awkward (although I sometimes use that expression in the form of his/her); better to change the number of the antecedent to plural, such as “people.” Thanks for your balanced answer.

        • Lookingup73

          Don’t resist! If people always resisted we would be speaking old germanic still and the French would be speaking latin!! :) have a good one – thanks for the discussion!

        • Metis

          Language and its “progress” is a fascinating topic, in my opinion. Shouldn’t be off limits. We need to be at least conscious of how language is changing. It interests me partly because I study ancient dead languages that have great literatures, such as ancient Greek.

        • Lookingup73

          Awesome – I did Latin, German, French – I wish I had been motivated to get to ancient Greek. A great book you might enjoy since you are into language is “Language Change: Progress or Decay” I read it in Grad school and it made me wish I had chosen a linguistic’s degree rather than a literature degree!

        • Metis

          Thank you! I shall investigate that book. Never too late for ancient Greek. I cannot recommend it highly enough, so beautiful in the hands of great writers unsurpassed – Homer, Sophocles, Plato – it goes on and on.

        • MNb

          “I did Latin, German, French”
          Now that’s awesome! It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to learn Dutch as well.

          http://educatie-en-school.infonu.nl/taal/40353-veelgebruikte-latijnse-begrippen-en-hun-vertaling.html

          All Dutch word wbeginning with con (like concluderen), most with inter (like internist) and with in (like informeren) come from Latin.

          https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Franse_woorden_en_uitdrukkingen_in_de_Nederlandse_taal

          http://kunst-en-cultuur.infonu.nl/taal/24562-leenwoorden-en-hun-oorsprong.html#6

          https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Duitse_woorden_en_uitdrukkingen_in_de_Nederlandse_taal

          Don’t worry about pronunciation when you try to talk Dutch. Perhaps 20 000 Dutch pronounce the language properly.

        • Lookingup73

          Yeah I have always heard from my Dutch friends that few foreigners are able to speak it well when it comes to pronunciation – but they are nice about it. (Sometimes the french can be a bit extreme with their criticisms!).

          Why suggest Dutch though?!

        • MNb

          Because I’m a chauvinist Dutch pig!

        • Metis

          Honesty is always the best policy! :)

        • MNb

          For instance every atheist should read Anton Constandse’s “The Misery of Religion”. Admit it – such a title makes your mouth water. And it’s from 1923!

          http://www.tijdschrift-de-as.nl/documenten/de_AS_172.pdf

          A teaser:

          “De religie is immer geweest: religie der ellende. De slaaf, de geketende, de ongelukkige wil een rechtvaardiging vinden der misère. Waaraan heb ik het verdiend? Dàt hij het niet verdiend had, maar te wijten vond aan meesters en exploitanten, hij dorst het niet te denken.”

          “Religion always has been: religion of misery. The slave, the chained one, the unfortunate one wants to find a justication for misery. What made me deserve it? That he hadn’t deserved it, but owed it to masters and exploiters, he didn’t dare to think it.”

          Remember this when someone claims that New Atheism is a recent phenomenon.

          I’d also love to read this:

          http://poortman.kb.nl/long2.php?TABEL=T_TITEL&ID=41037

          from

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriaan_Koerbagh

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What made me deserve it? That he hadn’t deserved it, but owed it to masters and exploiters, he didn’t dare to think it.”

          That’s a bit like the post hoc rationalization you see in the Old Testament. “Our country was defeated and we’re in exile? How can that be when our god was the strongest one! Wait … hold on … maybe our god allowed us to be defeated. Maybe he’s punishing us through the other country’s defeat of us. Wow—he actually is the greatest god!”

        • Kodie

          “Their” is a word that already exists, as opposed to inventing words to mean a single person of indeterminate sex/gender. “His or her” does not include all possible genders, and also orders the primary two, putting males ahead and females, I guess they could be maybe included – that’s what “his and her” means, and why so many people are using xe and hir? Blech. I will continue using “they” or “their” when talking about a single person, “someone” is not the same as “people”, and I do not write for any strict publication that gives a damn. I also learned to get over people trying to communicate spelling words wrong. The local culture is not so uptight.

        • Metis

          Fair enough.

        • melonhead

          Good luck applying those standards to comments in internet forums. I’d be in favor of ‘zer’ or ‘xir’ or whatever, but yeah, ‘their’ has been in common use for a long time, and now there are what, 32 flavors of gender (heard that recognized by some piece of the US govt)? So, save your energy :).Yet one more bastardization of English, but that’s how it’s been throughout its poor, victimized history.

        • Metis

          So true.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Someone gives me their resume”–is that the phrase in question?

          You’ve probably heard that “their” is now encouraged as a gender-neutral singular pronoun.

          I’d be fine with “its,” but that’s off the table. I was taught “his,” but that’s out of vogue at present. I try to recast it as plural so there’s no number problem, but I’ll admit to using that construction.

        • Metis

          Yes, it is a problem in our language. I know that “their” has become number neutral and has always been gender neutral, but technically it’s still incorrect, though now so common. I try to change the antecedent instead. “People give me their resumes.” Otherwise I say “Someone gives me his/her resume.” None of these alternatives are completely satisfactory I realize.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          technically it’s still incorrect, though now so
          common

          And therein lies the problem. If a usage is common then whatever “technically” has to say about it is irrelevant.

          “his/her” is too clumsy for me, but I see how it solves the problem. I’m actually nostalgic for the male pronoun to be used as the neuter one, but that ship has sailed. And of course you’re right that making it plural (where possible) is an easy solution.

        • Metis

          Agreed. My mind was warped by being forced to study and practically memorize Fowler’s English Grammar my whole 7th grade year (about 60 years ago). It has ruined me for common speech ever since. http://www.amazon.com/Fowlers-Modern-English-Usage-Burchfield/dp/0198610211

    • MNb

      A stark contrast with the May Resistance Heroes in The Netherlands.

      • Metis

        Could you explain that further?

        • MNb

          May refers to May 1945 – the end of nazi occupation. Suddenly a lot of people were involved in Dutch Resistance and made that loudly clear.

        • Metis

          Oh I see. Thanks a lot!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          On the other side: in France after the war, there was retribution to the traitors–the local women who cozied up to German soldiers to get better living conditions, etc.

        • MNb

          The same happened in The Netherlands.

          http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/afbeeldingen/fotocollectie/zoeken/weergave/detail/start/0/tstart/0/q/zoekterm/moffenmeiden

          Again usually it were the May Resistance Heroes who did this. And they didn’t care too much about guilt and innocence.
          Another victim, a famous one:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anni-Frid_Lyngstad

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m confused about your last example. Anni-Frid Lyngstad of ABBA? Where’s the connection?

        • MNb

          “In early 1947, Lyngstad, her mother, and her maternal grandmother, Arntine Lyngstad (“Agny”), left her birthplace, fearing reprisals against those who had dealings with the Germans during the occupation. This could entail not just insults and threats, but also forced separation of infants from their parents and relatives (see War children).”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Fascinating, thanks.

  • RevCleetusT.BuzzSteckerz

    So true! Dunning-Kruger is perhaps the root-cause basis explanation as to why you have so many incompetent and/or unethical people working in Govt (Civil Service) at the Federal, State and Local level(s).

  • MarMa

    Agree. Totally agree.

  • mrbrockpeters

    Sums up Kanye West in a nutshell.

  • Tonyo Ramirez Amorado

    In Tagalog: ” Anting sa Gigil”

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      And what does that mean in English?

      • JGuerzon

        “Anting” = a charm or amulet, “gigil” – the type of fear that makes your teeth shiver. “Anting-anting sa gigil” a type of “agimat” or amulet/charm against fear to make user courageous in pre – Hispanic(?) Philippine folklore.

        That comment has absolutely nothing to do with the article.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. Perhaps it was a spell.

          I feel more courageous already!

  • Jim Samaras

    Ahhh, this explains the left

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I fear that I’m suffering from Dunning-Kruger myself since I don’t follow your point. Perhaps I need examples (and evidence that this isn’t a problem on the Right).

      • Jim Samaras

        Well, perhaps the delusional thinking that there is a possibility of negotiating with ISIS, coddling these little cupcake students across the country, embracing BLM and not acknowledging that radical Islam exists for starters. The right has it’s faults for certain such as being anti abortion and anti gay rights but surely not as delusional.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “thinking that there is a possibility of negotiating with ISIS”

          Are prominent leftist even proposing the idea of, let alone arguing for, negotiating with ISIS? If so, I am more-than-usually disappointed by the left. Please to provide sources.

          “coddling these little cupcake students across the country”

          Was the teacher/dean at ?Yale? who met with students about the Halloween costume debacle not a leftist? It seems to me that he is, and that he engaged these “cupcake students” in public debate.

          “not acknowledging that radical Islam exists for starters”

          Are Bill Maher and Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens not leftists? I’m not saying that you’re not partially correct on this point, you are. But you’re also ignoring those segments of the left which would contradict your point – that’s sloppy thinking and sloppy argumentation.

          “Not to mention the love fest going on with the pathological lying Hillary!”

          Bernie. Sanders.

          “but surely not as delusional.”

          Donald Trump + Ben Carson: game, set, match.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It says volumes to realize that in the GOP, Donald Trump is now viewed as the smart one.

        • adam

          The GOP

        • Jim Samaras

          What else could the strategy be other than trying to invoke “conversation” with them by showing how we will “welcome” them into our country regardless of what the people are saying? Kerry actually saying this massacre makes no sense but the last one did. Negotiation may not be the right term. Trying to reason with them may be better I don’t know, but utter OUTRAGE has never been intimated by this administration!

          Yes, it’s an example of how that sleepy eyed, corduroy wearing, dandruff laden liberal has gotten bit in the a$$ due to his own left wing teachings. It’s occurring now at some of our most prestigious campuses in the country.

          I’m a righty and enjoy Bill Maher more than most. Even he sees it for what it is and is willing to say so. Why can’t the candidates on the left say it?

          Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist and is that what you’re really looking for in a democratic, capitalistic society?

          Not a fan of Carson but Trump is anti PC and shoots straight more than I can say about ANY of the other candidates, right or left. I understand that campaign promises can be taken for nothing more than dreams. Any more so than Bernie talking about free higher education for all? Amnesty for student loans? As delusional as Trumps’ wall, no?

        • Paul B. Lot

          What else could the strategy be other than trying to invoke “conversation” with them by showing how we will “welcome” them into our country regardless of what the people are saying?

          ISIS is not equivalent to Syrian refugees. In fact, one might be able to make a strong case that they are categorical opposites. Your comment proceeds from a misunderstanding, once that misunderstanding is corrected this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          “Yes, it’s an example of how ….”

          You attacked “the left” in your initial comment. You went on, later, to make the implication that “the left” “coddles” some set of students. You were presented with an example of a leftist professor not coddling that set of students. Your rejoined starts with “it’s an example of”… something of which it is not an example. Therefore this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          “Bill Maher …sees it for what it is and is willing to say so.”

          Your opening comment indicted the entire “left”. NOW you acknowledge that you were imprecise. Getting you to acknowledge your exaggeration was my only goal. Thank you. The rest of this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist and is that what you’re really looking for in a democratic, capitalistic society?

          You are clearly misinformed, and therefore misunderstand. Sanders calls himself a “Democratic Socialist”, contra to your mis-labeling of him here. Yes, that is “really” what I want. You also want (at least some) aspects of “socialism” in your shining-city-on-a-hill of pure capitalism, even if you’re too stupid or cowardly to know and admit it.


          Not a fan of Carson but Trump is anti PC and shoots straight more than I can say about ANY of the other candidates, right or left.

          Disagree. I think Sanders will tell you the direct truth more often than will Trump. The rest of this section of your comment pure speculation and “my dad can beat up your dad” stuff; it is irrelevant.

          *Edits for clarity, spelling, and context*

        • Jim Samaras

          Why must you leftists end every conversation with “irrelevance’?
          ISIS and the Syrian refugees, while being different subjects, are 99% Muslim which means they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result. So NOT irrelevant.

          He stepped down rather than taking a stand and telling the student athletes that if they don’t play they will be stripped of scholarships and any hope of playing pro ball is dashed. Now this may come from higher ups but still showing no signs of standing up for your self or principles. So not irrelevant.

          I just said “the left” Aren’t we getting a little ticky tacky here Paul. Still relevant.

          “Democratic Socialist” is a socialist with the ideas that I fore mentioned Paul and if that’s what you want then you my friend are delusional. Must we succumb to name calling to get our point across? So again, relevant.

          While Sanders will tell the truth it’s not the truth as a Republican that I care to hear. So what we have here is a difference of opinion Paul so it makes both arguements

        • Paul B. Lot

          they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result

          So this is just a plainly false statement. While Wahabi/Salafi Muslims might be well-characterized by your statement, I see no reason to believe that it applies to all other forms of Islam. Nor even a majority of other forms. Nor even a large part.

          “So NOT irrelevant.”

          You based your comment on, once again, a faulty premise – therefore it is, still, irrelevant. If you wish to say things which matter to anyone but yourself – educate yourself.


          He stepped down rather than taking a stand and telling the student athletes that if they don’t play they will be stripped of scholarships and any hope of playing pro ball is dashed. Now this may come from higher ups but still showing no signs of standing up for your self or principles. So not irrelevant.

          You seem to be under the impression that I have been discussing what happened at Mizzou recently. I am not. I am talking about what happened at Yale – a fact which would’ve become apparent to you noticed when I wrote “the teacher/dean at ?Yale?…” Since you have misunderstood the referent, the rest of this section of your comment is irrelevant.

          “I just said “the left””

          Indeed. And when you use a phrase like “the _____”, without qualifiers, your readers are left with few options but to understand that you mean all of ______. If you wrote something other than what you meant, by all means let me know and we’ll proceed from there.

          —-

          “”Democratic Socialist” is a socialist with the ideas that I fore mentioned Paul”

          “Democratic Socialist” does not equal “Socialist”. Full stop. End of discussion. Neeeext.

          ” if that’s what you want then you my friend are delusional”,

          Oh really? Do you not like the police? Firefighters? Are you going to put out your own house when it catches on fire, or pay someone to do it for you? How much will you pay them? What if they up the price on you, while your house is burning down? Will you wait for a competitor to arrive while Fluffy or Spot are being roasted alive? You already live in a system which is partly socialist.

        • Jim Samaras

          Paul, any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion. Relevant. I urge you to educate yourself

          I WAS talking about the president of Mizzou so…relevant.

          Are you arguing semantics now Paul? Come up something better please. It’s beneath you

          If Democratic socialist does not mean socialist remove the word…..neeeext.

          The programs of which you speak are EXPECTED from our government and is the way our tax dollars should be spent and I do not consider socialist programs like welfare, food stamps, Obama phones and the like.

          When all the dust settles Paul, Bob hit the nail on the head in his article. He must know you.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Paul, any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion.

          Once again you reveal yourself to be a fool and an ignoramus. :(

          If what you say were true, there would have been no non-Muslims left alive inside Muslim lands during the times of the Caliphates/Ottoman Empire.

          While it is certainly true that some flavors of Islam’s many, many, sects teach what you claim – it is false to assert what you have: that they all do.

          “I urge you to educate yourself”

          In a thread about DK, this is hilarious! :) I can only assume, at this point, that you are in fact a troll who knows better – yet sock-puppets an pure imbecile for the lulz, much like our buddy “Greg”.

          “I WAS talking about the president of Mizzou so…relevant.”

          I don’t give a damn whom you were referring to originally, since you subsequently responded to my question about a Yale professor. You indicted all professors/students, I provided a counter-example…..now you’re trying to refer back to your original idea. Irrelevant AND wasting my time. If you continue to misunderstand the flow of combox discussions like you are here, I will have no choice but to jettison civil discourse and mock you relentlessly.

          I must warn you, I am part French. We do not mock lightly.


          Are you arguing semantics now Paul? Come up something better please. It’s beneath you

          This smells very much like a Greg-type comment. In any case, if you would rather deflect to a personal critique of me than be a man and accept the consequences of what you write: be my guest.

          “If Democratic socialist does not mean socialist remove the word…..neeeext.”

          You don’t seem competent to discuss the nuances of political/economic theory; I will stop conversing with you on the subjects.

          “When all the dust settles Paul, Bob hit the nail on the head in his article. He must know you.”

          Of course it’s always possible that the spec is in my eye! :)

        • Jim Samaras

          Paul, if you wish to converse please keep the childish insults to yourself as you reveal your true leftist ignorance.
          IMO they’re trying to finish what those inept baboons were trying to accomplish 600 years ago. The Quran orders them to do so.

          I do not know “Greg” but I’m thinking he and I would concur on many subjects given the fact you dislike him.

          When ya gonna learn it ain’t always about YOU Paul?
          I’ll talk about what I want to talk about and you can do the same. But then again you are part French

          I am competent to discuss a myriad of subjects Paul but with open minded people. I’m not ALL wrong as you would like to make me and all who read this blog to believe.

          Not sure what to think about the spec in your eye comment

          Since you have failed to convince me of your argument and I have failed to convince you let’s just agree to disagree and move on

        • adam

          “The Quran orders them to do so.”

          Yes, commanded by the ‘god’ of Abraham

          This is right out of your bible, that is where the Muslims got it,

          FROM YOUR “GOD”

          1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do
          not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone himto death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God,
          (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

        • Paul B. Lot

          Why must you…end every conversation with “irrelevance’…if you wish to converse please keep the childish insults to yourself

          It’s a simple equation; [say irrelevant/ignorant/stupid thing] = [be informed that you are being irrelevant/ignorant/stupid].

          You seem to dislike the right-side of the equation, if that’s so all you have to do is change the left-side of the equation.


          leftist ignorance.IMO they’re trying to finish what those inept baboons were trying to accomplish 600 years ago. The Quran orders them to do so.

          1) We are all Great Apes. You are, I am, ISIS is. Baboons, despite some of them being quite large, are not Apes, but Monkeys – a distant relative.

          2) In any case, I take your point: ISIS are barbarians. As are Al Queda, and the Taliban et al. I have never disputed this; indeed I specifically mentioned Wahbi/Salafi Islam as being an exemplar of what you’re talking about.

          You don’t hate them more than I do; you wouldn’t be able to if you tried because you are ignorant of the specifics of the situation – the enormous variety of ways in which they are evil.

          3) ISIS et al., however, are explicitly not-representative of the world-wide Muslim community – one would only have to look at the numbers of Muslims ISIS has killed for apostacy/infedility to know that. But more specifically I chose the example of how the old Calphiates/Sultanates often chose to handle non-Muslims as my counter example to your assertion that EACH and EVERY Muslim believes that “ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced.”

          This is factually incorrect, and only needs a single counter-example to be falsified:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi#The_dhimma_contract_and_sharia_law


          When ya gonna learn it ain’t always about YOU Paul? I’ll talk about what I want to talk about and you can do the same.

          I mean, look: yes, I struggle with ego. (Who doesn’t?)

          What does that have to do with the situation? YOU decided to respond to my question about a Yale professor, and either didn’t notice what I was asking, or later got confused and started re-referring to Mizzou. Your incompetence/confusion is not my fault.


          I am competent to discuss a myriad of subjects Paul but with open minded people. I’m not ALL wrong as you would like to make me and all who read this blog to believe.

          I honestly don’t care very much about you, or what you believe, or what others believe about you. I am only responding to the stupid things you have said, and continue to say. :-/ I’m sorry if that’s painful for you.

          “Not sure what to think about the spec in your eye comment”

          I mean….you accused me of being an example of the DK effect.

          I admitted to you that you might be correct. After all, if I were suffering from DK-style incompetence, would I know it?

          Worse yet, would I even suspect it?

          Or would I carry on obliviously confident in my abilities and confident that it is my opponents who are incompetent, asserting that every “error” of mine is somehow my opponents’ fault.

          Hmmmm, does any of that sound familiar to you @jimmywalkerblue:disqus ?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you reveal your true leftist ignorance

          Holy shit—can you ever respond to the person instead of the group that person is in?

          I love a commenter who says stuff like, “The problem with you blacks is …” Do you have some of that planned as well?

          IMO they’re trying to finish what those inept baboons were trying to accomplish 600 years ago. The Quran orders them to do so.

          “Those inept baboons”—is that the Crusaders? Or those in charge of the Inquisition? There’s just so much shit to lay at the feet of Christianity that I can’t keep it all straight.

          I do not know “Greg” but I’m thinking he and I would concur on many subjects given the fact you dislike him.

          Right.

          I am competent to discuss a myriad of subjects Paul but with open minded people.

          I’ll believe that after a dozen comments with no reference to leftists.

        • MNb

          “please keep the childish insults ”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Write the guy who just childishly insulted my ex-wife, my current female counterpart and large parts of their families.

        • adam

          “Paul, any Christian that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Bible teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion.”

          ftfy

          This is right out of your bible, that is where the Muslims got it,

          FROM YOUR “GOD”

          1)If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do
          not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God,
          (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written and is not a peaceful religion.

          All Muslims are liars? Fuck you.

          As for the requirements of Islam, I impatiently await your evidence that it can only be interpreted in a violent fashion. Your sweeping generalizations get a laugh down at the Klan meeting, I’m sure, but here we’d like to see claims backed with evidence. You make a big claim, then we’re looking for the big evidence.

        • MNb

          “any Muslim that’s telling the truth (impossible I know) will tell you that the Kuran teaches exactly what I’ve written .”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          So any muslim (like my female counterparts) who doesn’t tell you what you have written is a liar by definition.
          Head you win, tail you don’t lose.

        • Rudy R

          Do we need to start pulling out Bible scripture that’s not peaceful, just to be consistent with your Muslim remarks? When’s the last time you stoned an adulterer? And yes, I know, you’re probably a New Covenant guy, so all that old stuff don’t count.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ISIS and the Syrian refugees, while being different subjects, are 99% Muslim which means they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result.

          You have the gift of mind-reading, too? Golly.

          I hear that Islam is a big tent. That the Quran can be interpreted a certain way doesn’t mean that every Muslim does so.

          While Sanders will tell the truth it’s not the truth as a Republican that I care to hear

          Huh?? Did you really want to phrase it that way?

        • Jim Samaras

          Stopped, killed or silenced. Take your pick, Many prefer to silence the infidels which is just as bad the other two. Kind of reminds me of the left not wanting to hear or listen to any other discussion than what they believe. IMO there are always more than one way to view any subject.

          How else could I have phrased it to make my point Bob? He tells the truth as HE sees it to be, not the way I see it to be.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          (You need to quote what you’re referring to. You’re jumping between subjects without signposts.)

          Stopped, killed or silenced.

          Those are the only options for every single Muslim? You’ve bitten off a mouthful. Or maybe that’s just your foot in your mouth. I await with interest your justification of this bold claim.

          Kind of reminds me of the left not wanting to hear or listen to any other discussion than what they believe.

          Do your comments always have some unhinged broadside at the Left? Fun.

          How else could I have phrased it to make my point Bob? He tells the truth as HE sees it to be, not the way I see it to be.

          You said, “While Sanders will tell the truth it’s not the truth as a Republican that I care to hear.” I’m fine hearing you phrase it that way. It just seems to be a far franker admission that I expected. You select your truth based on how it pleases you rather than how likely it is to be true. Fair enough—thanks for your honesty.

        • Jim Samaras

          Bob, why must you take every sentence so literal? Of course there are some Muslims that will live and let live. But if I were to offer you 10 M&M’s but tell you 1 is injected with poison are you going to try one?

          I don’t think my comments are an unhinged broadside at the left necessarily. Fun to debate philosophies perhaps which is why I’m still paying attention here. My question is why a debate must be filled with left handed insults? This sounds like the first 3 Republican debates don’t you think?

          Aren’t you also basing YOUR truths/opinions on how it pleases you? I think that’s a fault of us all.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          why must you take every sentence so literal?

          Because it highlights how ridiculous your statements are. Perhaps a literal interpretation will get you to focus on, y’know, facts.

          Fun to debate philosophies perhaps which is why I’m still paying attention here.

          Some commenters enjoy goading just for laughs. Not my idea of a good time.

          My question is why a debate must be filled with left handed insults?

          My bad. I was intending very direct and literal insults.

          But if your goal is some good-natured ribbing, that doesn’t work too well with me. I guess I find that taking things literally works best. If you have ideas to share, that’s fine, but leave the hyperbole on the cutting room floor.

          Aren’t you also basing YOUR truths/opinions on how it pleases you?

          Hell no. Give me the unvarnished truth, thanks.

          I’m amazed that you’d admit that you do anything else.

        • Jim Samaras

          Facts are something that many try to distort for their own agenda or aggrandizement Bob.

          I’m not goading you nor trying to get your ire up. Not my idea of a good time either.

          Insult if it makes you feel like a winner Bob.

          I get the feeling that the unvarnished truth on many subjects eludes you at times. I was referring to how it pleases my instinct as to how to better the country.

          I enjoyed reading your article Bob and you’re spot on as far as that’s concerned. It explained many things. I always knew there had to be a reason for the way people think and you put a name to it. Thank you

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If I’m missing the truth, feel free to share.

          Thanks for the feedback. I’m glad the article was helpful.

        • MNb

          “Facts are something that many try to distort for their own agenda or aggrandizement”
          As you do with almost every single comment of yours.

        • MNb

          “Of course there are some Muslims that will live and let live.”
          Actually all muslims in the country where I live, which make 14% of the population.

        • MNb

          Since I married my ex-wife (them muslima, after her second marriage converted to christianity) I have been stopped, killed, silenced or none of these. Take your pick, Mr. Self-delusional ignorant guy.

          “the left not wanting to hear or listen to any other discussion than what they believe.”

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          As if ignorant self-delusional guys like you ever accept inconvenient facts – about socialism in western Europe and my relationships with two muslimas, for instance.

        • adam

          “ISIS and the Syrian refugees, while being different subjects, are 99% Muslim which means they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result.”

          Dear Mr. Dunning

          This is right out of your bible, that is where the Muslims got it,

          FROM YOUR “GOD”

          1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do
          not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God,
          (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

        • MNb

          “they all take to the belief that ANY non Muslim is an infidel and must be stopped, killed or silenced and can be lied to or any other measure taken to achieve this result.”
          I wonder how I as an atheist survived a relationship of 12 years with a practicing muslima.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’d better listen to Jim Samaras–he knows. She’s just biding her time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Those are some nice thoughts about Bernie Sanders. I am unsure of him myself, but he actually takes a stand (I don’t see much from Hilary, though admittedly I’m allergic to politics and don’t understand the issues as well as I’ll need to next fall).

          As for being a socialist, wasn’t Jesus one, too? You know–sell all your assets, give to the poor, and follow Me?

          I assume you’ve seen the social stats (homicide, suicide, teen pregnancies, and so on) that show socialist, gay-loving northern Europe kicking our ass.

          I do like Trump’s candor. With him, though, I don’t know if it’s honesty or just entertainment.

          They have free higher education in Europe. Is it so hard to imagine here?

        • Jim Samaras

          Bob, the problem I have with socialism is that it takes away any initiative on the part of the people to stretch themselves to make for a better life. It’s been going on in the black community for 50 years since the LBJ war on poverty and as you may have noticed, has turned them into individuals manufacturing ways to get more from the government without putting forth any real effort to improve their lot in life. What was meant to be a good program hasn’t turned out well for the community in general and makes one think that it was in fact a plan to keep the blacks enslaved forever and get the democratic vote for perpetuity.

          I suppose as such, Jesus was a socialist to a point but was a carpenter by trade. That meant he did work for a living. Little is known about him during his early years but he did teach a good way to lead your life and is a good guide for man to follow.

          I’d like to think Trump speaks from the heart and is a true patriot. Time will tell.

          The only reason it’s hard to imagine is how it will be paid for. Not all deserve or are cut out for college imo. Some are more suited for a trade which is much less expensive and with a little strategy for a better life can turn into a very profitable self owned business. Much more so than a liberal arts degree will get them after wasting 4 years drinking and partying. The reason the US is so far down in the education standings world wide is another topic entirely that I must blame on the liberal left but let’s save that for another time.

        • adam

          “Bob, the problem I have with socialism is that it takes away any
          initiative on the part of the people to stretch themselves to make for a
          better life. It’s been going on in the black community for 50 years
          since the LBJ war on poverty and as you may have noticed,”

          Dear Mr Dunning

          Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

          None of the black community ever had ownership nor democratic means of production, so no socialism.
          At least TRY and be HONEST….

        • Jim Samaras

          Maybe so Adam but it still is a socialistic program developed by the left, blessed by the right and I believe would all agree has been a colossal failure

        • adam

          No, it is still not socialistic Mr. Dunning

          And no not all would agree that it has been a colossal failure.

          The government (especially the right) gives MUCH, MUCH more ‘welfare’ to rich corporations than people who actually NEED it.

          “It says that three-quarters of all state economic development subsidies went to just 965 corporations since the beginning of the study in 1976. The Fortune 500 corporations alone accounted for more than 16,000 subsidy awards, worth $63 billion – mostly in the form of tax breaks.Recommended by Forbes Think about that. The largest, wealthiest, most powerful organizations in the world are on the public dole.”

          But Boeing receives $13 billion in government handouts and everyone yawns, when conservatives should be grabbing their pitchforks.http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/

          Mr. Kruger MUST be proud of you….

        • Jim Samaras

          Much of that is due to cronyism of which BOTH parties are to blame. They get them elected favors are paid back. This is why every one of them with the exception of Trump will be at the behest of corporations if elected.

          Did I accidentally fall into a liberal bunny hole here?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “This is why every one of them with the exception of Trump will be at the behest of corporations if elected.”

          *….coughSanderscough….*

        • Jim Samaras

          Ok, ya got me this time Paul. I did say “every”. Sanders as well as Trump will be beholden to no one. I just happen to disagree with the Sanders’ approach

        • adam

          “Much of that is due to cronyism of which BOTH parties are to blame.”

          Corporatism not cronyism

          “This is why every one of them with the exception of Trump will be at the behest of corporations if elected.”

          Trump is already indebted to Corportism
          In FACT, he owes who he is to them ALREADY

          http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2068227_2068229_2068209,00.html

          http://www.alternet.org/story/156234/exposing_how_donald_trump_really_made_his_fortune%3A_inheritance_from_dad_and_the_government's_protection_mostly_did_the_trick

          “Did I accidentally fall into a liberal bunny hole here?”

          I dont know where you fell, but I am libertarian.
          I believe i free trade, not government sponsored profit centers for the already wealthy.

        • MNb

          “the exception of Trump”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Trump is a lackey of the American socio-economical elite as much as every single other GOP candidate. Yeah, he poses as an anti-establishment guy and self delusional guys like you fall for it like ripe apples, but he hasn’t proposed anything that harms the interest of that elite and benefits the common man.

        • Jim Samaras

          While it’s early in the campaign he has said the hedge fund managers and even himself will not be happy about his tax plan. Cutting waste in government, paying down the national debt and securing our border won’t help the common man?

        • MNb

          “he has said”
          Yup. He said.

          http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

          “substantially lower individual income taxes”
          Like any good lackey of the American socio-economical elite does – because this benefits that elite, including himself.
          Thanks for confirming again that you are the one who is most delustional, not the left.

          “securing our border won’t help the common man?”
          Only delusional right-wing guys like you think it will help the common man.

          http://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says

          But of course you don’t have any use for inconvenient facts. That’s what you are a self-delusional right wing guy for.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What has been a failure?

        • MNb

          As western Europe has demonstrated over and over again since WW-2.
          Or not and you are the delusional guy.

        • MNb

          Socialism is an umbrella term for political views that go back to Marx, but may have changed a lot since then. The two main branches are revolutionary socialism (ie communism) and social democracy. Social democrats (like Sanders) accept liberal capitalism, ie the competition of free enterprises, but want to introduce rules for this game to minimize negative side effects (especially important during economical crises) and optmize the positive results.

        • adam

          So do feel that American welfare both corporate and individual falls under ‘socialism’.?

          I understand that the rich and corporate have ownership, but that is capitalism.

          But the poor here have no ownership or demoncratic means of production.

        • MNb

          Neither in western Europe and Scandinavia.

          “do feel that American welfare both corporate and individual falls under ‘socialism’.?”

          Not necessarily – christian democrats may advocate it as well. But all social democrats indeed want to maintain welfare (called social security in The Netherlands) and many more radical socialists as well.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          the problem I have with socialism is that it takes away any initiative on the part of the people to stretch themselves to make for a better life.

          Done poorly, yes, that’s a worry. I don’t think we’ve found the right balance in the U.S.

          I suppose as such, Jesus was a socialist to a point but was a carpenter by trade. That meant he did work for a living.

          Who cares? I’m talking about what he actually preached. Hint: he said a lot more about doing good for the poor than he did about abortion, slavery, or gay bashing. It’s weird how so many conservatives are sure they’ve got a mind meld with Jesus when they have so little to go on.

          I’d like to think Trump speaks from the heart and is a true patriot. Time will tell.

          I think he’s an entertainer.

          The only reason it’s hard to imagine is how it will be paid for.

          My numbers may be off, but here’s what I think they are. State and local governments pay $200B for public schools and $100B for college. The fraction that students pay of the actual cost of their being in college is 1/3 in the case of elite schools. I’m guessing it’s more in state schools. If it were 1/2, then governments would need to find another $100B per year. No small feat, of course, but that’s an increase of only 1/3 of their total education budgets.

          That logic is just off the top of my head, and my figures could be off.

          Not all deserve or are cut out for college imo.

          Agreed. Trade school or community college can be the right fit for many.

          The reason the US is so far down in the education standings world wide is another topic entirely that I must blame on the liberal left but let’s save that for another time.

          Oh, goody—more bloviating against the Left. I can’t wait.

          I assume your concern is about U.S. public schools and not colleges.

        • Jim Samaras

          Done poorly Bob? Don’t think we’ve found the right balance? Ya think not? It’s been 50 years! Both parties have had enough time to size up human nature and CHANGE things so as not to demotivate the herd.

          I am more of an agnostic as far as God is concerned Bob, no mind meld here. As far as slavery goes was it not the Democratic party that was for it and the Republicans fought against? I agree abortion is a choice and round mouths are of no concern to me. Their effect on me is none.

          I would never debate your numbers because the only thing I know is that besides robbing from one account to pay another bill is mental masturbation and that somehow/someway another tax will be levied on an already exhausted American small business man.

          Bloviating! Good word Bob but does it really apply here? Have I come across as a blowhard or know it all in any of these texts? I apologize if I’ve come off that way.

          My concern is with the public school system as pushing students along to justify more federal funding is egregious Bob. I agree it’s the governments job to assist in the basic education of our youth but it’s up to the parents to decide where and which schools curriculum is best for their offspring.

          Now let’s talk about tenure and the wonderful things the teachers’ union has done for our students shall we…….

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ya think not? It’s been 50 years!

          And not one thing to show for it? Is that your final answer?

          As far as slavery goes was it not the Democratic party that was for it and the Republicans fought against?

          Ah, the good old days! And now it’s the Democrats who are the ones working to improve lives. How ’bout that.

          round mouths are of no concern to me.

          Huh?

          somehow/someway another tax will be levied on an already exhausted American small business man.

          Don’t get me started, bro! It must be, what, 70, 80 percent now??

          Have I come across as a blowhard or know it all in any of these texts?

          Every comment seems to have the words Left or Leftist in them. You have come across as someone who enjoys sweeping generalizations (so far, of the Left and Muslims, but I’m sure you’ve got plenty more where that comes from) with no interest in being precise or backing up the bold claims with evidence.

          Thanks for the apology. My suggestion is that you say what you can easily defend and no more.

        • Jim Samaras

          Please advise me as to the good that has come of it Bob. It’s really enslaved the population on welfare more than helped.

          Are they really trying to improve lives or pandering for votes with free s%&t? See above…the slavery part.

          No it’s not that high Bob but during your candidates debates Eisenhower’s 90% bracket was spoken of more than once.

          The round mouth comment is a derogatory reference to gay men. I apologize. It’s thought to funny in some circles but I guess not this PC crowd…Lol

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Please advise me as to the good that has come of it Bob.

          You’ve not heard success stories? Perhaps you need to listen more. People who had some health crisis that drained all their money? Someone loses a job and then runs out of money trying to find another? Someone living hand to mouth with some minimum-wage job who then loses their job?

          Helping those fellow citizens who’ve had a temporary bit of bad luck.

          It’s really enslaved the population on welfare more than helped.

          Enslaved? It’s limited to 60 months.

          No it’s not that high

          No, it’s not.

          during your candidates debates Eisenhower’s 90% bracket was spoken of more than once.

          What’s that supposed to mean? That the average small business man might be saddled with an a 90% tax burden year after year? That any Democratic candidate would want this? Show me.

          The round mouth comment is a derogatory reference to gay men. I apologize. It’s thought to funny in some circles

          No, not especially funny here. But say “fag” a few times and you’ll have ’em rolling in the aisles.

        • Jim Samaras

          Not to be cliche but giving a safety net IS the taxpayers responsibility, and I have no problem with it, but not a hammock that gives cradle to grave relief.

          Explain the 60 month thing to the unwed mother that pops out 5 kids in 7 years. She’s getting cut off? I think not.

          The thought of 90% shocks people. So when 60% is law they don’t feel so bad. Slip it in slowly……

          Fag is acceptable as well I suppose, just thought I’d bring a term up that was new to some that I feel is hilariuos

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not to be cliche but giving a safety net IS the taxpayers responsibility, and I have no problem with it

          I don’t know why it’d be cliché. The standard conservative line is to dismiss the freeloaders. If you actually want to help the least fortunate get on their feet, that’s terrific. And a little unusual if you’re properly placed in the set of conservatives.

          but not a hammock that gives cradle to grave relief.

          Limit of 60 months. Not a hard concept, right?

          Explain the 60 month thing to the unwed mother that pops out 5 kids in 7 years. She’s getting cut off? I think not.

          Then explain it to me. Yeah, I thought she gets cut off. That’s what you want, right?

          The thought of 90% shocks people. So when 60% is law they don’t feel so bad. Slip it in slowly……

          I await the evidence of your bold suggestion that any Democratic candidate spoke favorably about a 90% tax bracket on the small business owner.

        • adam

          “Not to be cliche but giving a safety net IS the taxpayers
          responsibility, and I have no problem with it, but not a hammock that
          gives cradle to grave relief.”

          Well it certainly does to those who can afford to have laws written for them, like the banks..

        • MNb

          “It’s really enslaved the population on welfare more than helped.”
          Yeah, and the right wing is less delusional. Entire populations in western Europe are enslaved on welfare these days.

        • Jim Samaras

          It doesn’t seem to working that well in Greece so far.

        • MNb

          Guess what? The Greek population hardly enjoys any welfare program, just like you advocate. As a result some Greeks have literally starved from hunger.
          You don’t know your facts, like the good right wing christian you are.

          http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2015/02/12/poll-25-of-athens-school-children-going-hungry/

        • MNb

          “Both parties have had enough time …..”
          and both parties are right wing and still USA does poorly on most social rankings compared to European countries, which have enjoyed the influence of socialists more radical than Sanders. Thanks for confirming that you’re delusional and that the USA need a change to keep up.

        • MNb

          “the problem I have with socialism …”
          Yeah, when people more radical than Sanders ran western European countries their populations became totally apathetic. At the other hand the USA have the lowest rate of couch potatoes.

        • adam

          “Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist”

        • MNb

          “Bernie Sanders, while meaning well and makes some good points, is a socialist and is that what you’re really looking for in a democratic, capitalistic society?”
          Some more socialists a la Sanders for you:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Palme
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schmidt
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joop_den_Uyl
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Hollande

          All are/were more radical than Sanders.
          Are you saying that these guys harmed their democratic, capitalistic societies?That Hollande is a softie towards IS?
          And you still want me to take you seriously, a delusional guy like you?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Cupcake students? I recently posted a slightly-off-topic rant about things that included a response here.

          I have no idea what your problem with the Bureau of Land Management is.

          Anti-same-sex marriage is completely delusional. You don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married. End of issue. Ordinary citizens are being led around by politicians on the Right, determined to invent an issue where there isn’t one.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I have no idea what your problem with the Bureau of Land Management is.”

          :)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          (Is there another BLM that I’m unaware of … ?)

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Black lives matter”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. It’s embarrassing when Jim Samaras references a social movement that goes over my head.

        • Jim Samaras

          Come on guys can’t we have a civil conversation. I don’t believe we are that far apart on a few subjects like gay marriage and abortion. Does that make me a centrist? Are you against them too?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m in favor of both abortion rights and same-sex marriage. You?

        • Jim Samaras

          Yes I am Bob. It’s invasive of the government to be involved in any decision concerning a persons freedom providing it doesn’t hurt the general population. I’m a weed smoking, freedom loving American that just sees this country headed in the wrong direction. I voted for Obama in 08 but am appalled that he was re-elected in 12. I also believe the country is more divided because of his administration than ever before Bob. You MUST agree with SOME of my assessments.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s good to hear. What baffles me is conservatives decrying Big Gubmint but in the next breath wanting cameras in all bedrooms so they can make sure people aren’t doing rude things they oughtn’t.

          Yes, the country is very divided. I credit the GOP’s strategist, Machiavelli. As for Obama, I wonder what he could’ve accomplished if the Legislative branch hadn’t been controlled by the Party of No.

        • MNb

          Very unkind of you. Macchiavelli was a proto-scientist, trying to objectively analyse how politics around 1500 CE worked. His political views were, the few times he presented them, were actually quite liberal. He was one of the very few who thought that the common people should have a voice and advocated a check and balances not unlike Montesqieu.

          “I wonder what he could’ve accomplished”
          Even more killings of civilians?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve read The Prince, and I’m a fan of Machiavelli. I was using the name in the colloquial sense.

          I didn’t know Obama was known for his killing of civilians. Is this a reference to Afghanistan?

        • MNb
        • MNb

          No. Not if you call me delusional by strawmanning me and not if you think Clinton left wing, thus showing that you’re the delusional guy yourself.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Don’t look further than Ben Carson to observe how delusional the far right is.
          And Clinton, who lies according to you, of course is also right wing.

        • Fallacy Finder

          What’s delusional (and a fallacy) is believing that radical Islam is more dangerous than radical Christianity, radical Catholicism, or radical Atheism. Also delusional is the ASSUMPTION that ‘lefties’ don’t think radical Islam exists. I don’t identify with a party, but I know people on both sides of this bullshit dichotomy, and the ‘lefties’ that I do know are not only aware of the dangers of radical Islam… they are aware of RADICALISM. The difference is, they don’t say one is more dangerous than another just because the media convinced them to hate people of a particular creed.

        • Jim Samaras

          Well, if Christianity or Atheism is more dangerous today than Islam I can’t wait to see anything more brutal than taking peoples heads off or murdering people in the streets for no reason other than being infidels. Muslims have created the animosity themselves by pursuing Sharia law in countries other than their own. The media reports the atrocities and sensationalizes them sure, but the fact that it even occurs fall directly on the shoulders of RADICAL ISLAM

        • adam

          “I can’t wait to see anything more brutal than taking peoples heads off
          or murdering people in the streets for no reason other than being
          infidels. ”

          Carpet bombing of innocents?
          Bombing of water supplies and infrastructure to TERRORIZE people into turning against their government?
          The deaths of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people sitting on oil reserves?

          Drone bombing wedding parties, because a terrorist MIGHT be in the party?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Drone bombing wedding parties, because a terrorist MIGHT be in the party?”

          Sure, but come on: Obama is a Muslim. /s

        • Jim Samaras

          I’m not defending the US foreign policy here. Those moves had NOTHING to do will radical religion which was the topic Adam

        • adam

          It IS the result of Radicalization…

        • Jim Samaras

          You mean their radicalization is the result of our foreign policy. Perhaps, but those people were obviously animals BEFORE that all occurred. Just the way they have treated women as cattle for many years shows that. And that was the case before we were involved in anything

        • adam

          Both.
          The policy was the result of radicalization.
          Which radicalized the people being bombed.

        • Jim Samaras

          Radicalized them to kill their own? Those people are crazy and should be eradicated.

        • adam

          OUR policy to go and MASS MURDER was a RADICALIZED policy.

          So who has killed more innocent people?
          them or us?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I assume this is hyperbole? I don’t think genocide is the tool for the West to use.

        • Jim Samaras

          Yes Bob, it was and you are correct

        • MNb

          “but those people were obviously animals BEFORE that all occurred”
          When was the last time again that position was popular? Ah yes – when those self-proclaimed bearers of western civilization called SS was in charge.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          The battle of Lepanto, the Muslim invasion of Spain, and the repeated Ottoman invasions of the Balkans were all due to “radicalization,” too, right? And the Barbary pirates, of course…

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So you’re advocating for an America First, noninterventionist foreign policy, rather than a neocon-driven, Israel First one? Good point. Don’t bomb ’em over there; don’t bring ’em over here.

        • adam

          Maybe not even an America First, but a world first.

          Certainly not the Israel first one, we already know what their goal is:

        • MNb

          “if Christianity or Atheism is more dangerous today than Islam”
          Well, there are atheists who advocate dropping nuclear bombs on muslim countries.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t know of any atheists who want to drop nuclear bombs on Muslim countries, but I wouldn’t be all that surprised if there were. I’m not sure what we make of that, though. Maybe there are homosexuals in that group as well. Or vegetarians. Their homosexuality or vegetarianism are incidental.

          Would the atheists’ atheism not be?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Lol, “Fallacy Finder”.

          “What’s delusional (and a fallacy) is believing that radical Islam is more dangerous than radical Christianity, radical Catholicism, or radical Atheism.”

          This is a series of words strung together by someone who thinks he/she is saying something reasonable, but doesn’t quite have an adequate grasp of the concepts involved, nor logic itself, to realize that he/she is not.

          “Catholicism” and “Islam” are both complicated religious systems which have hundreds of years of doctrinal accretion.

          “Atheism” is a lack of belief in god(s), or, sometimes, the belief in a lack of god(s).

          The first two are examples of dramatically different abstract categories than the latter – your conflation of them seems to me to be, as it so often is with others, a sign that you might suffer from a combination of sloppy thinking and delusions of competence.

          Yours is a fitting contribution to a thread about the D-K effect. :-/

          Now that we’ve got that bit of housekeeping out of the way, let me address what I take your point to be.

          You seem to be saying that “R”adicalism, per se, is “the problem” – contra what racially/culturally bigoted demagogues would have us believe, yes?

          If not, feel free to correct me….but that’s the way that I read your comment: you seem to be arguing that no flavor of “radicalism” is “more dangerous than another”.

          Would you agree to that paraphrase of your point?

        • MNb

          You’re reading uncharistically uncharitable here. The key words here are “more dangerous”. There have been more than enough radicals who also where atheists and I think FF is right pointing out that they are as dangerous as radical believers.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “You’re reading uncharistically uncharitable here.”

          Unless you’ve read through my entire comment history, you’re in a precarious position to be making this sort of assertion.

          Which behavior seems, to me, like an uncharacteristically foolish thing for you to do. But, then again, I don’t know you that well; perhaps my analysis is off.

          “The key words here are “more dangerous”.

          I will take your leave to make my own assessments about which of his words were “key”, since your reading comprehension seems to be failing you at this moment. You have misconstrued FF’s point, as I read it:

          “There have been more than enough radicals who also where atheists”

          He did not write so as to convey the idea of [radicals, who also happen to be atheists]. He wrote about [radical Atheism]. In other words, people radically pushing Atheism, qua atheism, the way radical Catholics would push Catholicism, per se, or radical Islamists would push their vision of Islam, per se. I know of very few people who could be called purveyors of “radical Atheism”, indeed I would love to be told whom FF thinks “they” are.

          Those whom I can imagine *might* be called purveyors of “radical Atheism” don’t strike me as dangerous in the way that those whom I CAN imagine being called purveyors of “radical Catholicism” or “radical Islam” being dangerous.

          I could wish you would do me the courtesy, going forward, of carefully reading both the posts I reply to, and the posts I write so as not to inject more confusion than necessary.

          “I think FF is right pointing out that they are as dangerous as radical believers.”

          I will let FF respond to me (or not) in his/her own good time to tell me whether or not I well-understood his/her point of view.

          Let us assume, for the moment anyway, that I HAVE well-understood his/her point: “no flavor of “radicalism” is “more dangerous than another”

          That point, a point which you also seem to be defending, is patently absurd.

          Someone promoting “radical Jainism” is not going to be dangerous to anyone (except perhaps themselves). Comparing that person to someone promoting “radical Wahhabism” leaves us with the following insight:

          Person 1 who “radically” believes [propositions abc] will be as dangerous as Person 2 who “radically” believes [propositions xyz] if, and ONLY if, radically believing the content of [abc] leads to behaviors as destructive as radically believing the content of [xyz].

          In order to meaningfully and accurately compare the threat posed by 1 vs. 2, we will actually have to read, understand, and compare the content of [abc] vs [xyz].

          Of course, saying that “not all ‘radicals’ are alike, and that we have to carefully consider what we’re talking about in each case” is less sexy, and less easy to say, than

          “RADICALISM IS BAD.”

          On the other hand, it has it benefits….it’s harder to be accurately criticized for lazy thinking when one does the former.

        • adam

          “He wrote about [radical Atheism].”

          Is it equivalent to militant atheism?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Hard to know for sure, until/unless I get responses:

          “I know of very few people who could be called purveyors of “radical Atheism”, indeed I would love to be told whom FF thinks “they” are.”

        • MNb

          My my, is Radical Atheism the latest taboo word? Here you have a radical atheist:

          http://zoom.iprima.cz/sites/default/files/image_crops/image_620x349/9/397346_martin-bormann-v-barve_image_620x349.jpg

          An atheist and a full radical. Hence a radical atheist. And dangerous. For this observation whining about the correct formulating is totally irrelevant.

        • adam

          My bet is that he believes that people like Dawkins are Radical Atheists.

        • MNb

          Perhaps you win this bet, perhaps it’s just your prejudice. However it’s totally relevant for his point:

          “radical Islam is [not] more dangerous than…. radical Atheism”
          Good luck showing that the caliph of Islamic State is more dangerous than the radical and atheist Martin Bormann. If you can’t this quote may not be formulated according to you taste, it doesn’t mean this quote is wrong.

        • adam

          “radical and atheist Martin Bormann”

          Isnt that different from a Radical Atheist?

          Was it atheism that he was radical about or not?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Category error.

          Sloppy thinking.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “An atheist and a full radical. Hence a radical atheist.”

          My my, but we have a sloppy thought process this week.*

          * I haven’t read your whole comment history, the problem might well go back much further.

        • MNb

          “My my, but we have a sloppy thought process this week.*”
          My my, the Ultimate Thought Process Judge has spoken. Or just a grammar nazi? What we call in Dutch a comma fucker? Hey – shall we put every single comment to you from now on? Then it will only become visible after your approval regarding style and grammar?
          You’re acting like a bigot. Like I said – as far as I know you that’s very uncharacteristic.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Lol, a raw nerve, eh?

          No, this isn’t about “grammar”, per se. It’s about clear definitions, thinking, and writing.

          And what’s wrong with commas, anyway? They can save lives!

          “Let’s eat Grandpa.” vs. “Let’s eat, Grandpa.”

          In any case, I’ll get back to you when I have a free moment. For now I have important things which require my attention. 😛

        • MNb

          “a raw nerve, eh?”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Says the guy who gets upset as soon as he meets the term Radical Atheism. Nonono! Can’t have that!

          “For now I have important things which require my attention.”
          Good to read that you get sensible again. May it last long.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Says the guy who gets upset as soon as he meets the term Radical Atheism. Nonono! Can’t have that!”

          You have again misunderstood. Willfully?

          In any case, the fact is that I have no problem with that term. I dare you to try to point to something I’ve written wherein I indicate that I do.

          You won’t be able to.

          Because I didn’t.

          Because I don’t.

          You should probably publicly acknowledge that fact, and apologize for being needlessly insulting.

          What I DO have a problem with is your poor English reading comprehension, combined with your unwarranted self confidence and your need to interject….

          I don’t mind people being assholes, as long as they’re correct assholes.

          A criterion you have failed to meet.

          And, now, for realz: I’m outtie for a few hours!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Surely a guy who’s an atheist and a radical isn’t necessarily what’s meant by someone who’s a “radical atheist.” The first are two traits of that person that may or may not overlap or interact. Not so the second.

        • MNb

          “isn’t necessarily what’s meant”
          No, but it isn’t necessarily ruled out either. As I agree with Adam that it doesn’t make sense to place Richard Dawkins (no matter how much I dislike his non-biological views) in the same sentence as the caliph of ISIS the charitable reading of FF’s comment (like I pointed out to PBLot) is that he/she doesn’t refer to Dawkins, but to for instance Bormann.
          That’s all.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “the charitable reading [one way to interpret, not the actual words, but what I assume the intent was] of FF’s comment (like I pointed out to PBLot) is that he/she doesn’t refer to Dawkins, but to for instance Bormann.”

          FTFY

        • Smash Islamophobia

          The 100 million+ killed by atheist Communists in the 20th century are completely irrelevant to your point, of course…

        • adam

          Because, they didnt kill because atheist says to…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bingo! Well stated. Official atheism was a consequence of the dictatorship just like the millions of deaths were.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So Trotsky and Lenin were devout Christians until 1917 or so, then dictatorship changed their minds?

        • ssm99

          Nope, they were Jews.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do I need to type slower so you can understand?

          The church was a separate, unwanted power structure. They dismantled it. It’s how dictators roll.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          You’re still not getting it, are you? Let me spell it out for you: When postulating a causal relationship between two events, it can be difficult to convince people that a subsequent event is the cause of a prior event.

          Since Lenin and Trotsky were atheists before they gained power, it is somewhat irrational to maintain that gaining near-absolute power was the cause of their (pre-existing) atheism. Time only goes one way. Cause must precede effect.

        • MNb

          Eeeehhhhh – BobS never claimed that gaining near-absolute power. You might want to work on your comprehensive reading skills.
          Lenin and Trotsky gained near-absolute power, ie became dictators.
          Then they started dismantling the church.
          So cause (dictatorship) nicely precedes effect (dismantling church).
          You are wrong on your very own terms. I like that.
          Now if you’ve got that we might try to make the next step. Take your time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re still not getting it, are you? Lenin and Trotsky being atheists isn’t the issue. Atheism imposed on the country from the top is. Why do you suppose that was?

          Having the church with an independent hold on the people was a problem. Solution: outlaw the church.

          It’s pretty easy to understand when you think it through.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So their imposition of totalitarian, atheist rule on the USSR caused them to become atheists– many years prior to that? Ordinarily, cause must precede effect. They imposed atheism on the country because they were atheists who achieved near-absolute power over the country. If they were not atheists, they would not have imposed atheism.

        • MNb

          Repeating your silly error doesn’t do anything to remedy it.
          Cause: Lenin and Trotsky becoming dictators.
          Effect: prosecution of everything non-communist.
          Evidence: the first ones to go to Lubyanka were anarchists – ie full blown atheists. The second ones were social-democrats (Mensheviks), many of whom were atheists as well.

          Conclusion: they imposed atheism because they imposed communism. They imposed communism because they were communists and communists don’t tolerate deviating views, whether religious or non-religious. That’s why we call communist leaders dictators. In short: their dictatorship was the cause, persecution of religion and non-communist atheism was the result. That’s confirmed by all the democrat atheists who never have persecuted anyone at all.
          May I suppose that your islamophobia has smashed your thinking skills?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So their imposition of totalitarian, atheist rule on the USSR caused them to become atheists– many years prior to that?

          Nope.

          They imposed atheism on the country because they were atheists who achieved near-absolute power over the country.

          They imposed atheism because they could? Because that advances the Global Atheist Agenda®? I’ve already explained this: the church was a competitor.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So you would maintain that Lenin and Trotsky imposed a Communist dictatorship on the country, not because they were Communists who gained control of the country, but because gaining control of the country somehow made them Communists? Leftist “reasoning” is always entertaining…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wrong again.

          But perhaps I’m too hard on you–English not your first language?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Why do leftists always have such difficulty with fairly simple, direct analogies? Is it nature? Or nurture? Do you have any particular insight into this recurrent problem?

          You maintain that gaining power magically turned Lenin and Trotsky (both previously enthusiastic Christians, evidently) into hard core atheists, yet Communism was a fixed, immutable part of their identity, that was completely unchanged by their ascent to power. This despite the fact that Communism is invariably an atheistic ideology. Hmm…

        • MNb

          Why do right wing bigots always have such difficulty with comprehensive reading?

          “You maintain that …..”
          Nope. BobS or anyone else didn’t even write this even once.
          Let me try to answer the question myself. It’s because right wing bigots and especially religious ones are dishonest, stupid or both.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Seems to be your reading comprehension that is lacking.
          “Lenin and Trotsky being atheists isn’t the issue. Atheism imposed on the country from the top is…”
          Argument by simple assertion is never convincing. “Bob” asserts that Lenin and Trotsky’s deeply-held atheist ideology is irrelevant to their imposition of atheism on Russia. Why? Because Bob’s feelz tell him so. And who are we to question a leftist’s feelz with mere facts?

          And you somehow also manage to believe that effect can precede cause, temporally speaking. Lenin and Trotsky’s rise to power did not somehow cause their preexisting atheism, no matter how strongly you believe in time machines.

          You also seem to be arguing from a position of near-complete ignorance of the history of Communism in the 20th century. Once power is initially gained, the elimination of useful idiots, fellow travelers, and rivals generally is at least as high a priority (usually higher) as the elimination of enemies. Mensheviks and anarchists, of course, fall into the former category, and Christians and “kulaks” into the latter.

          Perhaps you can see the weakness of your (and Bob’s) argument by way of a simple analogy, though the difficulty you two have demonstrated so far with even the most straightforward of analogies leads me to doubt it. If I were to maintain that Mohammed and other Muslim leaders imposed Islam on the Middle East, North Africa, Persia, etc., persecuting Christians, Jews, and (especially) members of non-Abrahamic religions such as Zoroastrianism, not because they were Muslims, but because gaining absolute power somehow made them hate non-Muslim religions, would you regard that in any way as a serious argument possessing even a smidgen of face validity? I doubt it. Yet that’s exactly what you’re doing.

        • MNb

          “Seems to be your reading comprehension that is lacking.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Writes the guy who can’t understand BobS’ argument no matter how often repeated. You again paraphrase him wrongly.

          “Bob” asserts that Lenin and Trotsky’s deeply-held atheist ideology is irrelevant to their imposition of atheism on Russia.”
          Nope.
          That’s not what he asserts.

          “And you somehow also manage to believe that effect can precede cause, temporally speaking.”
          Nope.
          I don’t.
          That’s your utterly poor reading comprehensive skills again.

          “Lenin and Trotsky’s rise to power did not somehow cause their preexisting atheism,”
          And I never said otherwise.
          That’s your utterly poor reading comprehensive skills again.
          The more often you repeat this stupidity the more often you confirm your stupidity.

          “of near-complete ignorance of the history of Communism in the 20th century.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I started studying it – and also in the 19th Century – when I was 13 or 14.

          “Once power is initially gained, the elimination of useful idiots, fellow travelers, and rivals generally is at least as high a priority (usually higher) as the elimination of enemies.”
          Exactly what I wrote and carefully missing the point: all those “idiots, fellow travelers and rivals” who were the highest priority were …… also atheists. So they weren’t killed for atheism. Just like christian authorities weren’t persecuted for their belief. They were persecuted because the communist regime perceived them as ….. rivals and enemies.
          Excellent! You demonstrate my “ignorance” by confirming what I wrote and directly contradicting your erroneous standpoint.
          And you do it again here.

          “Yet that’s exactly what you’re doing.”
          Yes. Let me do the trick. I quote you almost literally.

          If I were to maintain that Lenin and other communist leaders imposed communism on the Russia, the Ukraine, Poland etc., persecuting anarchists, social democrats, christians, jews, and all other adherents of potentially competing ideologies, worldviews and religions because gaining absolute power somehow made them fear non-communists, would you regard that in any way as a serious argument possessing even a smidgen of face “validity?”
          Yup. That’s exactly the argument, solidly backed by the historical facts. And yes – mutatis mutandis that applies to totalitarian versions of religion as well, as for instance the Crusades demonstrated, but also ISIS. Some Crusades picked (deviating) christians as their victims and ISIS has killed more muslims than non-muslims.
          Once again thanks for nolens volens confirming the argument.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wrong again.

          Say–I have an idea! If you want to accurately convey what I’ve said, quote me directly. Conservatives are clearly too stupid to paraphrase.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          So you do admit that Lenin and Trotsky were hardcore atheists and Communists prior to gaining power, and their imposition of atheism on the country was due to their strongly-held, pre-existing beliefs? That’s encouraging. Who says leftists are incapable of learning? Not me. If a simple enough concept is repeated often enough, even progressives can sometimes grasp it…

        • MNb

          “So you do admit that …..”
          Bobs (nor anybody else) ever denied that.
          Yeah, leftists are capable of learning.
          Rightwing nut you aren’t.
          Because you still don’t understand the argument ……
          No use to repeat it – it would be never enough for stupid conservatives like you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’d love to have a conversation with you, but you’re determined to ensure that it never gets off the ground. What a shame.

        • MNb

          “Unless you’ve read through my entire comment history”
          Oh come on. This is creationist logic, well beneath your usual level. I’ve read many, many comments of yours on this blog and various other blogs on Patheos. Your reading is always charitable as far as I have read your comments but this one of yours isn’t.
          Sorry, PDL. It’s my habit not to read any further after howlers like this one. I won’t make an exception for you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          1. I don’t know what radical atheism is. Atheism is simply a lack of god belief; nothing else proceeds from that. Atheists are often humanists, for example, and that is indeed a worldview, but atheism per se isn’t.

          2. Suppose someone said “Radical X is worse than radical Y.” How would you test that? You’ve apparently done so and concluded that radical Islam is no worse than radical anything-else. I want to check your work.

          3. If you’re saying that “radical X” is merely a statement, then I might agree with you that the crazy stuff in the Quran is no worse than the crazy stuff in the Old Testament. But in most people’s mind, “radical Islam” is a collection of people, the actual expression of the statement, and those people are actually quantitatively pretty bad.

        • MNb

          “I don’t know what radical atheism is.”
          Martin Bormann was both a radical and an atheist. I read it like this. Now you possibly will answer that Bormann’s atheism was not radical, but that’s irrelevant for the “dangerous” statement.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wasn’t Bormann’s atheism the same as yours or mine? Or are you saying that he was a radical atheist where you and I aren’t?

        • MNb

          Yeah, Bormann’s atheism was about the same as yours and mine. He was also a radical. So he was a radical and an atheist. And he was dangerous. That this danger was not caused by his atheism is irrelevant for FF’s comment.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “That this danger was not caused by his atheism is irrelevant for FF’s comment.”

          Of course it is. What foolish tripe, this is truly disappointing from you.

        • adam

          “Yeah, Bormann’s atheism was about the same as yours and mine.”

          So his atheism wasnt radical, so he wasnt a Radical Atheist, but an atheist who was radical about something else?

          Do you have any examples of any Radical Atheists besides the one I offered?

      • Jim Samaras

        Not to mention the love fest going on with the pathological lying Hillary!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Jim Samaras

          Perhaps I do Bob, perhaps I do

        • Amy Wilborn

          Gee, I wonder why Politifact has found that she lies less than anyone else, followed by Bernie….AND they found that Republicans lie three times more than Democrats…easy to look up….too bad..lol

        • Jim Samaras

          Amy, they all lie to the degree that has really gotten reprehensible. Politifact? Ha!

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL….believe what you want (yeah yeah, I know; you will say the same back to me) but many conservatives are really despicable in just about every way. How many Benghazi hearings do you think they will have? But that;’s okay; I love the way inbred Dowdy loses every time.

        • Jim Samaras

          Dowdy is a pussy that can’t think on his feet or for some reason was afraid to offend. He should have admonished her more for admittedly lying to the families of the fallen yet telling the truth to her daughter and King of Egypt. Totally let her off the hook. I hope Trump gets the chance to face her down. I truly hope that you are not backing this woman just based on gender Amy. She and her husband are reprehensible people! I can understand perhaps feeling the Bern as he seems to be a genuine individual but as an American it would be hard to understand a fellow patriot backing socialism for our country. Speaking of inbred how about that other guy Lindsey Graham. Talk about a joke….

        • Paul B. Lot

          “as an American it would be hard to understand a fellow patriot backing socialism for our country”

          As an American it is hard for me to understand a fellow American not understanding that “Socialism”, ala Soviet Union, is not equivalent to “democratic socialism.”

        • Jim Samaras

          What I do know is that the government is involved heavily in any kind of socialistic democracy. Whenever they are involved in ANYTHING the costs go up greatly. While all men are CREATED equally their upbringing and genetics make a huge difference in how they turn out. Some are smarter than others and should reap greater reward. Not only for their effort but their willingness to take risk. Most people are satisfied with a mundane existence while others strive for greatness. All motivation is taken away under any type of socialist system so I cannot condone anything of the sort Paul

        • Paul B. Lot

          “All motivation is taken away under any type of socialist system”(emphasis mine)

          The American Freeway system is a socialist system.
          The American Army is a socialist system.
          The American Navy is a socialist system.
          The American Air Force is a socialist system.
          The American Marine Corps is a socialist system.
          The American FBI/CIA/NASA/DIA are socialist systems.
          American Fire Departments are socialists systems.
          American Police Departments are socialists systems.
          American Public Schools are socialists systems.
          etc…
          (sorry, I’m getting bored – there’s more though, and I’m sure you get the idea)

          “Whenever [people with socialist ideas] are involved in ANYTHING the costs go up greatly.”

          Orly? Have you never heard of the Ancient, private, Roman fire brigades who would charge you money to put out your house fire? Can you imagine the possibilities for corruption if a private fire brigade had enough mussel to start fires, and then charge for them to be put out?

          What about the fact that we pay waay more, per capita, in the US for health care – and yet still receive worse outcomes than countries with stronger regulations and socialist policies?

          “While all men are CREATED equally their upbringing and genetics make a huge difference in how they turn out. Some are smarter than others and should reap greater reward. Not only for their effort but their willingness to take risk. Most people are satisfied with a mundane existence while others strive for greatness.”

          I agree with you to a point – but I think it’s quite easy to fail to see to what degree your success was built on the backs of others who ante’d up into the pot before you.

        • Jim Samaras

          The items you mention Paul are many of the things that we have come to expect from our government and rightly so. Now our school system is atrocious as you must admit. We spend more money per student than any other country and get little return in comparison to those in the top 30. I’m not for privatization but a chit system would give parents and students a choice and weed out the bad teachers and administrators created by the unions that make it difficult to get rid of the bad apples.

          Again, genetics has much to do with ability and the ability to recognize an opportunity when it arises. I still say socialism takes away initiative to strive to be the best you can be.

        • Paul B. Lot

          But, wait….you just finished saying:

          Whenever [people with socialist ideas] are involved in ANYTHING the costs go up greatly…All motivation is taken away under any type of socialist system

          …but now you’re saying that:

          The items you mention Paul are many of the things that we have come to expect from our government and rightly so.

          Which is it?

          “Again, genetics has much to do with ability and the ability to recognize an opportunity when it arises”

          I agree – I also think that those who are the beneficiaries of the gifts of others often do not realize how much they’ve been given. It’s easy to assume you’ve done _________ all on your own, when in reality you come from a long line of financially stable people or were raised in a stable environment or had access to early nutrition, health care, eusocial relationships, and good education.

          “I still say socialism takes away initiative to strive to be the best you can be.”

          I heard you the first time – it was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. “Capitalism”, unregulated by government (scary!), does not produce optimal human outcomes.

        • Jim Samaras

          Just because I expect and want those things from the government does not mean that it couldn’t be accomplished more economically in the private sector. While I agree that may open the door for greed and corruption but are you under the delusional thinking that it does not exist now? One has to look no farther than the Chicago public school system to see what goes on without the checks and balances needed to keep people honest.

          Of course it’s human nature to think that it’s all about you and what you’ve done that made it all possible but those are the people that this article is all about Paul. A smart person knows he’s had a leg up and willingly admits it! The dummy on the other hand maybe just got lucky but will always be a dummy.

          I never said that unchecked capitalism is the end all be all. Again, checks and balances are needed in all walks of life if for nothing other than to keep honest people honest

        • Paul B. Lot

          “are you under the delusional thinking that it does not exist now”

          Nope.

          “Just because I expect and want those things from the government does not mean that it couldn’t be accomplished more economically in the private sector.”

          “Just because”? I don’t know about “just because”, but I do know that I’ve never heard of a well-run private Fire Department. Have you? I HAVE heard of private Fire Departments extorting people, however.

          ” A smart person knows he’s had a leg up and willingly admits it!”

          It is possible to have-had a “leg up” in non-obvious ways – in ways that even a “smarty” and not a “dummy” won’t automatically realize.

          “I never said that unchecked capitalism is the end all be all. Again, checks and balances are needed in all walks of life if for nothing other than to keep honest people honest”

          GOVERNMENT provides those checks/balanced to the private sector – the private sector never regulates itself well.

          Let me leave you with two excellent, and short, videos by renowned economist Robert Reich.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PaLxOkjvJE
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM5Ep9fS7Z0

        • Jim Samaras

          You have one up on me because I’m not aware of any private fire dept. other than perhaps in a very small wealthy community maybe. I would enjoy hearing of your experience with a corrupt private fire dept.

          I would also love to hear of the non obvious leg up that could occur that even an intelligent person wouldn’t recognize.

          The true job creators in this country is small business. Why not cut the unnecessary red tape to make it easier for entrepreneurs to open a small business?
          Raising corporate taxes will only drive more out of the country to others with a smaller rate. Why not cut taxes and give credits to motivate staying and building more facilities to manufacture in this country?

          Raising minimum wage to unearthly numbers will only inhibit the creation of small business. I have friends in the restaurant business already closing their doors in NY state that say making a profit after analyzing the risk is a poor investment and are moving there money elsewhere creating more unemployment.

          Government does create the free market. Who is the government? Attorneys….shoot them all.

          Government does rig the game. How? Why? See above
          Donald Trump will work for the many and not the few.

          Our economy grew between WWII and the 80’s because we were the only game in town after the we destroyed the rest of the world. Everyone has caught up and that reality is tough to take.

          He is correct about reducing the debt as a percentage of our GDP. The way that is gone about is where the argument lies.

          He also may be right about using Medicares leverage to reduce the costs and I like the idea of paying incentive to cure not just medicate.

          I would have no problem lifting the ceiling on SS payroll taxes. The problem is it’s gotten away from it’s initial form and is paying benefits to people that are just working the system.

          He is also correct that lower income folks pay an already high percentage in taxes when accounting for sales taxes and other things mentioned.

          Thank you for the videos. Another perspective is always welcome

        • Paul B. Lot

          “I’m not aware of any private fire dept. other than perhaps in a very small wealthy community maybe”

          I am not aware of any either, nor have I ever heard of any, maybe…not even in very small wealthy communities.

          ” I would enjoy hearing of your experience with a corrupt private fire dept.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

          “I would also love to hear of the non obvious leg up that could occur that even an intelligent person wouldn’t recognize.”

          I am fairly smart. I grew up fairly lower middle class. I thought I had been taught to appreciate my family and my waay-better-than-3rd-world lot in life.

          I had never heard of water-based lead poisoning before Lansing, MI blew up.* I was unaware it was a problem, nor even could be a problem, until the issue got large enough in scale to hit the national news.

          Children’s lives have been permantently ruined.

          And now the issue is fading again.

          Unless you live there. Then I imagine it’s hard to forget – especially if you have a child who is exhibiting symptoms of lead neurtoxicity.

          *Outside of ancient contexts like, you guessed it, Rome.

          “The true job creators in this country is small business.”

          In a way this is true, in a way it’s false. Small businesses have no one to sell to if the public has no money to spend. You can’t employ anyone if you don’t have any customers.

          “Raising corporate taxes will only drive more out of the country to others with a smaller rate. Why not cut taxes and give credits to motivate staying and building more facilities to manufacture in this country?”

          Raising the tax rate on the highest brackets is going to do nothing to “small businesses.”

          [Walmart] and [Dave’s Hardware Store] are not playing the same sport, nor are they in the same country, let alone the same ballpark.

          “Raising minimum wage to unearthly numbers will only inhibit the creation of small business.”

          1) $15/hr isn’t “unearthly”.
          2) More money in low-income American’s hands = more customers for small-businesses to sell to.

          “I have friends in the restaurant business already closing their doors in NY state that say making a profit after analyzing the risk is a poor investment and are moving there money elsewhere creating more unemployment.”

          Why are you talking to me about NY state?

          “Our economy grew between WWII and the 80’s because we were the only game in town after the we destroyed the rest of the world. Everyone has caught up and that reality is tough to take.”

          I disagree with this analysis in large ways – it was not necessary for us to allow nor motivate American companies to take their jobs and tax-free profits overseas.

          ” The problem is it’s gotten away from it’s initial form and is paying benefits to people that are just working the system.”

          Welfare fraud, as I understand it, is NOT a significant percentage of the costs we’re talking about.

        • Jim Samaras

          I suppose a scenario as in Rome back then would be possible. That’s one reason local government should handle it.

          While a terrible event in Lansing, I don’t know how it applies to our conversation. Where was the leg up?

          I was saying small business creates the jobs and gives the people money to spend on items.

          It would be nice if Walmart and other giants actually bought from companies that make the products they sell to American consumers here in America.

          $15 an hour is unearthly to fast food operators and restaurant owners who are trying to remain competitive. That will only push for more automation in those fields and drive up the cost of a burger.

          Being the only game in town was a large part of our success during that period Paul. The other part of our demise was the NAFTA agreement which was put in effect during the Clinton years.

          Welfare in general is more of a significant cost than they are leading us to believe not to mention the fraud.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “That’s one reason local government should handle it.”

          I’m glad we agree! There are scenarios/situations/circumstances where having a socalized system is better/more efficient than a privatized one.

          I have never called for complete Socialism, nor would I support any candidate who did.

          “While a terrible event in Lansing, I don’t know how it applies to our conversation. Where was the leg up?”

          I think having access to clean, safe, non-neurotoxic drinking water is a fairly substantial leg-up – particular if one has that access all throughout the most sensitive years of one’s neurological development.

          I think that having access to that clean water is also something which one could easily take for granted – I know I did.

          That is my only point: it is easy to over-look all the interlocking systems and all the previous generations of man-hours which were necessary for us to have what we have access to now.

          Hell, even when we’re trying to weigh-out and carefully account for all the advantages we’ve had – very very rarely does anyone talk about all the generations who have come before us…that’s socialism too, albeit a socialism of the dead, as Chesterton might say.

          “I was saying small business creates the jobs and gives the people money to spend on items.”

          The egg comes before the chicken – if there are no people willing/able to buy, then there’s no demand for small businesses’ products.

          “It would be nice if Walmart and other giants actually bought from companies that make the products they sell to American consumers here in America.”

          It’s much, much worse than that. Walmart underpays it’s employees, which drains the lower-income people of buying power, which forces them to buy at Walmart.

          Walmart also under-employs it’s employees, which allows them to be booked as part-time and thus free from benefits. This forces their workers to apply for/use food stamps, effectively using the Federal Gov’t to subsidize it’s own employment costs.

          And where do those employees use the foodstamps? At Walmart.

          That’s the point here, Jim: corporations are smarter than you. They’re smarter than me. Even if they’re not smarter, they have so much money that they can BUY smarter people – people to lobby, people to fight in the courts, people to sniff out loopholes, people to market to the poor/vulnerable.

          Corporations don’t give a fuck – they’re not BUILT to. They’re built for PROFIT. Profit is not evil, but nor is it good – it’s neutral. If the easiest way for corporations to make profit is to engage in unethical practices, like water will flow down hill and find it’s own level, corporations will do the easiest thing.

          Walmart is a great example of this.

          “$15 an hour is unearthly to fast food operators and restaurant owners who are trying to remain competitive. “

          $15/hr is not “unearthly” for McDonalds and BK and Arbys and Taco Bell.

          “That will only push for more automation in those fields and drive up the cost of a burger.”

          1) automation is coming, minimum wage or not
          2) maybe if the burgers were more expensive, we would eat fewer of them and be placing less of a burden on our overpriced healthcare system where the public eats costs and private insurance/medical suppliers reap obscene rewards.

          “Being the only game in town was a large part of our success during that period Paul.”

          Did I argue against that? I agree with you – I have a better grasp of what the European wars from the ’60s to the ’40s did to West Europe than most Americans I know. You have a point here.

          “The other part of our demise was the NAFTA agreement which was put in effect during the Clinton years.”

          I agree with this as well – this is another piece of the puzzle – I have no love for the Clintons.

          “Welfare in general is more of a significant cost than they are leading us to believe”

          Welfare programs are a much, much lower cost to our society, imo, than having a:

          -malnourished
          -lead poisoned
          -unstable
          -poorly educated
          -obese
          -incarcerated
          -unemployed

          population.

        • Jim Samaras

          You bring up some very good points Paul and I obviously don’t put you in the category of people who were the point of this article.
          All the things you bring up, Walmart, malnourished, lead poisoned, POORLY educated are all on Trumps’ agenda to fix if elected into office. While I also think he has a downside inasmuch as his bombastic attitude I believe his heart to be in the right place and that attitude also has a good side when negotiating with these fuckstick corporations and world leaders who now are taking advantage of the American people visa vie through our corrupt politicians in office now. While I believe Bernie to be an honest straightforward guy I don’t think he’d have the know how to deal with all these tough issues as would a guy like the Donald. In reality how much worse can it get under a change of leadership such as his?

        • Paul B. Lot

          “In reality how much worse can it get under a change of leadership such as his?”

          Obama has done some horrible things, and I think he’ll go down in history as one of the worst offenders in a lot of categories. I never voted for him, and never would knowing what I know about him now.

          That said; he inherited a truly awful situation. The country is not doing great right now, but it was dying the way Bush left it.

          “While I believe Bernie to be an honest straightforward guy I don’t think he’d have the know how to deal with all these tough issues as would a guy like the Donald”

          Hmm, that’s an interesting take. At the end of the day, I guess I trust Bernie to do the best that a President could with these issues: he’s been working on them for over thirty years, he’s intimately acquainted with the difficulties of getting rational and useful legislation through congress, and he tells the truth.

          I can’t predict the future, and I don’t know what 4 years of Bernie-as-POTUS would look like, but I’d rather vote for someone I believe in than try to decide whom of the rest I dislike the least.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Thank you for the videos. Another perspective is always welcome”

          PS. Thank you for saying so, it’s a refreshing thing to hear. Take care!

        • Greg G.

          I would enjoy hearing of your experience with a corrupt private fire dept.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

          But that example is before fire departments became socialized.

        • Amy Wilborn

          I sure hope you are not talking about the “Bell Curve” because that has been debunked many times. I think you place too high a value on “genetics” because a person may be extremely intelligent but not see opportunities, and I think that is because people confuse intelligence with critical thinking skills which are so different. A good example is Ben Carson, who has got to be one of the dumbest people I have ever heard speak. He may be an excellent mechanic but analytical thinking? Good grief, no..

        • Jim Samaras

          You bring up a good point Amy. I do correlate intelligence to critical thinking skills and perhaps have been wrong in doing so. While I do place a high value on genetics there also is a thing called environment which dictates ones direction in life. You may be being a bit hard on the good doctor. He’s a smart guy in his field but was way out of his element on those debate stages and was made to look foolish at times. He would be my choice as a Surgeon General however and has some very good ideas as far as health care refinement may be concerned.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Sorry, to me he is an idiot. I have watched too many videos of him. I really like the one where he put down welfare but then admitted his mother had to take it. And I don’t think I am being too hard on him. At the same time, I don’t think he is a bad man, just too clueless, and I hate his silly religious beliefs which cloud many peoples’ judgments. And he thinks homosexuality is a choice which means he does not think critically at all. I realized that by the time I was 12.

        • Greg G.

          I was thinking about listing those socialist systems but I got bored before I got to the keyboard.

        • Paul B. Lot

          How ’bout Crassus and his cockleshell brigades?

          /facepalm

        • Greg G.

          I think that was meant for Jim S. as an example of corrupt fire departments, wasn’t it? I recalled a corrupt fire department in Rome from the time before Julius Caesar and when I looked it up it was Crassus.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Well, it was meant for you in that I was being self-deprecating about:

          ” if a private fire brigade had enough mussel muscle to start fires”

          but other than that: yes. Your recollection is spot-on.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Plus people have a different idea of what “greatness” means. Again, people have different values and they usually don’t change.

        • Amy Wilborn

          See, you are talking about “costs” like that is the only thing that matters. And, although nature and nurture contribute to a person, so does the lack of equality..greatly, more so than you probably think. And most people want to work, because people want to conform to their society. There are very few “moochers” out there, as conservatives like to believe. Oh gosh, now that I have started, it is hard for me to stop! but I will….sigh

        • Amy Wilborn

          Sorry, but I think Dowdy is just plain stupid. I lover Bernie, but Hillary is okay, and many, many times better than any conservative. You see, everything is about values…you know the old saying about how no one should talk politics and religion, but, gee, we all do it, right? LOL..we truly have to laugh at ourselves, all of us. Anyway, many liberals’ values are the welfare of people and conservatives care mainly about money and property. Of course, there is much more to both, but you know what I mean. What gets me is that cons go on and on and on about Hillary lying, when EVERY politician has lied, I’m sure. And all the so-called scandals have NEVER been proven. I rest my case. And, even if they were true, I cannot abide racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, xenophobes, people who hate Muslims, poor people, etc. …conservatives. I am now a retired 64 y/o social worker, have a Masters in Social Work and believe me, the crap that conservatives believe about the poor and minorities is just that….crap…sorry, didn’t mean to get on my soap box…lol But, basically, conservatives do not understand and they cannot help it, because they just do not have the empathy that many liberals have.

        • Paul B. Lot

          ” And all the so-called scandals have NEVER been proven. I rest my case.”

          Bill Clinton lied to you, to me, and to Congress….under oath.

          This is not a “so-called” scandal. This is has been proven. This is fact.

          The Clintons are political scum, perhaps, but they are still preferable in some ways to Trump or Cruz.

          But in any case, I’m voting for Bernie – with or without the nomination.

          Neither the Clintons, nor Trump, nor Cruz are as bad, in my opinion, as:
          a) the way the political process has been infiltrated by money
          b) the two-party system.

          I don’t give a damn if the Democratic or Republican party collapse because of this race, in fact I hope they do.

          Perhaps we need to burn them down to make room for a better system.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Sorry, but if you are talking about Lewinski, who cares???? Anything to do with sex is a bunch of nothing. And anyone would like about having sex with someone they aren’t supposed to. There were so many heads of state ffrom other countries who said, “What are they doing to their President”? Too bad the Puritans and Calvinists came here….
          Do you remember or remember hearing about Shirley McClain stating when others talked so much about JFK’s affairs? She said “Would you rather he did it to the country or a woman?” lol….And I think that bigoted, narrow mind Stark fellow was a much greater “sinner” (if you believe that stuff; I don’t) than anything Clinton could ever do. Being judgmental is just about the worst character flaw a person could have and conservatives have it in abundance!
          Trump is an anti intellectual bigot in every way and Cruz? I thought you said you didn’t like liars?? That man is worse than Trump. Maybe you should do some research on him? He wants his religion to be the law of the land, has the critical thinking skills of a rock and, like most conservatives, is a hateful bigot, which can be easily proven. But you don’t like the Clintons? Unbelievable….jthey aren’t racist, sexist and homophobic, now are they. But Clinton lied about sex…whoop dee doo…. Any, and I mean, the worst Democrat is always better than the best Republican, unless you like bigots. And please, don’t try the “you are bigot, too, cause you don’t like conservative…..blah blah blah…” doesn’t work because I readily admit I have no tolerance for intolerance, but I have no wish to prevent anyone from living and working where they want or marrying the person they want, etc.unlike many conservatives.
          And I love Bernie because he really cares about ALL people and it is not about the money…but then, what I just posted are my values.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Sorry, but if you are talking about Lewinski, who cares???? Anything to do with sex is a bunch of nothing. And anyone would like about having sex with someone they aren’t supposed to. There were so many heads of state ffrom other countries who said, “What are they doing to their President”? Too bad the Puritans and Calvinists came here.

          You seem to have misunderstood me.

          While I certainly think it was cretinous and immoral to have a sexual relationship with his employee, and while I think it was tasteless and base to do so in the Oval office, and while I think the man is a misogynist/philanderer who has pressured other women into sexual encounters and then destroyed them when they dared speak out….I think ALL of those things, and yet they are not my point.

          You can TELL that they’re not my point….because I didn’t SAY them.

          What I DID say was that the President of the United States lied. He lied on-camera. He lied in print.

          He lied under-oath. Which is a felony.

          Calling that “a bunch of nothing” is you begging to be lied to by good-looking, charismatic men and women. I promise that with a country full of voters like yourself, your wish will come true, and often.

          “Being judgmental is just about the worst character flaw a person could have”

          We disagree here.

          “Trump is an anti intellectual bigot in every way and Cruz? I thought you said you didn’t like liars?? That man is worse than Trump. Maybe you should do some research on him? “

          Did you perhaps miss it when I said this: “The Clintons are political scum, perhaps, but they are still preferable in some ways to Trump or Cruz” ?

          “Any, and I mean, the worst Democrat is always better than the best Republican, unless you like bigots. And please, don’t try the “you are bigot, too, cause you don’t like conservative…..blah blah blah…””

          What are you talking about? I have voiced my support for Sanders already.

          It would help me if you would try harder, in the future, to actually read/understand what I’m saying before replying. :-/

        • Amy Wilborn

          Again, I don’t care about the lying about sex…and, yes, I know people get all bent out of shape about that, but I would bet my son’s life that most Presidents have cheated on their wives (except maybe Jimmy Carter/..lol) I just don’t care, and I think most people would lie. If he lied about something important, I would probably feel differently, I don’t know, but he’s not a bigot and that is what is most important to me. Btw, I think he is charismatic, but I never thought of him as a misogynist…oh well…and he never appealed to me that much…:)
          I did re read your post, and I must apologize because you are right.. sometimes I get on my somewhat “self righteous” soap box and get carried away. Please accept my apology.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Again, I don’t care about the lying about sex…and, yes, I know people get all bent out of shape about that, but I would bet my son’s life that most Presidents have cheated on their wives

          You’ve missed my point. Again. If this is a pattern you keep repeating, we won’t have much fruitful dialogue.

          The point is not that “he lied about sex”, as in a scenario where someone casually asks you if you’ve snogged someone and you deny it because you’ve got a girlfriend.

          He committed
          p
          e
          r
          j
          u
          r
          y
          .

          Do you know what that means? Do you understand the gravity of what “lying under oath” means for “normal” citizens in this country?

          THAT is my point.

          Address it, or don’t, but please stop playing this game where you pretend you’re talking about the same thing I am.

          It does not matter whether or not one lies “about something ‘important'” – lying under oath is a felony.

          ” he’s not a bigot and that is what is most important to me”

          He and his wife have no problems using and abusing those around them, minorities included, for political gain. Maybe they’re not bigots, sociopaths hate and mistreat everyone equally.

          I guess there’s that. :(

          “I did re read your post, and I must apologize because you are right.. sometimes I get on my somewhat “self righteous” soap box and get carried away. Please accept my apology.”

          Well, look:

          I appreciate your saying so, and I accept the apology.

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL…yes, yes, yes, I KNOW he committed perjury and I DO NOT CARE!!! If it were about something really important, I might care, it would depend on what he lied about. And, nothing he has ever done has come close to equal all the horrible things Republican Presidents have done to people; it’s just that being a social worker, I got to study a lot of things most people don’t pay attention to. Now, I know there are people( liberals) who do know the horrendous things Reagan did to people, and I also realize that not everyone cares/cared about things like that, but I’m sorry, causing homelessness, taking money away from people and being a bigot is much, much worse than perjury about an affair. And remember Ira-Contra?
          And, please show me some proof, research, links, something that shows the Clintons used and abused minorities?

        • Paul B. Lot

          ” I KNOW he committed perjury and I DO NOT CARE”

          And this makes me sad. If you don’t care when your leaders commit felonies, you will get more leaders who commit felonies. It’s a really simple equation, imo.

          The Clintons lie to your face, and then either deny with a smile (Bill), or scream at you (Hillary) if you call them on it.

          We don’t need them at the helm again.

        • Amy Wilborn

          sigh…re read what I said…I don’t care about that! You are looking at things like many cons do…black/white, no grey, etc. I does make a difference what the person is lying about/for!
          And what about the other things I mentioned? You don’t think they are worse? And I’m waiting for proof about their using abusing minorities….

        • Paul B. Lot

          “sigh…re read what I said…I don’t care about that!”

          :-/ I understand. I understood it the first time I read it, which is why I said it makes me sad.

          ” You are looking at things like many cons do…black/white, no grey, etc.”

          I disagree.

          “I does make a difference what the person is lying about/for!”

          1) Lying to save your political skin is not a “good cause”. 😛
          2) It’s not like this is my only complaint, we’ve only talked about it so long because you were not willing to understand my point.

          “And what about the other things I mentioned?”

          What about them? They were irrelevant. Have you not absorbed that I’m a pro-Bernie liberal? Why would you whine to me about Reagan, then? I imagine I know more of the damage that the neo-cons have done than you do.

          Bringing up that damage to distract the conversation from the Clintons is a shitty tactic.

          “And I’m waiting for proof about their using abusing minorities….”

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/22/520138/-

        • Amy Wilborn

          I did/do understand your point, and I just think you are being way too rigid. And you are telling me that the things I mentioned are irrelevant. well, okay, not nice of you, but okay. And I was not bringing up anything to distract…believe me, that is not something I do; I don’t even think I am capable of that. lol and shitty? not nice for I haven’t done anything on purpose.
          And your link? One link from 2008? Sorry, but don’t think I buy that. It’s like you’re looking for something, anything to say negative about the Clintons. Oh well, let’s stop talking about the Clintons, then.
          Let;’s discuss what’s not to love about Bernie! I wonder how many other candidates have birds flying to their podium? 😛

        • TheNuszAbides
        • Jim Samaras

          We do have empathy Amy, we really do. We have empathy for those who cannot help themselves otherwise why all the crying about the lack of care for our veterans? It’s the way liberals almost justify the corruption in our welfare policies that reward people for dumb decisions and actually perpetuate them by giving away free stuff! Then when we complain about it we’re called all the names you mentioned above.
          I’m sure as a social worker you see many families that truly deserve and need what they are given but I’ve seen first hand many instances where they are not deserving and have just figured out how to work the system.
          You’re right about the politicians all being full of it. Give the Donald a chance though. It can’t get any worse. I remember the same things were said of Reagan back in 1980 and he turned out to be, not perfect, but pretty good for this country.

        • Amy Wilborn

          hahaha…you THINK you do, and what you said about people not being “deserving” proves my point. Conservatives love judging others to make themselves look good, of course, but it doesn’t work. There is much more to peoples’ stories than you think, much more. It’s easy to pick on the little poor guy “working the system” than it is the “big” guys that cheat and steal, the ones cons love. Also, what you have seen “first hand” is ancecdotal. The real cheats, the ones who steal the most and work the system in Medicaid and Medicare are the agencies and vendors, not the individuals. Give Donald a chance? He’s a guy who appeals great to the uneducated and bigoted, so I don’t think so; he has none of my values.
          And Reagan? LOL..he was one of the worst Presidents wwe have had, and he did a real number on poor people, but you wouldn’t know that because cons don’t care about people. I guess you don’t remember when he referred to a black man as a “buck” told poor people that “ketsup is a vegetable” never mentioned AIDS, so research got far behind, and he is one of the main reasons for homelessness. I’m not going to debate it because I already have researched and studied it.

        • Jim Samaras

          While agree it’s the “mechanics” that help cheat the system and make a healthy profit on the people who actually collect the money it’s no excuse for the people who go to these attorneys, agencies and vendors that help them cheat the hard working taxpayer who foots the bill.
          I’m neither uneducated nor am I a bigot Amy and I am insulted by your insinuation. Your Masters degree and all your higher education make you nothing more than an educated idiot if if you don’t see what Trump is bringing to the limelight that the MSM and establishment politicians are scared to death of. Because he doesn’t share your values? So what if he can clean up this mess that these lying, corrupt POS have put us into for the last 30 years.
          Reagan wasn’t perfect by any means but he was a whole lot better than the ones we’ve had since

        • Amy Wilborn

          Oh my! Trump certainly has you fooled! Sorry, but I cannot believe anything he says. I cannot stand the man because he is a racist, sexist, homophobe, Muslim hating, etc….and it’s been proven, sorry. And what did he just say about punishing women for having an abortion?? And what did he say about he would date his daughter? And what did he say about Muslims? What did he say about Mexicans being rapists?

          Oh, and here:

        • Jim Samaras

          Like the democrats have had you fooled for how may years? Go ahead and believe what the media spews about him. He has never made a racist remark. Women that have dealt with him all say nice things. Can the same be said about slick Willie? His children are all upstanding productive members of society and that speaks volumes. What has he said about gays disparaging? Muslim hating? Muslim cautious for sure! Mexico is not sending their best is all. Some ARE rapists and has been proven. He’s against ILLEGAL immigration and for the time being, until we figure it out, refugees from the middle east. A man that has the best interests of the United States seems to get the most rhetoric from the press that I’ve ever witnessed. He must be onto something because he’s getting it from all sides yet he’s popular. The right, the left, the media, the lobbyists, special interests are all against him. I think I’ll give him a try. Fire him in four years if he’s worse than what we’ve got.

        • Amy Wilborn

          I am liberal, I don’t care what you call the party. And yes, I pretty much believe what the media “spews” about him because I have listened to him! And everyone talks about him because he is an egomaniacal bigoted lowlife! And white males love him because they think he might take them back to the 1950’s when white males ruled! You know what, you can choose to reply or not, but it’s no use talking to you for reasons I’d rather not say.

          http://www.glaad.org/trump

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/18-real-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-women_us_55d356a8e4b07addcb442023
          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83

        • Jim Samaras

          Okay Amy I understand you’re a liberal and that you don’t care about many things even to the point of a president lying under oath and committing perjury. Well I don’t care whether he prefers hetero marriage to gay marriage and I don’t care that he calls ugly women what they are! What I do care about are the important issues to this nation which is safety for it’s citizens, a balanced budget, the very real threat of bankruptcy because of the spiraling national debt and putting the people that you champion and say WANT to work back to work. Go ahead and spew all you want on such trite issues but your over educated posterior is showing big time that you care not about the real issues threatening our nation and it’s no use talking to YOU for reasons that are in the minds’ eye of every red blooded American male who read your posts. You’re a man hater with 20 cats would be my guess

        • Amy Wilborn

          LMAO…and thanks for proving my points!

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Excellent example of how leftists are only concerned with feelings and virtue signaling competition, and view incentives, real-world results, and (especially) unintended consequences as irrelevant and/ or nonexistent. Thanks.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Where did I say I was ONLY concerned with feelings? LOL…actually, it seems conservatives may be more emotional…afraid of everything.

          http://2012election.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004818

    • Amy Wilborn

      Too bad, but all the research shows liberals are not only more intelligent that conservatives, but less prejudiced. Most scientists are liberals, as well as creative people.

      • Jim Samaras

        Then it’s too bad all that intelligence doesn’t translate into truth, logic and common sense to all those cerebral geniuses Amy

        • Amy Wilborn

          Ahhh, but it does, but one has to be able to see and understand it

        • Jim Samaras

          Perhaps, but get brain cramps when it comes to their political views

        • grandpamike1

          Amy, you have proved your point judging from the responses .

        • grandpamike1

          Amy. You have proved your point, and realize that you cannot fix stupid.

        • Richard Haley

          Within my very inferior mind, I find it very difficult to understand the way liberals rationalize most everything. So I have come up with the following; Yes, liberals are very smart, have a truly great vocabulary, and can really write well, but, (and you must know there is always a but), there is one thing that the liberal mind cannot or will not be allowed to do, and that is the God given ability to reason things out.
          Or maybe the liberal mind just refuses to use that God given ability.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Actually, it is liberals who do the reasoning or they wouldn’t be the most intelligent, wouldn’t have most of the scientists, people in academia, etc. And they don’t talk about “God” a lot. Get a clue…

        • Richard Haley

          Yes, you must be right. But would you please enlighten me as to just one liberal policy that has withstood the test of time?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Social Security? Medicare? Or is this a trick question?

        • Richard Haley

          Yes Social Security is in great shape because all or most of the reserve has been stolen by the libs in Congress.
          Medicare, another great eater of money.
          So I think your attempt to portray the above is the real trick answer.

        • Michael Neville

          Anti-slavery for one. Universal sufferage (that’s a big word meaning “able to vote”) for another. Public education for a third (that’s until conservatives manage to take it away from us).

        • Richard Haley

          I do think it was the Republicans under Abe Lincoln that abolished slavery within this country.
          Universal sufferage would have happened anyway inspite of being liberal or conservative.
          And Public Education; Yes that has a really a great track record for excellecnce. How come every public school child is not as smart as you. You will never beat the opportunity of going to a private school. It is just too bad it is soooo expensive. Yet when you look at what a public school education cost per student, private school looks afforadable.

        • Michael Neville

          Lincoln’s Republicans were the liberal party then, now they’re the conservative party, as well you know.

          Conservatives fought tooth and nail against universal sufferage. It took liberals to get the property requirement removed and then to get women the right to vote. Now even minorities can vote, at least in states which don’t legislate against non-existent “voter fraud”.

          Before public education literacy was quite uncommon. Until about 1700 in England a legal proof that a commoner was a clergyman was literacy because only the clergy were taught to read and write. Nowadays, despite the efforts of conservatives, literacy is almost universal, thanks to public education.

          Now that we’ve got that sorted out, give me three things that conservatives have done to improve the country.

        • Amy Wilborn

          Well said

        • dconklin

          They know nothing of the Southern Strategy!

        • Richard Haley

          I can’t seem to find your last retort so I’m using this one. I hope you don’t mind.
          I saw that you didn’t give an answer to my last question posted below.
          Anyway, please go to the attached address for a great understanding of where I’m coming from.

          http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/04/carr_new_dem_glossary

          And of course I’ll be waiting for your most intelligent reply.

          Til then.

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL..try this and libs got “some” help to these, but they are mostly liberal:

          http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/12/150-achievements-of-liberalism-that-conservatives-seek-to-destroy/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          But once something becomes established and accepted, won’t the conservatives simply claim that for their own?

        • Amy Wilborn

          Probably, but no surprise!

        • Robert Jones

          It could.. But that doesn’t mean they will. The same could be said for your own party, but you conveniently ignore this simple equalization. What did I tell you about intellectual dishonesty?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What did I tell you about intellectual dishonesty?

          Oh dear. I hope I don’t get sent to sit in the corner.

          Why are you a mod if you can’t conversate honestly, and shift equity when relevant?

          I’m not just the moderator; I’m the host. This is my house, and you’re a guest at my party. I don’t mean to swing my dick around excessively; I’m just making a few points clear since you brought it up.

          As for the rest, I’m not sure what you’re concerned about.

          Why are mods even allowed to participate on political discourse?

          I have little interest in political discussions. I’m here to talk about Christianity and related topics (which does sometimes touch on politics, though I try to keep that to a minimum).

          If you have an important point that I ignored because it made no sense, explain it more clearly and I can try again.

        • Robert Jones

          FYI: If you classify yourself as a liberal, did you know that you’re actually calling yourself a liberty-loving conservative?

          Social liberalism IS conservatism, at its most elemental core. This is ultimately derived from what’s called “classical liberalism”.

          What were you saying again about low-information voters?

        • Amy Wilborn

          OMG, you just helped to prove how ignorant, nasty, and judgmental so many conservatives are….thanks!

        • Robert Jones

          You’re projecting Amy. Please stop. It’s almost embarrassing for me… Why?

          Because I feel like I’m in a conversation with children. IF you can’t be responsible for intellectual honesty, than that must really suck.

          I don’t pity you, but I wouldn’t want to be locked in your %@*#.

        • Robert Jones

          Confirmation bias. I see you learned not a g-d thing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So you’re saying that the conservatives want to imagine that God did it (or will do it) while the liberals are out there actually curing disease, solving problems, and discovering facts about reality?

        • Robert Jones

          Correction sir… on a few points… Liberals hardly own both absolute success and failure.

          About liberals. Most Americans don’t understand the technical definitions of labels. Liberals ARE Conservatives! Here in this thread, the term, “liberals” are referring to progressives/ neo-progressives, which currently share an alliance with Communism, as Bolshevism aligns with neo-communism. Again, neo-Bolshvists are in an agreement with progressives — which has been around for awhile, mainly from the Progressive rise in the early twentieth century — formerly Prussian in conception, and highly defended by Hegel of the day, which smoothly transitions into my point that Marx’s dialectical materialism, as it was a direct reaction of Hegelianism. Finally, the Democratic party has been infiltrated by all of the neos above, and have claimed to now be the “P” word, instead of the “L” one.

          You see, It really makes no sense for any republican/ conservative or right-leaning citizen of the U.S. to “hate” liberals…

          Liberals …achem.. PROGRESSIVES have jumped labels because they’ve been given a bad name over the years.

          Liberalism came from Classical liberalism, and it remains a core-republican principle. Progressivism has been alive and well within the Democratic echo-chambers, but as of late, these progressive-chambers create a sense of resentment, as Democrats have been exploited by a close-proximity philosophy near their trusted center, and as a result have been strewn apart/ divided and practically no longer physically existent; as an illusion only.

          Most of the world is far left of “American center”, contrasted with the U.S.’s far left, relative to the world’s.

          Many Americans just write off this critique as, “well the United States is different”. Uhh… No. Language is used for both informal and formal communication, which is vital in this post-postmodern economy… You don’t have a monopoly on words.. You can’t change definitions on a whim to suit your argument. How convenient.

          No… For every criticism you dish out, you must take from your own, to shift equity.. If not, than it’s obvious you have an agenda.

          I hold people to high expectations, yes… But I hold myself to much higher standards than the rest of you. I don’t believe you’re being intellectually dishonest, which is why I’ve taken the time to pump this out.. But intellectual dishonesty pisses me off the most.. I can’t stand that….and I will call anyone out, even if it brutally ruins my reputation…. whatever the $*(% that means!

          Best recognize.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I appreciate that “center” in the US is conservative in most of the rest of the world. I’m not sure what the rest of your comment was in support of.

        • MNb

          “Correct” semantics.
          To add to the confusion: socialism, including the Soviet-Russian version, comes from the same source as liberalism (whether any American or European version).

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Does it? Soviet socialism comes largely from Marx. (I’ve read Engels but not Marx, so I’m no expert.)

          While Marx had some insightful things to say (Peter Drucker said that he had an excellent understanding of technology change and its impact on society), I don’t see how he was the primary driver in Western socialism (I’m thinking here of whatever they have in Scandinavia).

        • MNb

          Marx didn’t operate in a vacuum either. Earlier examples of socialism are De Saint Simon, Proudhon and Robert Owen. Marx’ main innovation was a concrete version of Hegel’s dialectics.
          The version in Scandinavia, in Europe usually called social-democracy, stems from Germany and split at the end of the 19th Century. The most important name is Eduard Bernstein. The part of marxism he abandoned is the violence, ie the proletarian revolution.
          Bernie Sanders stands in that tradition.

        • melgoza

          Bravo, sir!

      • Keith Martin

        I guess you have proven Jim correct? I will correct your
        poor choice of grammar in your statement, “…liberals are not only more
        intelligent that conservatives,…” to, “more intelligent THAN
        conservatives.” Hasty
        generalizations are fallacies as well, look that up please! Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot you are a liberal! You will now blame everyone else for your problem!

      • Nick Basco

        Thanks for a great laugh! I needed it after a long day of working (you know, that thing us conservatives do to contribute to society and provide for our families)

      • Richard Haley

        And ALL of this research; is it not compiled by so-called liberal thinkers???

        • Susan

          And ALL of this research; is it not compiled by so-called liberal thinkers???

          I have no idea. Do you?

          Did you read the study? Do you see errors with its methodology?

        • Richard Haley

          Is this, or was this a rhetorical question???

          For an interesting set of contradictions to some of the really great statements by the liberal left, pleas try this address.

          http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2016/04/carr_new_dem_glossary

          And of course let me know your thoughts. I’ll be holding my breath!!!

        • Susan

          Is this, or was this a rhetorical question???

          No. I asked if you’ve read the study and, if so, do you see errors with its methods.

          It’s a straightfoward, reasonable question.

          Please answer it.

      • Smash Islamophobia

        So you would advocate for literacy tests for voters, then? Since you’re so confident that leftists are more intelligent, then that could only help your side, right?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nice rebuttal! That study you pointed to really makes your case.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Just pointing out a bit of an actions vs. words discrepancy there…

      • adopt from your local shelter

        If liberals are more intelligent than those on the Right, why do races with very low average IQs, such as blacks and Mexicans, vote democrat?

        Also, the research you’re citing is very outdated. Here’s the latest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODZ-RUufHgI

        • Amy Wilborn

          LOL…that’s not even a good try, and I feel sorry for you, as I do many cons who try so hard to make others think they are intelligent. There are tons of research out there; there is not enough room to list them all, and no matter the source, people like you are ALWAYS going to say “liberal bias.”
          But, also and very important….the video you provided is someone’s OPINION, and not a good one because there is no research to back it up! And he sounds downright stupid, sorry. he tries so hard to make his values seem..well….valuable, and they are not!
          The garbage that says blacks and Mexicans have low IQs was debunked decades ago..where have you been? There is no matter of opinion about it and it is not debatable. Try working on your self hatred..you may feel better eventually.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point. I’d forgotten that “the population of group A, on average, measures higher than that of group B” means that every single person in A is higher than every single person in B.

          And where did the “very low average IQs” shit come from? Citation, please. And anything from KKK.com doesn’t count.

    • https://www.facebook.com/david.lloydjones.391 David Lloyd-Jones

      Another example checks in. Thanks, Jim. You can go now.

    • Behr Palomo

      Ahhh, this is irony at a deeper level. Completely unsurprising, however.

  • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

    So what will stupid people do when they realize how stupid they really are? Suffer, that’s what. They won’t raise their intelligence because they can’t. So they avoid suffering by lying to themselves. Simple. High achievers underestimate their intelligence a bit because of modesty. That’s not too hard to understand either. The problem with individual differences is that they are biased only toward the high end and self-evaluations are not accurate because of this bias. When there is a livable and abundant and beautiful world for everyone regardless of their biology nobody will have an inaccurate self-assessment.

    • TheNuszAbides

      They won’t raise their intelligence because they can’t.

      that almost reads like a roleplaying game handbook. intelligence is awareness of relevant information. i’m not saying everyone lacking in this awareness is trying or would necessarily have sufficient motivation to correct the problem, but the question of specific ramifications of “realize how stupid they are” is begged regardless. it seems like your blanket statement could stand to be reworded for accuracy.

      When there is a livable and abundant and beautiful world for everyone regardless of their biology nobody will have an inaccurate self-assessment.

      a worthy vision. i wish i were optimistic about its eventuality.

    • jlothar

      I would say high achievers underestimate their intelligence because they are more aware of the things they do not know.

      • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

        yah..it makes them humble….or “modest”.

        • Behr Palomo

          or just more aware that there’s a lot more to it than it seems. This reminds me of when I was first starting college and feeling like an adult. On/around my birthday, I would reflect back on the year before and usually I would think, “Ha! I was such a dummy back then, I thought I had it all figured out but there was so much I didn’t know. Now I have it all figured out.” Repeat one year later, then again one year later… After a few years of this I started to think, “Wait a second… didn’t I say that LAST year? Hmmmm… maybe I DON’T have it all figured out.”

        • Richard Haley

          I like your reasoning!!!

      • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

        and there is still nothing like the suffering of people who KNOW they are being abused by other people, the universe and bloody GOD HIMSELF only because they have a harder time SURVIVING on their own….and only because of a fluke of “nature”. The ultimate eternal target for a BLIND MATERIALISTIC MANKIND which thrives on mindless animal head-butting “competition”. And nobody despises a “loser” like shaky-ego “average” yokels because it takes all the artificial grace and dignity out of the game itself. There’s simply NO PLACE for those people so of course their entire sorry existence is suffering. Duh. And it ALL STINKS TO HELLLLLL.

  • Danny Danelo

    Thank god I’m an atheist.

    • Richard Haley

      Too bad you are soooo closed minded!!???
      And I would bet that every time you stub your toe you call out to Jesus!~!!!

      • Michael Neville

        I don’t, I call out to random fluctuations of the space-time continuum.

      • T Jensen

        Went right over your head, didn’t it?
        Humor. It’s a great concept that you should explore.

  • https://www.facebook.com/david.lloydjones.391 David Lloyd-Jones

    Related: Sweden has the lowest rate of self-reported Christianity in the industrial world.

    My guess is that a whole lot of Socialists, living out Christian values, take the position “I try, but I’m not good enough at it to call myself a Christian.”

    -dlj.

  • Tim

    Explains Republican smugness.

    • Bobcat

      Ha! I was thinking just the opposite.

      • Paul B. Lot

        You were thinking that it explains Republican humility?

        • Bobcat

          Nah, Democrat pseudo superiority, but I’ll accept all politicians and 90% of bureaucrats.

      • Michael Toso

        Why is the flexible “freedom for everyone” considered a threat to conservatives?

  • adopt from your local shelter

    This explains John Oliver, The Daily Show, The Young Turks and Bill Maher fans. They don’t offer arguments. They crack a couple of jokes and pat their fans on the head. They assure their fans they’re smart. This inflates the Leftists’ egos and causes leads them to act extremely smug. Many Leftists are so deluded that they don’t even believe in IQ or intelligence differences between the races. A lot of them don’t even believe race exists at all. Millions of years of evolution, in their minds, had no effect on cognitive development between the races. The Left is an antiscience mafia.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkBpCWdT3EM
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaJeAkikuBE
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4bYtNIz0CA

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I sit in awe at your wisdom. Tell us more of what we don’t understand.

      Start with climate change.

      • Smash Islamophobia

        Have you ever noticed that, when leftists know that they cannot support their argument empirically, they often try to change the subject to a completely different topic? Just curious.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Leftists not being able to support their argument empirically? No, I hadn’t noticed that. Give me an example.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          See the race creationists above. Pure , undiluted “moral” posturing and feelz. The other side has empirical support; the blank-slaters have none.

          And of course– still trying to change the subject, I see.

    • Paul B. Lot

      “This inflates the Leftists’ egos and causes leads them to act extremely smug.”

      I heard on the Daily Show that if you pee on it, it’ll stop stinging.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        No, you’re thinking of vinegar. Or something.

        • T Jensen

          Why would you pee on vinegar?

          But seriously, I think we should all thank “Adopt” for providing such a shining example of what the author is saying. Well done, Sir of Madame. Providing a video no one could watch was a touch of genius. :)

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Not sure that smugness and snark, completely devoid of content, does much to support your case…

        • Paul B. Lot

          Not sure that smugness and snark, completely devoid of content, does much to support your case…

          And yet, paradoxically, “completely devoid of content” perfectly describes 80% of your ideology.

        • Carole

          Redox? Urea –> NH3, which neutralises the acetic acid.

    • Kalin

      You’re a special kind of stupid. Race doesn’t exist. Race is a man made word created by slave owners in the 1500’s. IQ does not equate intelligence, IQ is just a measurement of what you have memorized.

      • adopt from your local shelter
      • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

        Of course race exists, how can an anthropologist dig up a ten thousand year old skeleton and determine the race after a cursory examination? You may as well claim that dog breeds don’t exist.

      • Smash Islamophobia

        You are simply regurgitating a faith-based, quasi-religious belief that you have been conditioned to accept as the “fashionable” position for “right-thinking” people. There is no empirical support for your position. If you end up needing a bone marrow transplant, try telling the oncologists that “race doesn’t exist.” They will disagree…

        Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning.
        http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

        Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.”
        http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

        “Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

      • John W

        The idea that race does not exist is so manifestly untrue and absurd that only white people can be stupid enough to believe it.

      • John W

        The idea that IQ tests are a test of memory is complete and utter garbage. Anyone who has ever seen an IQ test will know this. Try to use facts and evidence and try to think seriously about things and not type the first feel good thing that comes into your head.

    • Carole

      Especially that dim bulb Stephen Jay Gould, who was so influenced by leftist claptrap that he had the unmitigated gall to challenge the concept of biological determinism (including the well-respected science of craniometry!) in The Mismeasure of Man. And that imposter Svante Pääbo, who claims that 4% of our DNA is from Neanderthals. Everybody knows that Neanderthals were invented by Satan worshippers to fraudulently cast doubt on the Pentateuch. And those goofball paleoanthropologists who came up with the “Out of Africa” theory that all modern humans migrated out of Africa. How could anyone possibly believe that any White People came out of Africa?

    • phisch99

      Plus, they state a lot of facts. What dummies.

      • adopt from your local shelter

        “state a lot of facts” = give a lot of spin

        • phisch99

          As they say, the facts have a well known liberal bias.

        • adopt from your local shelter
        • Myna A.

          Yes, those rascally IQ-crime correlations. We’ve had some high functioning criminals in the White House and in the Corporate Banking machine. Must be a difference in IQ of white collar as opposed to blue collar. Must mean the higher the IQ of the criminal and the shirt he wears, the more the criminal benefits, yes?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Perhaps some actual facts/ statistics would be of help in constructing a rational argument, rather than pure, undiluted feelz.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Walk the walk. Handwaving without evidence doesn’t help support your claim that someone else handwaved without evidence.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This is your chance to show those useless Leftists how it’s done. When not even you are walking the walk, one questions your initial high and mighty position.

        • Myna A.

          If I do say, I assumed criminal activity occurring in high places among those with substantial IQs was common knowledge…and the criminal mind not a charted predisposition.

          Need we go into Watergate? http://watergate.info/

          With regard to the banking system:

          The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings on the global financial crisis in January 2011 which concluded, in part, “systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels” Read full article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%9308

          The “Must be” aspect of the comment was a satirical reflection in response to IQ and criminal behavior…or did your own limitation somehow fail to miss it?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Watergate- isn’t that the “scandal” where Nixon deleted 30 seconds of tape, and it was the crime of the century? Yet Lois Lerner deleting 30,000+ emails in an effort to cover up Obama’s use of the IRS to target his political enemies, or Hillary deleting 30,000+ emails in an effort to cover up multiple felonies, is a mere detail, somehow….

          Wouldn’t want to mention inconvenient facts such as, say, that 98% of shootings in NYC in 2014 were committed by nonwhites, either…

        • Greg G.

          The Watergate scandal was when the Republicans broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters and President Nixon was complicit in the cover-up for political purposes. It was far worse than the deletion of a few seconds of tape. You are also ill-informed on more current events.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Way to miss the point…

        • Greg G.

          Your weakness in evidence is not compensated by your proclivity for exaggeration. The topic of the main article is Dunning-Kruger Effect. You seem to be a prime example.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Way to miss the point…

          The [name of the scandal] IS the [name of the hotel that housed the DNC headquarters.]

          [Watergate scandal] = [Watergate hotel]

          No, I don’t think he is the one shooting off-target.

          Nice try though.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This isn’t a political blog.

        • phisch99

          Now you’re being absurd.

        • adopt from your local shelter

          I’m guessing you’re one of those on the left side of this chart. You can’t run from science forever. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d345a9b00586a67c6f0ec71836b6b49623b18492f803525b619227ddb56007c1.jpg

        • Greg G.

          Here’s a chart of body weight by region that correlates fairly well with your chart.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight#By_region

          Looks like brain size correlates closely with body size.

        • adopt from your local shelter

          No it doesn’t, your link proves the opposite.

          > East Asians have the largest brains on average, yet they weigh less than Africans.

          > Africans weigh more than East Asians on average (as your wiki-link shows), yet Africans have smaller brains than East Asians.

          The two upvotes you got from your friends shows you’re not actually interested in what’s true.

        • Greg G.

          Your bias is showing. Neither the chart I linked to nor your graphic mention East Asians.

          The lower table on the Wikipedia page has South Korea’s average size by gender. If we let that represent East Asians, then notice that the average weight of South Korean women are nearly as heavy as the average Asian. So the Asians with the largest brains are also large people.

          Remember that the brain doesn’t gain weight or volume as a person becomes overweight, so it would be more accurate to eliminate the percentage of those who are overweight.

          But that is just my interest in what is true.

          Your upvotes have come from avatars who have no history here yet appear in a thread that is more than a year old. Are they your friends or your sock-puppets?

        • Susan

          You can’t run from science forever.

          No.

          Now, blue whales for brain size in cubic centimeters outranks your standard for every single human.

          Also, what are your IQ standards and how do they correlate with intelligence?

          Show us your science.

        • adopt from your local shelter
        • Paul B. Lot

          You’re failing to take the brain-to-body-size ratio into consideration.

          She’s not “failing to take [it] into consideration” so much as you failed to mention it before your buddy @smash_islamophobia:disqus rode in to save you.

        • adopt from your local shelter

          No. Its argument was ‘whales have bigger brains, therefore brain size is meaningless’, and that argument is flawed because humans have the largest brains relative to their body size — and all the different races have different average brain sizes — and it just so happens that the humans with the largest brains have the Highest IQs, and the humans who have the smallest brains have the Lowst IQs. But I’m sure that’s due to White racism and bigotry…

        • Paul B. Lot

          Its argument was ‘whales have bigger brains, therefore brain size is meaningless’, and that argument is flawed

          That argument is, indeed, flawed. It is so very flawed that I beg your leave to doubt that @disqus_xYWVllyPLU:disqus was attempting to make it.

          Here’s the deal, old chap: Susan is smart. She’s a great deal smarter than you, and she is not the type of person to make things up or put argumentative horses ahead of their logical carts.

          YOU used, have used several times now, a chart which merely graphs the dependent variable of [brain size in cubic centimeters] against [ethnicity]. ****

          YOU did this.

          Susan then presented an example of an animal with a larger brain than [any ethnicity] – an animal which should, based on the simplistic relationship [intelligence is absolutely proportional to brain-size], be more intelligent than any and all humans.

          I doubt very much that any of us would agree to the conclusion “blue whales are smarter than any and all humans”. Therefore, this one example debunks the simplistic relationship [intelligence is absolutely proportional to brain-size].

          THAT is what Susan did. She destroyed that relationship. (And she only needed to use one example to do so! Such parsimony.)

          The argument you are pretending she made is, indeed, flawed – but she didn’t make it. You’re constructing a “straw man”.

          Do you know what a “straw man” argument is, @ak2976:disqus ? I can help explain that to you later as well, if you like.


          humans have the largest brains relative to their body size — and all the different races have different average brain sizes — and it just so happens that the humans with the largest brains have the Highest IQs, and the humans who have the smallest brains have the Lowst IQs

          Let’s take a look at your statement here, closely.

          A) First, you talk about [brain size] to [body size] ratios. (Body mass?)

          Next, you talk about average [brain size] for different [ethnicities].

          Next up, we’re told that [large brain size] is (causally?) linked to [higher IQ].

          Finally, the shoe drops and we learn that [smallest brains] have [the Lowst IQs] (sic – oh, the irony).

          You didn’t tie [relative brain/body ratios], which you start talking about, to the rest of your rambling, which was about [absolute brain size].

          So while you doth protest much that [relative brain/body ratios] are the important metric (to get away from the importance of the Blue Whale counter example)….you never USE that metric.

          B) So I’m goint to talk about the “encephalization quotient”, since you forgot to.

          Let’s pretend like the graph you used was comprised of valid data, and let’s also pretend that it’s recent valid data. ***

          The data from your

          http://imgur.com/7KBeP2z

          …erhm…graph looks like this in a spreadsheet:

          http://imgur.com/w1olxE7

          No doubt it paints you a picture that you are quite happy to see, caucasian as I assume you are.

          But what happens if we introduce that other variable you were talking about. After all, if pure brain size were the only metric, the Blue Whale would be relevant…and you’ve already assured us it was definitely not relevant…

          http://imgur.com/oaGKox9

          Uh oh. Now that we’re introduce body mass and “EQ”, the picture’s not looking so good. But maybe you don’t realize how not good it looks. I’m guessing you’re not very smart, nor very skilled at reading data. Let me re-order it for you, from highest to lowest “EQ”:

          http://imgur.com/fT0elwo

          Ooooph. That doesn’t look like the picture you want to believe in, anymore, does it?

          It gets worse if we add in North American average weight, and assume similar brain size to European (a WAG):

          http://imgur.com/k8OAaPD

          The absolute lowest “EQ”.

          :)

          Sources:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_weight
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d345a9b00586a67c6f0ec71836b6b49623b18492f803525b619227ddb56007c1.jpg
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia
          http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/22/2/289.full.pdf
          http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/apjcn/4/1/69.htm

          * “Amerindians” was a tough group to get data on, this body mass was a WAG.
          ** adopt’s …. graph….didn’t have an entry for NA
          *** I don’t believe this data for a second, but EVEN IF we assume it’s true, the story it tells is not the one these dumbfucks are telling themselves.@smash_islamophobia:disqus @augur mayson @Vanita5:disqus

          **** Or purports to – I have seen no source data, nor even an attribution

        • Greg G.

          I think it is true that there is a correlation between larger brains and higher capabilities. It is also likely from genetic drift or selection pressures that some populations will have different ratios of traits. But Individuals can be smarter than their ancestry so they should be judged according to their own abilities, if you feel the need to judge people.

          So, yes, it is racism and bigotry to judge individuals according to the averages of their racial background.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Brain folding
          Neuronal density
          Blood flow
          Nutrient content
          Electrical signaling speed
          Trauma/plaque/clotting

          Behavior? Stimuli? Differential growth/development periods?

          There’s so many god damn variables at play, when we try to talk about “intelligence”, that these jokers have no interest in, or ability to, discussing.

          Better to play their own stupid little games, imho, and show how even when they set up their own rules of evidence, they lose.

        • Susan

          You’re failing to take the brain-to-body-size ratio into consideration.

          That would have meant me attacking a strawman. You failed to introduce the brain-to-body-size ration into your graph.

          The brain isn’t just for thinking.

          That’s for sure.

          it also runs your heart, kidneys, liver etc.

          Do you have any idea how it does that?

          Or do you think you can just gather your friends, show some graphs for which you provide no context, link some quotes for which you can provide no context and accuse everyone who doesn’t take you seriously of being a dirty liberal?

          Why do you assume there are nothing but dirty liberals at a site that questions the claims of christianity?

        • adopt from your local shelter

          I shouldn’t have to mention the brain-to-body-size ratio. I was only talking about humans. An argument was introduced claiming that brain size doesn’t matter “because whales”. That argument was refuted.

          I accuse people of being “Liberals” because they deny IQ differences between the races. Liberals deny IQ differences between the races because it’s hostile to the Left’s “secret racist White supremacist conspiracy against minorities” narrative: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzmnjg6AC6U

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The ethnic mix of the United States is changing, as it always has. People don’t like change, so people push back against this change, as they always have.

          There–it’s not a secret anymore.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I shouldn’t have to mention the brain-to-body-size ratio.

          If something is important for your point, and you leave it out, you have no one to blame but yourself.

          Grow a pair, admit that you left something out, and stop being a whining child.


          I was only talking about humans.

          And? Humans vary pretty dramatically in size and shape.

          If we plug in the body masses for the groups in your chart, the brain-to-body-size ratio comes out like this:
          http://imgur.com/k8OAaPD

          Bushmen have the highest ratio, you chump.


          An argument was introduced claiming that brain size doesn’t matter “because whales”.

          No such argument was introduced. Blue whales (and all other mammals with larger brains than we) were introduced to cast doubt on the [brain-size] to [intelligence] causal relationship you tried to establish.

          FYI, I don’t expect you to respond to my posts any more. I imagine they are too scary for you to tackle.

          Hell, I’m impressed that you’ve managed to both breath and type simultaneously for long enough stretches to put these idiotic posts together.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          This is why sociology majors shouldn’t try to babble about actual science. Do a search for “encephalization quotient.” You’re welcome.

        • Greg G.

          Searching for “encephalization quotient” shows that it is used to compare species. What I find about the encephalization quotient within the human species is anecdotal evidence that it doesn’t apply. Anatole France won a Nobel Prize with a rather small brain.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Read the post I was responding to. Note the pointless “blue whale” reference. I’m not going to bother responding to the typically-feeble leftist “special snowflake” attempt at a rejoinder.

        • Greg G.

          I see you are also running from her question: “Also, what are your IQ standards and how do they correlate with intelligence?”

        • Susan

          Note the pointless blue whale reference

          It was not a pointless response to a graph depicting cubic centimetres.

          I am aware of the encephelization quotient but that was introduced after the fact.

          I am also aware that there are many things correlated with crime rates and many factors that affect brain development.

          You’re not interested in science, as far as I can tell.

          I agree with MNb.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Read the post I was responding to. Note the pointless “blue whale” reference.

          Pointless because…..?

          She directly responded to @ak2976:disqus ‘s cubic-centimeter chart.

          Now you’ve shifted the goal-posts – a feeble-minded tactic if ever there was one. Grow a pair and learn to focus on one topic at a time.

          But, instead of having balls or taking your ADHD meds, you pivot away from “cubic centimeters” to talk about another metric, “encephalization quotient”.

          So now you’ve got an e-peen hard-on for a hypothetical rough estimate of the expected brain-mass to body-mass ratio?

          Wiki:Even so, it is noteworthy that Neanderthals, which became extinct about 40,000 years ago, had larger brains than modern Homo sapiens.Not all investigators are happy with the amount of attention that has been paid to brain size. Roth and Dicke, for example, have argued that factors other than size are more highly correlated with intelligence, such as the number of cortical neurons and the speed of their connections.[42] Moreover, they point out that intelligence depends not just on the amount of brain tissue, but on the details of how it is structured. It is also well known that crows, ravens, and African gray parrots are quite intelligent even though they have small brains.

        • Myna A.

          Maybe even beyond absurd. Some place deeply fractured. Who argues for the right to denigrate fellow human beings for the shade of their skin?

        • phisch99

          This is something out of the 19th century, and we liberals are supposedly at war with these “facts.”

        • adopt from your local shelter

          How are 2010 crime stats from the 19th century?

        • Myna A.

          From The American Association of Physical Anthropologists:

          AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Race:

          “Popular conceptualizations of race are derived from 19th and early 20th century scientific formulations. These old racial categories were based on externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying
          skeleton. They were often imbued with nonbiological attributes, based on social constructions of race. These categories of race are rooted in the scientific traditions of the 19th century, and in even earlier philosophical traditions which presumed that immutable visible traits
          can predict the measure of all other traits in an individual or a population. Such notions have often been used to support racist doctrines. Yet old racial concepts persist as social conventions that foster institutional discrimination.”

          Read full statement here: http://physanth.org/about/position-statements/biological-aspects-race/

        • 90Lew90

          Are you able to walk and talk at the same time?

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          Now hold on, the races are biologically different, I mean, it;s something you can see with your own eyes. I don’t think the difference is substantial, but we’re not close minded here. Let’s not just shut off our brains and avert our eyes to information we don’t like.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Now hold on, the races are biologically different, I mean, it;s [sic] something you can see with your own eyes.

          I am biologically different from both my mother….AND my father.

          DUHN DUHN DUHN

          I mean, it’s something you can see with your own eyes.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          Are you saying that artist are not heritable and you don;’t share more DNA with your parents than an African or an Asian? Are you seriously denying racial differences?

        • Paul B. Lot

          I am seriously stating that there are “biological” and “genetic” differences between even the two-most-closely-related-humans-possibly-imaginable: “identical” twins.

          http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/random_noise_in_biology_why_genetically_identical_twins_aren_t_identical.html

          I am seriously stating that there are “biological” and “genetic” differences within individual human beings.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD6h-wDj7bw

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

          https://threecatyard.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/venuscat.jpg

          Wow, right?

          It’s almost as if science and biology and genetics are really complicated.

          Maybe sociology and politics and government and pedagogy are too?

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          That’s a false equivalency has has no bearing on the existence of race.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Do, please, elaborate.

          What is the criterion, or are the criteria, which render(s) [the genetic differences between “identical twins”, and even within women and chimeras] NOT a suitable comparison for [the genetic differences between ethnic groups]?

          Come on, bruh. You’re all about reason and logic and evidence: here’s your chance!

          Take these scales from off mine eyes – show me THE TRUTH.

        • MNb

          It seems to me he is more vanity than reason.

        • Carole

          X-inactivation! Explains why my mother-in-law is functionally colourblind and hemophilic, when she his heterozygous for those traits.

          Epigenetics! Explains why my mother, an identical twin, is phenotypically different from her twin sister.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Who denies reality in order to demonstrate their allegiance t the progressive establishment?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          “The facts are on my side!”
          Facts that refute your position are presented.
          “Facts are absurd!”
          Who says leftists are comical?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Wiki:The largest brains are those of sperm whales, weighing about 8 kg (18 lb). An elephant’s brain weighs just over 5 kg (11 lb), a bottlenose dolphin’s 1.5 to 1.7 kg (3.3 to 3.7 lb), whereas a human brain is around 1.3 to 1.5 kg (2.9 to 3.3 lb).

          Wiki:Even so, it is noteworthy that Neanderthals, which became extinct about 40,000 years ago, had larger brains than modern Homo sapiens.Not all investigators are happy with the amount of attention that has been paid to brain size. Roth and Dicke, for example, have argued that factors other than size are more highly correlated with intelligence, such as the number of cortical neurons and the speed of their connections.[42] Moreover, they point out that intelligence depends not just on the amount of brain tissue, but on the details of how it is structured. It is also well known that crows, ravens, and African gray parrots are quite intelligent even though they have small brains.

    • Myna A.

      Many Leftists are so deluded that they don’t even believe in IQ or intelligence differences between the races.

      WTF????

      “Exploration of the genome has shown that all humans, whatever their
      race, share the same set of genes. Each gene exists in a variety of
      alternative forms known as alleles, so one might suppose that races have
      distinguishing alleles, but even this is not the case. A few alleles
      have highly skewed distributions but these do not suffice to explain the
      difference between races. The difference between races seems to rest on the subtle matter of relative allele frequencies. The overwhelming
      verdict of the genome is to declare the basic unity of humankind.”

      http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/

      • adopt from your local shelter

        Your reply has nothing to do with intelligence differences between the races, so you’re off topic. But to your point: Humans are closely related to chimps too, but we’re completely different species > http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html

        Small genetic variations make completely different species, so your plea that “we’re genetically similar to other humans therefore there are no differences” is beyond ridiculous.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1fd4c595c8dc754ac5171e064cb4675268296bed393f53fd177838783d4fbd0.jpg

        • Myna A.

          My plea?? You really ARE beyond absurd. It is clear you did not read the link provided at the end of the article’s excerpt.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          He has a point, the races do differ biologically. Maybe we shouldn’t be so closed minded. Belief contrary to evidence is tantamount to faith, aren’t we better than those that believe in magic sky fairies?

        • Myna A.

          I offered a link to greater information, which, it appears, you have also opted against both reading and comprehending in favor of fostering ignorance.

          As it is, this interaction has become an exercise in futility and having entered into it a grave error in judgement. My bad.

          Any may feel free to throw the final dung from the cage built around themselves. I’ll let it hit the door on my way out to breathe the fresh Summer air.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          I am aware of all the outrageous propaganda surrounding this, but I will not deny the evidence of my own eyes in favour of ideological nonsense. Traits are heritable, race is common ancestry., human populations have been separated for long enough that obvious differences have evolved. Denying this is tantamount to insanity. Further, this position is held ONLY in the West, Chinese, Korean and Japanese scientist and geneticists all acknowledge race. Denial of race is nothing more than propaganda to excuse mass immigration and multiculturalism, the secular religion of the West.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Relevance to religion?

        • Susan

          Relevance to religion?

          None.

          Their commenting histories are easy to check.

        • Paul B. Lot

          [some/many/most*] Chinese, Korean and Japanese scientist [sic] and geneticists all acknowledge race

          Racism exists elsewhere? I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked.

          It’s almost as if “[some/many/most?] Chinese, Korean, and Japanese scientist [sic] and geneticists” are also human, and thus also prey to the same cognitive biases and logical fallacies which plague your brain.

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          Acknowledging race is racist?

          Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and co-discoverer of DNA:

          “We need to get rid of our liberal preconceptions. Men are not born equal, this is something which has not yet got through to the politicians, and it is by no means clear that all races are equally gifted.”

          Forensic anthropologist George W. Gill, in 2000:

          “The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true.”

          Whites and blacks evolved separately for 60K+ years and there are major genetic/biological differences between them throughout the body and mind.

          Body proportions. Whites have longer torsos, wider waists, and shorter arms and legs than blacks.

          Bone density. Whites have lower bone density, greater incidence of osteoporotic fractures, and more bone regrowth than blacks.

          Muscularity. Whites have a lower ratio of fast switch to slow twitch muscles than blacks, and a lower frequency of ACTN3 “speed gene”.

          Metabolic rate. Whites have a lower resting metabolism than blacks, in both sexes and regardless of obesity.

          Fat storage. Whites have a higher proportion of visceral (internal) fat and lower subcutaneous (skin) fat than blacks. Blacks also tend to have Steatopygia: large butt fat.

          Disease susceptibility. Some diseases (Cystic Fibrosis) affect mostly whites; others mostly blacks (Sickle Cell). Many illnesses and treatments have disparate effects on whites/blacks.

          Birth rate. Whites have a lower rate of fraternal (two egg) twin births than blacks, only half as high prior to fertility drugs. Lower birthrates are biologically correlated with higher parental investment.

          Pregnancy. Whites normally have a longer gestation period (40 to 39 weeks) and a lower preterm birth rate than blacks; black fetuses mature quicker.

          Maturation rate. White youths mature slower than blacks across all developmental indices, including infant motor skills, pubertal growth, and menstruation. Slower maturation is biologically correlated with higher intelligence.

          Hormones. White young men have lower free testosterone than blacks, and white men and women have lower estrogen than blacks. Whites are less hormone-driven.

          Aggression. Blacks have over 10x higher frequency of the violence-linked gene allele MAOA-2R than whites.

          Skull shape. Whites’ skulls typically differ from blacks’ in many respects: no sagittal ridge keeling, eye sockets more angular, nasal cavity narrower, palate more triangular, jaw less prognathic, etc.

          Brain size and structure. Whites’ brains are typically 6-8% larger than blacks’. Larger brains are correlated with higher intelligence. Whites’ brains also have differing structure, with more protruding frontal and occipital regions.

          IQ and genes. Whites consistently score 15 points (1SD) higher than Black Americans and 20+ points higher than Africans on IQ tests; this gap being genetically based. Gene alleles linked to intelligence have higher frequency in Whites than blacks.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your point? If you’re saying that in your opinion “race” remains an important concept, then state that and let it go.

        • Myna A.

          A part of me wishes I hadn’t noted the recent comment section, because it compels a quick drive-by to say:

          Gill’s argument has always been untenable. Atwood Gaines dismantles any notion of scientific race in: A Companion to Psychological Anthropology: Modernity and Psychocultural Change.

          And a prestigious award does not equal personal honor.
          Both Crick and James Watson (co-discoverers of the structure of DNA along with Maurice Wilkins) were denounced for going beyond molecular biology into the realm of their own racist ideologies. It was also discovered Crick and Watson took the key evidence, Photo 51, produced by Ray Gosling under supervision of Rosalind Franklin, without Franklin’s knowledge.

          It is still debated whether Franklin would have made the discovery on her own, but it is known that Crick and Watson helped themselves to her and Gosling’s evidence. Franklin had died of cancer four years before the award was given.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_51

        • MNb

          “Body proportions.”
          This is plain stupid.
          The Dutch and Swiss are the longest people in the world.
          White Americans are fatter than Dutch and Swiss – they suffer far more from obesitas.
          Hence white Americans according to you belong to a different race than the Dutch and the Swiss, because they have different body proportions.
          That (which makes the concept of race meaningless, as always) or you’re simply cherry picking empirical data (which makes your argument invalid).

          Also, like every single racist who pretends to be scientific, you don’t even try to make clear that eventual average differences between two races (whatever those races are) are more significant than differences between two individual members of the same race. This equally applies to men who enjoy to ponder about the differences between men and women. As long as you can’t do that you produce nothing but baked air.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Acknowledging race is racist?

          It certainly can be, given a set of circumstances.

          On the other hand, I would say that if one is having a discussion where the appropriate definitions are set, and care is taken to be precise and unambiguous, and rules of evidence and logic are followed, then once could have a productive discussion about “race” without being “a racist”.

          (I don’t think that you have any of those requisite skills, by the way, but I don’t state that it can not be done.)

        • http://imgur.com/ZU6tE5q Vanitas

          You’re a puritanical zealot.

        • Paul B. Lot

          You’re a puritanical zealot.

          Doubtful.

          I was raised Catholic, and I’m an atheist now.

          I drink, I eat too much, I smoke, I dance, I have extra-marital relations…

          Puritanical“….doesn’t seem to fit.

          What seems more likely is that you don’t much like it when people point out exactly to what degree you are a fucking imbecile.

          You seem like an idiot who doesn’t know he’s an idiot – who gets flustered when other people use big words and sound logic to counter what he knows to be true.

          The kind of idiot who, in a sad attempt at insult, would misuse a word like “puritanical.”

          :)

        • melonhead

          Vanitas – some appeal from authority:

        • John W

          MRI scans have revealed that Oriental brains (East Asians) are on average 15 cubic centimetres larger than white brains. Orientals average about 105 on IQ tests, whereas whites average around 100.

          Orientals do all those things we associate with populations with a high IQ: relative to whites, they have low rates of crime, they have low rates of illegitimacy, they do well at school, have stable families, acquire professional and academic qualifications, and are generally more accomplished.

          Darwin’s theory of evolution, which all intelligent and educated people are supposed to accept, predicts that populations, once they become divided, through migration or accident, will, as a result of differing environmental pressures, begin to diverge in their physical characteristics. (If this goes on long enough a completely new species might evolve.) So it is entirely in line with the theory of evolution that Orientals should have, on average, a higher IQ than whites, since whites and Orientals were indeed separated for tens of thousands of years, and the brain is an organ of the body just like any other. Indeed it would require a miracle for whites and Orientals to be precisely the same in every characteristic, which I suppose would prove the existence of God.

          This is why people who pretend to believe that whites and Orientals have the same average IQ, in the face of the veritable mountain of evidence that shows that orientals are more intelligent, are called “liberal Creationists”.

        • Paul B. Lot

          He has a point, the races do differ biologically.

          My brother and I differ biologically as well.

        • melonhead

          Sure – but you differ a lot less than you and some South Indian. Who differs less than that, from his neighboring South Indian.

          Here’s Richard Dawkins, from “The Extended Phenotype” (somewhere – a page number would be nice, I know. Anyway: ) “The fact that human races aren’t categorized as separate subspecies is an insult to me and the objective work of evolutionary biologists. There is more than enough evidence out there to conclude that we’re separate subspecies with different ways of functioning neurologically.”

          and:

          “This new age of modern progressives refusing evidence that contradicts their worldview is alarming. We as a society need to rethink our ways of biased thinking”.

          But on the other side, when, about 2 months ago he was asked on Twitter whether race was biological he affirmed it vigorously (I just don’t remember his words). “But”, he went on, “it doesn’t matter, we are all human.”

          So he’s not an evil racist, but – /subspecies/, yo.

        • MNb

          You don’t have to be an evil racist to recognize that in any given human society several distinguishable ethnic groups coexist.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surinamese_people

          The question is about biological relevance. Just a quote is not enough. I’d like to see that neurological evidence first. So I googled a bit and found exactly nothing.

        • melonhead

          They’re working on it – personality and intelligence properties are polygenic, which is why our IQ bell curve is so smooth. Bruce Lahn found one a while ago that was racially non-uniformly distributed:

          (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn):

          “””His research on the microcephaly-associated gene, MCPH1, led to the hypothesis that an archaic Homo sapiens lineage such as the Neanderthals might have contributed to the recent development of the human brain.[2] His research also suggested that newly arisen variants of two brain size genes, ASPM and MCPH1, might have been favored by positive natural selection in the recent human history.[3] This research provoked controversy due to the finding that the positively selected variants of these genes had spread to higher frequencies in some parts of the world than in others (for ASPM, it is higher in Europe and surrounding regions than other parts of the world; for MCPH1, it is higher outside sub-Saharan Africa than inside).[4] He has advocated the moral position that human genetic diversity should be embraced and celebrated as among humanity’s great assets.[5]”””

          They’re working on sorting out more genes for IQ, we’ll see how they’re distributed racially. But, there are natural experiments, of different-raced people bring brought up in similar environments, achieving differently. Did you know that poor US whites do better than much better off blacks, eg? Anyway if you want to know which genes to point to it’ll be a few years yet, especially as no-one wants to fund anything that could uncover race differences. Like Lahn above – he lost his funding and had to change research areas over it.

        • MNb

          “Did you know that poor US whites do better than much better off blacks”
          Like the most of your comment this has exactly nothing to do with neuro(bio)logy.

          “They’re working on it”
          Then I’ll await the results. And if you’d care as much about science as you claim you would too. You’re not a “race realist” – you only care about realism as long as it confirms your political views or you would have omitted stuff like “We want to knock down the hard insistence on the ideology of equality.” Thus far I fail to see any difference between your position and the nazi search for evidence for white supremacy – which had exactly the same purpose.

        • melonhead

          No, I want truth, or what is most likely, and not be led around by what would be nice to be true. I came out of Christianity, another ‘ideology’ that’s nice but bullshit. Science is done by statistics (all of psychologyeg ) as well as knowing the mechanism – it’s just an earlier phase. FWIW I’ve heard of the Nigerian Ibo / Igbo who are (at least) as smart as whites – good for them – North East Asians are the largest group smarter than whites, European Jews at or near the top, Indian Parsis (I think). So not a supremacist, though we did invent the modern world and everyone wants to live in our countries so we’ve got /something/ going for us.

          But you take your time in denial, if you’re a truth seeker you’ll get there.

        • MNb

          “take your time in denial”
          is not nearly the same as

          “Then I’ll await the results.”
          So much for you wanthing truth.

        • melonhead

          I bet you’re a person of color – I don’t expect you to ever accept something that your self-esteem hinges on not accepting. It’s not so bad though – I know whites aren’t the top, yet I survive. You no doubt have smarter and dumber relatives, friends, and co-workers, yet you survive. We’re all afraid of letting the Nazi cat out of the bag, I think.

        • MNb

          “I bet …”
          You lost. I’m Himmler’s dream: blond hair, greyblue eyes.
          The fact that you were willing to make this bet confirms that you don’t want truth but are the one in denial. You’re just a lying racist who’s only interested in confirming your prejudices, incapable of imagining an Aryan stereotype being anti racist.

          “no doubt have smarter and dumber relatives, friends, and co-workers.”
          No doubt. Here are some coloured guys smarter than me:

          https://mustafazadehrashid.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/abdussalam_m_0730.jpg

          http://bydonnashana.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/maurice-ashley2.jpg
          http://www.newscientist.nl/assets/Tyson_-_Apollo_40th_anniversary_2009-283×300.jpg

          You may have shred off christianity, you’re still full of the stupidity that tends to come with it. So instead of admitting “I’ll wait for the results”, what I actually wrote, is not the same as “take my time in denial”, what you tried to accuse me of, you now fall back on the old racist trick: insulting me for having a skin colour. Except that I’m white of, in nazi terms, pure Germanic blood going back at least seven generations. Ain’t that a pity for you?

        • melonhead

          I bet you live in a rich, all-white area (as your wealth no doubt provides). I doubt that this bet is wrong, but even if it is, you seized on my personal overreach and ignored my arguments. I did make it personal, but only after I presented arguments. I’d like to see /your/ data, /for/ equality, not just hear your objections based on the admitted unpleasantness of what it means to see the ugly reality, that whites + with us, our white civilization + values are slowly dying. Don’t believe it? You know about white birthrates + see the migrant influx into Europe and the US, surely. It may not happen quickly but I do predict that as the area around you darkens up and you /feel/ the difference in people, you’ll regain interest in the question, be open to the data, start looking into it again, and come around. That’s a common story, a liberal with ideals moving into a mixed neighborhood and wising up. But data is better, sure. On your side are: Richard Nisbett and (James?) Flynn. On ‘my’ side are: Helmuth Nyborg, Richard Lynn, Arthur Jensen. I think Nyborg has a recent interview up with Stefan Molyneux. Feel free to investigate the arguments + data on both sides. I claim that the data is pretty largely on the side of genetics (50-80+%!), you’d be crazy to say that characteristics don’t run in families (I’m sure you don’t) – well, races are large, extended, partly-inbred families, separated by continents or distance, who evolved under different conditions + faced different selection pressures. Africans for disease resistance (probably), whites + Asians for long-term thinking + planning, because of the cold. (though I admit, why eskimos aren’t the world’s smartest people by that logic, I can’t explain. Maybe their culturally-found solutions saved them. Maybe whites + Asians just had larger, more social (increases complexity of the environment), or battle-prone populations – don’t know).

          Oh I’m not sure who I’m replying to anymore, but, as far as individual smart people of color, sure, I too know smarter POC than I (not too much of a feat in my case). But we’re talking about populations, where statistics and evolution apply.

        • Greg G.

          I bet you live in a rich, all-white area (as your wealth no doubt provides). I doubt that this bet is wrong,

          Can I get a piece of that action?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          😀

        • MNb

          “I doubt that this bet is wrong”

          Of course you are – like every single racist you’re a loser. I live here.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moengo

        • melonhead

          > pictures of three non-white guys who obviously are smarter than me

          Meh – that’s anecdotes – it takes large samples, ie statistics, to draw any conclusions about populations. You need to understand statistics to even think right about this.

          I enjoyed the third world myself, good on you. I don’t see why you call me a loser though, how you’re so sure. I earn many many many times what you do (though anyone in the West would earn a couple of ‘many’s), though I wouldn’t mind your life, teaching. I considered doing it for a while when I was young.

          Though, now I get why you’re so testy about it all – you don’t have children that look like you, your line is gone. You have an existential reason not to believe in racial difference. Just to rub it in because I’m evil, did you know that any pure white child is more closely genetically related to you than your own children (because a white couple, of course, already have most genes in common, Javanese (any non-white) have way fewer). Peace out.

        • MNb

          “that’s anecdotes …..”
          Really? Abdus Salam getting the Nobel Price is an anecdote? Rather you are too stupid to get the point. Granted, I’m mean that I don’t tell you the point, but that’s because you’re stupidity is the only funny thing about you.

          “I don’t see why you call me a loser though, how you’re so sure.”

          OK, here is a list.

          Reason 1: you claim you want the truth and almost immediately show the opposite.
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/#comment-2762494028
          2. You demanded me to give evidence for something (equality) I did not claim.
          3. You jumped to the wrong conclusion that I’m coloured.
          4. You jumped to the wrong conclusion that I live in a wealthy rich neighbourhood.
          5. Forgotten to mention: you jumped to the wrong conclusion that I’m a liberal. I’m not, not even in the American meaning of the word.
          6a. You think you can read my mind. No, I don’t think you’re a skinhead with a swastika tattooed on your fore-head. I know such guys.
          6b. You think that alt-right is new to me. Again wrong, you have brought up nothing new.
          6c. You think I don’t realize that educated guys can be racist. Wrong.
          7. You wrongly think your income is relevant for my evaluation that you’re a loser.
          8. You’re too stupid to understand what I write, again with your “not to believe in racial difference”. I have told you repeatedly that I observe differences between ethnicities. I observe it every single day. Everyone in Suriname does.
          I just maintain that these differences are biologically totally irrelevant.
          That’s why I call you a loser. With all your money and education you’re not capable of writing a comment not chockfull of stupidities. The only thing that saves you is that your stupidities are funny. And even that is temporary.

        • melonhead

          Hey, I say something, and I was on to something. I gauged that your resistance was more than rational, and it was.

          ‘biologically totally irrelevant’: crime and achievement stats. If you allow those, my case is made. If you don’t, you’re nuts. If you mean something else entirely, I sure can’t tell what you’re saying.

        • MNb

          Sure my resistance is more than rational.
          At the other hand I yet have to find the first rationality in any of your comments. You are still as irrational as when you were a Christian, if not more.
          Since when are crime and achievement stats biological issues, stupid loser? Find me a biological textbook that explains those stats.
          You can’t.
          There aren’t.
          I allow those stats.
          You don’t have a case.
          Race is biologically totally irrelevant.
          Crime and achievement stats are social issues, not biological ones.
          You don’t want truth.
          You aren’t capable of rationality anymore now than when you still were a christian.
          Whenever you try to make an argument you refute it yourself.
          Loser, are you stupid.

        • melonhead
        • MNb

          Your stupidity is unlimited. That doesn’t contradict in the least what I wrote.

          Find me a biological textbook that explains those stats.
          You can’t.
          There aren’t.
          I allow those stats.
          You don’t have a case.
          Race is biologically totally irrelevant.
          Crime and achievement stats are social issues, not biological ones.
          You don’t want truth.
          You aren’t capable of rationality anymore now than when you still were a christian.
          Whenever you try to make an argument you refute it yourself.
          Loser, are you stupid.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Holy shit–who let the Aryan Nations guys in?

        • Paul B. Lot

          You?

          :)

        • Carole

          A Salon article on Dunning-Kruger effect and Donald Trump. Supporters of the latter never heard of the former, so they googled it and came here. Not surprisingly, many of them prefer the goose step to the two-step. White supremacy arguments predictably ensued.

        • melonhead

          hey, wait a minute:

          > lying racist

          Racist yes, lying – fuck right off.

          But:

          > 7 generations of Himmler-quality Germanic blood:

          Do the race a favor and have + raise lots of babies, won’t you? :)

        • MNb

          “it would be a shame to lose them”
          And once again you’re wrong – I’m a blood traitor. Isn’t nazi terminology lovely? There is no picture of me on internet, though if you google Nieuweboer you’ll find lots of “Edelgermanen”.

          But here is a picture of my son.

          https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwLQFzu1q5p_vjJC0BYOFBQ

          Also smarter than me. Who knows? His mother is Javanese.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What is your obsession with ranking races by intelligence? Do you rank them on other useful traits as well–endurance, perseverance, compassion, etc.?

          And since claims from this field are so likely to be tainted by wishful thinking, politics, or whatever, why not move on?

        • melonhead

          Because it matters. Are you in the US? Blacks and Hispanics get preferential treatment, in jobs, in universities. It takes a huge amount of of the national attention. There’s constant hand-wringing about How to Equalize the Underserved, Underprivileged. Loans, radio, TV. Moaning about the state of our schools. /Constant/ expenditure of huge amounts of money and time trying first one thing then another to Close the Gap, it all fails. We waste all of this, greatly distorting our attention and politics, because of the hard ideological and legal constant that Every Race is Equal, and any distortions must be whites’ fault, somehow. Really, really, really – it’s called ‘disparate impact’, and the reason given is ‘systemic racism’, meaning, /racism we can’t put our finger on/. Even sheerest data-based algorithms aren’t safe – their makers are white or Asian, privileged, so they must have put racism in somehow. It distorts everything it touches.

          It matters.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Political correctness gone amok bothers me as well. What I see is the fact that we’re just human, and we do our imperfect best to correct our problems.

          But race isn’t the topic of this blog or even this post. Let’s return to critique Christianity.

        • Paul B. Lot

          How to Equalize the Underserved, Underprivileged. Loans, radio, TV. Moaning about the state of our schools. /Constant/ expenditure of huge amounts of money and time trying first one thing then another to Close the Gap

          That’s because these things matter, statistically.


          it all fails

          Nope.


          ‘systemic racism’, meaning, /racism we can’t put our finger on/

          Oh boy, you’re just all turned around, aren’t you? “Systemic racism” does not mean “racism we can’t put out finger on”.

          Jesus, man, you’re not doing a very good job of show casing the “superior intelligence” of the “white” race. :-/

        • melonhead

          Feh dude – you make assertions, and nothing to back them up. buye.

        • MNb

          No. He draws a conclusion from observing your comments. The quotes in his comments are the evidence.
          So you don’t know what assertions are either. Well, that’s what you are a stupid loser for.
          It’s time for me making a bet. When you still were a christian you also were a Young Earth Creationist.

        • melonhead

          It sure would be nice if he’d pay attention to the stats + arguments in front of him instead. But I waste my time.

        • MNb

          As long as you don’t understand the difference between biological and social topics you yourself are the waste of time.
          Dutch expression: who remains silent concurs. So apparently you were a YEC indeed.

          Also

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/02/the-dunning-kruger-effect-are-the-stupid-too-stupid-to-realize-theyre-stupid/#comment-2769851605

        • melonhead

          Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

          Human intelligence is highly heritable.
          http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

          Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

          Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
          http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

          Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
          http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf

          Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
          http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

          The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

          The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
          http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

          The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
          http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

          Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
          http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

          Intelligence has at least a 40-50% genetic basis.
          http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809

          IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
          http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

          IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
          http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

          France’s IQ drops 4 points per decade because of African immigration
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001221

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Read up on the Flynn effect before you compare IQ scores between societies.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

        • melonhead

          American blacks are /within/ the US society and score and do worse than whites. They’ve watched TV, pressed elevator buttons, driven cars, whatever, for as long as whites have. And still a standard deviation of difference.

        • adam

          So you are saying the only desirable trait in human beings is based on skewed IQ tests?

          So you are saying the only desirable trait in human beings is IQ?

        • melonhead

          IQ correlates with impulse control which would be handy right now in the US. And, inversely proportional to crime (sure Bernie Madoff etc, but the break-in kind), and academic achievement and income, all nice things to have in your country.

        • adam

          Even IF that were all true, which you havent demonstrated, you havent demonstrated that insures long term viability of the species, not to mention other genetic advantages of biodiversity.

          Impulse control?
          You mean revolutionary resistance to generations of injustice?

          The very biggest and worst crimes, like banking and wars are not generated by the low IQ,….

          So your racism is misplaced, misinformed and your assumptions incorrect.

        • melonhead

          I bet you’re black – that was the biggest blast of word salad I’ve seen recently.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve lost me. Are you heading toward something?

          With your arguments about IQ variation, I thought you were going to advance policy changes like improved education in disadvantaged areas. Is it something like that?

        • adam

          I understand you are probably used to very short, very simple sentences

          didnt mean to speak so far over your head.

        • melonhead

          ‘k fine but you changed the subject. We were talking about race + IQ, you shifted to ‘IQ isn’t important’, in many different directions, like you wanted to flee the topic.

          Speaking of diversity, you can’t use it as code for ‘brown people’ anymore – real diversity requires more whites:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82f8cc501f9b6349988d9bb97e29e64b946f16010d8c7fa74a543e70e39b724a.jpg

        • adam

          ” We were talking about race + IQ, you shifted to ‘IQ isn’t https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9f690a989287e8421064bee3064f3705e28a4f0c0752010dfd4f09cf2032197a.png important’, ”

          Nope, so I am guessing you are a low IQ person.

          It is YOU who are playing the IQ card, without justifying how high IQ people cant seem to control their impulses to fight and command mass murder.

          Diversity in the US:

        • adam
        • MNb

          “but you changed the subject.”
          No, you did. You started, without any justification, to talk about Adam’s race.
          Like you did with me.
          Which shows you are not capable of learning from your mistakes.
          You may have rejected creationism, you still think have the stupid mind of a creationist.

        • adam

          So where was the impulse control for owning slaves?
          For abusing human human beings, for carrying on wars?

          By your ‘reasoning’ America should have controlled their impulses to fight England, hell to invade Iraq.

          And you somehow imply that this is the result of minority low IQ people?

        • Carole

          Yeah, whatever happened to emotional intelligence? A person (like me) could get straight As in university and be a complete idiot about people. Soft skills are helpful in one’s career, too. My daughter has lower test scores but a much better personality. I bet she will do better than I did.

        • MNb

          Good job cherry picking.
          Also thanks for confirming that you don’t understand the difference between social and biological issues. One example.

          http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

          “Sharp differences in family incomes are a major factor.”

          “one of the main factors in explaining the SAT racial gap is that black students almost across the board are not being adequately schooled to perform well on the SAT and similar tests. Public schools in many neighborhoods with large black populations are underfunded, inadequately staffed, and ill equipped to provide the same quality of secondary education that is offered in predominantly white suburban school districts.”

          No biology involved here.
          You are as stupid as the average (white) Young Earth Creationist. I still bet you were one when you still were a christian.

        • melonhead

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d16be3c65e15fce5ff44dfdb0af5fffe8a0805998b0125c90fa309f6b649ac1.gif

          You’re saying that going down along this chart helps. Sure! But look across. Notice that the lowest white income group scores about the same as the highest black one.

        • MNb

          Anyone can make up a random chart. As a former YECer you are still used to accept anything put on paper that confirms you predetermined views. You are not even capable of wondering how the methods used may influence the outcomes. That’s something YECers never do either and you obviously haven’t learned it.
          Also you’re too stupid to understand that a SAT score is not the same as an IQ score and that IQ doesn’t necessarily measure intelligence.
          And above all you still haven’t shown that the differences in those scores have biological causes instead of social ones. To do so you have to indentify a biological factor that’s typical for the black race and absent in the white race (or the other way round) that has a causal relation with the outcomes on such tests.
          Thus far you haven’t even tried.
          Follow a course methodology at a good psychology faculty at a good university.

        • melonhead

          > SAT score is not the same as an IQ score

          It correlates well, despite the seller’s claim to the contrary. IQ correlates with /lots/ of crazy things, even accuracy in artillery, the US army found (no cite – it was on slate.com, but haven’t found it for a while).

          > IQ score and that IQ doesn’t necessarily measure intelligence.

          It’s the best anyone knows how to do. If you know a better way, sell it and make millions. But you don’t have to have an accurate measure of ‘true’ intelligence, whatever that is – IQ itself (your score on an IQ test) predicts academic achievement, income, your odds of ending up in jail or otherwise crashing your life.

          > you still haven’t shown that the differences in those scores have biological causes instead of social ones.

          That table was not made up however you might wish it were. It shows that eg trailer park white kids score about as well as the children of successful black businessmen who can presumably put their kids into private schools, give them a richer environment etc.

          > To do so you have to identify a biological factor that’s typical for the black race and absent in the white race (or the other way round) that has a causal relation with the outcomes on such tests.

          We’re getting there. There’s a gene related to microcephaly that was found by Lahn that I mentioned. We’ll have concrete genes in ~5 years, maybe fewer. But you don’t need genes to know – statistics can tell you that something is going on, even if you don’t yet know the mechanism.

          > “A lot of critics point out that IQ tests don’t measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence.”

          And street smarts – don’t forget street smarts.

          Sure, those are all nice, but high IQ nations are richer than poorer ones:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsh_b70NSFQ

          (The stats relevant to this post are early on.)

          In case you’re waiting for a textbook to tell you, fine. But know that there’s active resistance to these ideas, as people fear they’ll open a can of worms (they may well). See:

          https://handlehaus.wordpress.com/2013/12/26/bullied-and-badgered-pressured-and-purged/

          for a list of people who lost their jobs or gigs for race realism. Including James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA. (other people are in the list, too, but the race realists are there. Start from the bottom, where the more recent ones are.) This is why this won’t be wrapped up tidily into a textbook any time soon.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are you heading toward something?

          With your arguments about IQ variation, I thought you were going to push for policy changes like improved education in disadvantaged areas. Is it something like that?

        • MNb

          You’re only repeating your errors over and over again and I’m bored. You still think like a stupid Young Earth Creationist. You just have replaced “goddiddid” by “race does it”. It’s exactly as crappy.
          Just one example, for the last time.

          “statistics can tell you that something is going on”
          I never denied that something is going on. I maintain that it’s something social, not something biological. You have produced nothing to show the latter. You just make another famous stupid creacrap error.

          “We’ll have concrete genes in ~5 years”
          Yeah – and 35 years ago creacrappers predicted that Evolution Theory would crumble within five years. That didn’t happen either.

          As this is my last reply to you I’ll tell you how you should do your work as you’re obviously not capable of figuring it out yourself. It’s quite obvious that you’re the result of disastrous creationist schooling; for that you are excused. You are not excused for being incapable to unlearn it – for not even trying.
          Here you goes.

          1. Define race.
          2. Identify some characteristics for each race.
          3. If necessary go back to step 1.

          You haven’t even begun to try with step 1.

          4. Make sure your definition is consistent with Evolution Theory and especially cladistics.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
          So you have to show common ancestry as well. Of course for an ex-creationist like you that’s an alien concept. See, it means that white guys like you and me are black – our ancestors lived in Africa. Some of them decided to go northward, let’s say along the Nile.
          Now that can be done; migration patterns are roughly known.
          Then and only then you can begin to think about causal biological relations (in terms of genes) between race (because only then you have an idea what race actually is) and things like criminal behaviour and intelligence.
          As the good creationist you were you prefer to start with your conclusion. You may not be a creationist anymore, the result remains exactly as crappy.

          Oh – and only someone who remained as stupid as a creationist after abandoning creationism brings up microcephaly in a discussion about race. What that has to do with anything can only be understood who wallows in his own stupidity.
          You have lost the only thing that made you worth replying: entertainment value. You may have the last word, but I won’t read it.
          Bye.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          35 years ago creacrappers predicted that Evolution Theory would crumble within five years. That didn’t happen either.

          You may be thinking of Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

          They issued a new edition. It was called Whoops! I guess we called that one wrong. Kidding–it was called Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis!

          This is a slow-moving crisis.

        • Carole

          I know these are mean scores, but NONE of them seem particularly high. If this chart is true, the average white kid whose parents make over $200K can’t get into a decent university.

        • melonhead

          > young earth creationist

          ? .. of course I was a young-Earth creationist – I grew up fundamentalist Christian. Evolution was part of what ‘red-pilled’ me as the saying goes.

          What kind of believer in evolution are you, where you think that populations being isolated on different continents for tens of thousands of years (obviously) changes bodies, but nothing above the neck? Ah – someone who has emotional reasons not to.

        • MNb

          Of course you were a YEC. You’re still as stupid, use similar stupid arguments and believe similar stupid lies. You only apply them to another subject since you deconverted.

          And lo and behold! You produce another stupidity to illustrate this.

          “What kind of believer in evolution are you”
          I’m not a believer in evolution. I accept it as the best theory that describes all relevant empirical data.

          “but nothing above the neck?”
          Yeah. In every single comment I maintain that the average IQ of Homo Sapiens is the same as the average IQ of for instance Homo Erectus. That or you’re still as stupd as before your deconversion.

          Here is how creationists do science:

          1. Chose a conclusion you want to be true.
          2. Find yourself some empirical data that seem to confirm that pre-determined conclusion.
          3. Ignore the rest.
          4. That’s it.

          Here is how you do science:

          1. Chose a conclusion you want to be true.
          2. Find yourself some empirical data that seem to confirm that pre-determined conclusion.
          3. Ignore the rest.
          4. That’s it.

        • Carole

          Growing up is hard enough without being exposed to rigid, intractable religious belief systems. They cause irrevocable changes in neural pathways, and possibly permanent damage. I wish people like whoever indoctrinated you with that crap (Christians like the Duggars, and only marginally better than ISIS!) should be arrested for child abuse.

        • melonhead

          No, I like truth, especially if people are trying to hide it – that’s dishonorable and disorderly and it makes me mad. Then, too, my race is slowly dying and people are /acting to hasten it/, wtf! I grew up in the 3rd world, where a white person was someone you almost should know – ‘but in America, almost everyone is white’. Now I live in a majority brown town, and it viscerally pisses me off that we’re being colonized.

          What I’m obsessed by here, though, is getting through to people who won’t get their monkey hand out of the gourd(*) of the ideology of equality. That’s what makes me obsessive, overcoming resistance. Too, I’m a guy – territory is man’s business, randomly directed compassion, women’s.

          (*) http://godlessinamerica.com/monkeytrap.html

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Social change is difficult. I agree. Is that your point?

        • MNb

          No. His point is that biology proves the superiority of the white race over the black race.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I was wondering if there was something on which we could agree.

        • MNb

          “I like truth”
          You don’t. Not as long as you refuse to understand the difference between biological and social issues.
          Also if you liked truth you would have learned not to bet whether commenters are black.

        • melonhead

          I’ve been meaning to get back to you on your “it’s social” / environmental claim. James Flynn is an honorable, smart IQ-studier who still /holds out hope that there’s some crack of possibility/ that IQ differences are enough environmental that those with lower can be raised. However, his battle is uphill. He supposedly wrote a paper with 2 co-authors about the state of knowledge about IQ vs race 20 years after ‘The Bell Curve’ but I can’t find it. You can browse his wikipedia page though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Flynn_(academic) )- also there’s this 20-years-later piece: http://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2014/10/06/the_bell_curve_turns_20_87.html

          But my point is that it’s uphill for the IQ-is-not-genetic, which is a dumb idea to start with, because 50% or more of /everything/ is genetic – Flynn is just a nice guy for holding out hope. Sufficient iodine, being disease-free, poking at your cellphone etc (the Flynn Effect) all help, but, eg, American blacks have had about the same environment as the rest of America, and they’re still a std deviation down. While Asians kick even whites’ butts. So while I can’t seal the deal against you, if you’d actually read some of the stuff I put in front of you you absolutely would lose your pleasant-ideology-based idea that the races, who were separated for 40K years and have different size brains ffs, are all really the same intelligence, except when someone is mean to them or when their moms yell at them as kids.

        • Paul B. Lot
        • Carole

          First of all, I agree that the persons who raised him did him a disservice. They were almost certainly white fundamentalist Protestant missionaries who insisted on indoctrinating the child with their inane beliefs, never mind that they flew in the face of Carbon 14 dating and every other scientific process upon which people of sense and intelligence agree. That having been said, I don’t think one can entirely shield children from “adult beliefs” – whether you talk to them about it or not, they will find out about it on Instagram or some other site, and will make up their minds accordingly. But I doubt the people we’re talking about would give their kids a long enough leash to figure these things out for themselves.

        • Paul B. Lot

          you absolutely would lose your pleasant-ideology-based idea that the races, who were separated for 40K years and have different size brains ffs

          Brain size?

          Again?

          Really?

          I already explained this to your idiot friend @ak2976:disqus last month.

          If you’re basing your metric on *absolute brain size*, then h. sapiens sapiens is waaay down the list of animals. Therefore your metric is irrelevant.

          If you’re basing your metric on *relative brain size*, then by your own admissions and graphs, Europeans/North Americans are at the lowest end of your own calculations.

          Indeed, Americans are almost 100% lower on your data.

          So you’ve proven yourself wrong on that metric, as well.

          You are a fucking imbecile.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So your point is that white people need to get over themselves because they’re not at the top of the intelligence heap?

        • MNb

          “if you’d actually read some of the stuff I put in front of you”
          I actually did.
          They convinced me that you refuse to understand the difference between biological and social issues. There is nothing in your comment that could change that conclusion. Especially this gem:

          “have different size brains ffs”
          If fucking would increase the size of the human brain and that would increase intelligence the only sex you’ve experienced is solosex.
          There is not correlation between brain size and IQ.
          Also you have become a plain liar.
          You don’t like truth at all.

        • melonhead

          You argue in bad faith. Because I don’t like to lose, where lose is to fail to convince you, I went the extra mile. But I’m done. (There /is/ a correlation between brain size and IQ by the way – go back and watch the first 3, 5, 10 minutes of the Garrett Jones video with Molyneux.)

        • Paul B. Lot

          There /is/ a correlation between brain size and IQ by the way

          You clearly want your readers to make the (unwarranted?) jump from accepting the correlation* you point out to determining that there is a causal relationship.

          But if there is a causal relationship between [brain size] and [IQ], then why aren’t Blue Whales pioneering fusion reactor research?

          * http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

        • melonhead

          Brain encephalization coefficient. Ie, brain mass per body mas. Higher in Asians and Whites and Jews, roughly, than in the rest. I can’t believe this thread is alive after all this time.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I can’t believe this thread is alive after all this time.

          Nor I. You’ve stated your racial hierarchy already. That’s not the topic of this blog. Either discuss an interesting topic or leave.

        • MNb

          I thought you were done?
          Good job not answering PBL’s question, stupid racist loser.

        • melonhead

          Done with you. You can redeem yourself in my eyes though if you knock up a nice, white, do-gooder intern with your Himmler-white genes.

        • MNb

          “You can redeem yourself in my eyes”
          Why would I want to? I cannot think of any sensible answer. At the other hand I can think of several good reasons why I wouldn’t want to – the rest of that sentence being one of them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bye. You had your chance to be constructive.

        • Dys

          Damn it Bob…how dare you be intolerant of racist douchebags.

          Reading melonhead’s garbage, I was reminded of the racists who did the same thing with phrenology.

        • Paul B. Lot

          “Brain encephalization coefficient.”

          Okay.

          1) So you made a mistake when you mentioned “brain size”.

          You meant to say something like “brain size relative to body mass”.

          2) The term you’re looking for is currently known as encephalization “quotient” not “coefficient“. I know that it can be hard for someone of your mental capacity to keep these multisyllabic words straight, especially when one is trying desperately to sound smarter than one is, but please do try to keep up. *

          3) I already explained the problems with your chosen ratio. To summarize: you are fucking imbecile.

          4) Point #3 is reinforced by the conclusion of this paper:

          The brain changes with practice. Everything indicates that experience makes the great difference, and therefore, we contend that the gene-environment interplay is what defines the IQ of an individual.

          * I see you corrected this minor mistake below.

          Well done!

          Now lets move on to your other mistakes.

        • melonhead

          … should have said /quotient/, not coefficient. Here’s a sample of some facts + discussion:

          “The races differ in average brain size and this shows up at birth.
          Rushton (1997) analyzed the enormous US data set known as the
          Collaborative Perinatal Project. It recorded head circumference
          measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children followed from birth to
          age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). The results
          showed that at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, the East Asian
          children in the study averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White
          children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black
          children. Within each race, the children with the larger head sizes had
          the higher IQ scores and by age 7, the East Asian children averaged an
          IQ of 110, White children an IQ of 102, and Black children an IQ of 90.
          Moreover, the East Asian children, who averaged the largest craniums,
          were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight, whereas the
          Black children, who averaged the smallest craniums, were the tallest in
          stature and the heaviest in weight. Therefore, the race differences in
          brain size were not due to body size.”

          from:

          https://menghublog.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/brain-size-iq-and-racial-group-differences-evidence-from-musculoskeletal-traits/

        • Paul B. Lot

          Sigh.

          You’re going to keep doing this, aren’t you?

          1) Correlation does not equal Causation.

          2) IF you were correct, and IF [brain size/body mass] WERE the most important causal factor in determining intelligence….North Americans would be at the bottom of the food chain. While they have slightly larger cranial capacities, they are enormously heavier.

          Allow me to quote myself from earlier:

          If you’re basing your metric on *relative brain size*, then by your own admissions and graphs, Europeans/North Americans are at the lowest end of your own calculations.

          Indeed, Americans are almost 100% lower on your data.

          So you’ve proven yourself wrong on that metric, as well.

          You are a fucking imbecile.

          From this paper:

          The brain changes with practice. Everything indicates that experience makes the great difference, and therefore, we contend that the gene-environment interplay is what defines the IQ of an individual.

        • MNb

          “You’re going to keep doing this, aren’t you?”
          Yes. That’s why I call him a loser.

        • adam

          Let’s ‘assume’ that your claim ‘races differ in average brain size and this shows up at birth”

          So what?

          How is this the MOST IMPORTANT factor in the survival of the human species?

        • Andre B

          Tried a find a pic of Scientist Whales…failed.

        • Paul B. Lot
        • Paul B. Lot
        • Susan

          No lab coat?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Do I want to disclose the amount of time I expended searching for various combinations of “whale” “science” “scientist” and “lab coat” before I settled on this pic?

          No I do not.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I did notice a pocket protector.

        • MNb

          “You argue in bad faith.”
          Writes the guy who accuses everyone who rejects his racism of being black and/or emotionally involved – while explicitly writing himself that he’s pissed of because his town is colonized by blacks.

          “Because I don’t like to lose”
          I already understood that it sucks to be you, exactly because you’re an incurable stupid loser. Or you would have referred to an actual peer reviewed scientific magazine for your supposed correlation iso some random video.
          Btw I don’t argue at all anymore. Arguments are a waste on stupid losers like you. All that remains is mockery.

          “But I’m done.”
          Not too soon – in fact you should not have come back at all. This blog is a better place without you. So would be the world.

        • melonhead

          > whether commenters are black.

          You are rightly butthurt at being thought black – please forgive me :)

        • Greg G.

          You are rightly butthurt at being thought black

          I doubt that.

        • Paul B. Lot

          ….my race is slowly dying… it viscerally pisses me off that we’re being colonized.

          “Your” “race” will die. And the world will be better off for it. A wide and deep gene pool is healthy for the species.

          If only it were as easy to get rid of people like you as it is to globalize/mix ethnicities. :-/

          Alas, the problems that reside in your grey matter are likely irrevocable, and the only way to prevent your disease from reappearing in future generations is education.

          And education is hard.


          Too, I’m a guy – territory is man’s business, randomly directed compassion, women’s.

          A pathetic blend of impotent online machismo and mental incapacity. If you’re not a troll, then you are a sad little man.

        • adam

          ” If you’re not a troll, then you are a sad little man.”

          Even if he is a troll, he is still a sad little man

        • melonhead

          > globalize/mix ethnicities. :-/

          Ah – a person of color I see.

          > “Your” “race” will die. And the world will be better off for it.

          If you’re so ready for us to be gone, why not move to Africa? We’ll be ‘gone’ in an instant. But look how well that’s turned out, within living memory. Rhodesia was the ‘breadbasket of Africa’, then Mugabe won his war, and it took a few decades, but now:

          http://qz.com/458137/mugabe-is-asking-back-the-white-farmers-he-chased-away/

          South Africa is going / will go the same way.

          Whites made the modern world you enjoy. You’re not welcome.

          http://www.unz.com/isteve/rep-steve-king-exposes-the-emperors-new-clothes/

        • Paul B. Lot

          Ah – a person of color I see.

          Nope.


          If you’re so ready for us to be gone

          I’m not rooting for “us” to be gone. There is no “us”. The thing you have chosen to cling to as your new simple/shallow minded rubric to understand the world … is a fiction. You’ve organized your thoughts around nonsense. “We” don’t exist as a “race.”

          There are only loose [Caucasian ethnic boundaries].

          About those, I’m a realist. Humanity is becoming too interconnected for the minor variations between geographic locations/phenotypes to persist indefinitely.

          The mixing will happen. Is happening.

          There is nothing you can do to stop it. (And that’s a good thing, imo.)

          Now shut up and go away, you silly person.

          Your idiocy was novel for a while, but now you have shown us that you are impervious to reason, you are repeating yourself, and, worst of all, you are boring.

        • melonhead

          … oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2d252c601a14bfe4f037a50209f6b3bc50957597d7eb7997a22fbdbb8b57b86.jpg

          image search for ‘asians skinning animals alive’ if this gives you a sick fascination like it does me. And it’s not only skinning, they don’t show much consideration for their food animals in general.

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and like Siddhartha & Confucius didn’t come up with ‘Don’t Be A Dick’ way before the Jesus Window.

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:..

        • adam

          “.. oh and have fun with your new Asian overlords, they never had Christianity, and lack compassion:”

          Like christianity has any compassion:…

        • Paul B. Lot

          Uh, wut?

          You want to place over-under bets on whether or not I can find “white” animal cruelty?

          All of “asians” lack both “christianity” AND “compassion”?

          Lol.

          What a goofy person you are. (Or are pretending to be. I find it hard to believe that anyone could be as simple as you seem….but, then again, I might be subject to the Dunning-Kruger corollary.)

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          My ex-wife and current partner both have grandparents coming from Java, then Dutch East Indies. They and their relatives have more compassion than (ex-)christians like you have ever shown.

        • adam

          9,000 Animals Rescued From ‘Worst Torture Operation’ In The U.S.

          DORAL (CBSMiami) – The alleged operator of an illegal Doral slaughter
          farm appeared in bond court on Friday, facing 30 charges for
          “committing atrocious acts against animals.”

          Miami-Dade Police said goats, cows, chickens and animals of all types
          police say were butchered and boiled alive, then sold to paying
          customers.

          https://www.thedodo.com/9000-animals-rescued-from-worst-torture-operation-in-the-us-1046667596.html

        • Carole

          It’s not “colonization,” when someone with an economic motive brings people here, against their will. Perhaps you should, with your superior Aryan intelligence, invent a time machine and single-handedly stop the slave trade. 19th century plantation owners from SC, LA and GA would curse your name, but at least 21st century whites wouldn’t have to cope with affirmative action and diversity training.

          If you’re talking about a different kind of “colonization,” I’d be eager to know why you’ve so far focused on Americans of African descent. Also, to what race do Meso-Americans belong? Because I don’t think the affirmative action people have figured it out yet (the term “Hispanic” was invented during the Nixon administration and refers to a language group, not a racial group).

        • melonhead

          +1 for engaging in the argument. No, I don’t think African Americans are colonizing the US, I’m more worried about the rest of the world, Mexicans, and then people who have absolutely no historical connection to us, have justification by no guilt – subcontinental Indians, and middle easterners. African Americans I focus on for other purposes because the differences are so stark.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Sure – but you differ a lot less than you and some South Indian. Who differs less than that, from his neighboring South Indian.

          I probably differ genetically more from a South Indian than I do from my brother. Correct.

          Two questions:

          1) Would you say the same if I were talking about having had a sister? Surely many of the non-sex chromosomes will still differ more in the South Indian, but the 23rd chromosome is very influential in human development, and a sister would differ 100% from me on that one.

          http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask456

          2) You admit that both individuals who are from different ethnic groups and individuals who are siblings “differ biologically”. That is good. But you still seem, to me anyway, inclined to accept the importance of racial distinctions. What is your threshold for [percentage of genetic difference] to make those differences important?


          So he’s not an evil racist, but – /subspecies/, yo.

          It seems clear to me that Dawkins is a) FOR studying the science of genetic differences between different populations, while b) being AWARE that idiots will take that research and twist it into political/social/memetic constructions which are inappropriate, harmful, and anti-science.

          https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/678519868166152192

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq13SvXIw58

        • melonhead

          Bless your research! 2 months, hah!

          Yeah, so, he’s a nice guy, and / or wants to protect his legacy (cf what happened to Watson, Nobel Prize winner though he was). We race realists also think all humans are human, but we are not out to be nice or protect social order or spare non-white feelings. We want to knock down the hard insistence on the ideology of equality, which has lots of bad effects on the white population (black crime, the idea that you can import every random population into a white one and within a generation or so they’ll be white on the inside – this idea comes from egocentrism imo – just as productive, cooperative and law abiding, which eg one Harvard (economist?) Borjas has found is not so for Hispanics – they don’t rise much in income or academic accomplishment even after 3 generations).

          > What is your threshold for [percentage of genetic difference] to make those differences important?

          People seem to have trouble with the lack of well-defined, hard edges in race. Race is clinal. But just because you can’t define sharply where a hill starts, doesn’t mean that ‘hill’ isn’t a useful concept and that hills can’t be distinguished from each other and from non-hills.

        • Greg G.
        • Paul B. Lot

          I went to a friend’s house party last year where I only knew about 15% of the other attendees.

          To break the ice and attempt conversation with people, I drunkenly thought that discussing the Chimp/Bonobo juxtaposition was a good idea.

          Did I mention the booze?

          Since then, whenever I go over to that friend’s house and one of those other merrymakers are there, I am “that monkey guy.”

        • Greg G.

          I am “that monkey guy.”

          It is probably best to pass on the opportunity to point out that chimpanzees are not monkeys, except in a cladistic sense.

        • TheNuszAbides

          the cladistic sense is perfectly adequate in instances other than let’s-pretend-Kinds-are-a-thing.

    • MNb

      “A lot of them don’t even believe race exists at all.”
      Then biologists belong to the antiscientific mafia as well.
      https://source.wustl.edu/2003/05/evolutionary-biologist-race-in-humans-a-social-not-biological-concept/
      That or you simply don’t make sense.

    • Smash Islamophobia

      To expand upon your point, which the leftists below are responding to with the usual fact-free virtue signaling competition, each attempting to demonstrate that they have the strongest allegiance to their irrational belief in race creationism:

      On the scientific validity of race:

      Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races.
      http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

      Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.”
      http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

      “Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

      Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

      Race can be determined via brain scans (i.e. brain structure differs at the macro level between races):
      http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        All right–who left the door open?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          How about a multicultural source? Should be good for your feelings…

          96-97% of whites have no African ancestry.
          http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And? Does this mean that they didn’t come from Africa?

        • Smash Islamophobia

          lol. That’s an argument? All terrestrial vertebrates are descended from marine animals. Fish are our brothers!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wait–I thought it was just those godamn leftists that changed the subject when pressed on their argument. Et tu, Smash?

        • Paul B. Lot

          That’s an argument? All terrestrial vertebrates are descended from marine animals. Fish are our brothers!

          It’s a shame that you (or your persona) don’t think through the implications of your own arguments.

        • Greg G.

          96-97% of whites have no African ancestry

          Your link does not support this claim. The link equivocates genetics and ancestry which isn’t so important going back a few centuries.

          If you go back 10 generations, you would have up to 1024 ancestors that far back. Each of those would have up to 1024 ancestors which means you have over a million ancestors that far back. But humans don’t have that many genes, so you may have no genes from most of your ancestors from beyond 16 generations, even though they are still your ancestors.

          It has been said that if a person from about 6000 years ago has any living descendants today, that person is an ancestor to everybody alive today. The number of ancestors grows exponentially per generation while the population tends to be smaller the further back you go. At some point, it is no longer a question of whether a person is an ancestor but how many millions of times that person is your ancestor.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Careful, now. Don’t be mean. Smash is a special snowflake.

      • Carole

        The Genome Wide Association Studies have always categorized people according to historical ethnicity (what you refer to as “race”) and current geographical location (e.g. Han Chinese living in Houston, Texas). That doesn’t support your white separatist agenda. Sorry/Not Sorry.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          You seem very proud of your nearly-complete statistical ignorance. Let me endeavor to explain your very basic error in terms that you are able to comprehend:
          The tallest woman is far taller than the shortest man. Yet “Men are taller than women” is indisputably a true statement, nonetheless.

          “…all humans migrated from Africa”
          And all terrestrial vertebrates are descended from marine animals. Fish are our brothers, you bigot!

        • Joseph Martin

          I want to congratulate and thank you for your excellent posts. I’ve been learning a lot and enjoying them. Great sense of humor too!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Smash is indeed a kidder, isn’t he! He has a gentle touch when introducing new material into the conversation. I bet he’s an elementary school teacher.

        • MNb

          Brrrr. Poor kids.

        • MNb

          That poor attempt at irony equally applies to fellow white guy Smash.
          If fish aren’t my bros because common descent you’re not either, no matter how white and blonde you are.

        • Carole

          Here’s another irony. . . the so-called “ancient Germanic” Y-DNA haplogroup (I-M253 – commonly found in Scandinavia) is separated by tens of thousands of years from the haplogroup of the so-called German “Aryans” (R1-b). The idiots at Stormfront are still trying to figure out what the real “Aryan” haplogroup is.

        • MNb

          Thanks, I didn’t know that, mainly because genetics usually bores my pants off. But this is a useful piece of information, if only because the Stormfront idiots see me as an ancient Germanic Aryan stereotype with my blonde hair, grey blue eyes and 1 m 92 plus blood pure descent for at least seven generations. Fortunately I otherwise don’t fit in the stereotype at all as I’m also a bloodtraitor and proud of it.

        • Carole

          It is widely accepted by geneticists that all modern humans have their ancestral origins in West Central Africa, since we are all descendants of Y Chromosomal Adam. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png. Modern Europeans are descended from 8 distinct Y-DNA haplogroups. The most widespread haplogroup among “Aryan” Europeans in western Europe is more closely related to the most widespread haplogroups among west and central Asians, and even Meso-Americans, than it is to a very common haplogroup among “Germanic” Europeans in Scandinavia. The most widespread haplogroup in western Europe descended from the haplogroup found in modern Australian aborigines and Melanesians (which also gave rise to the haplogroups found in south Asians, northern Eurasians, east Asians and southeast Asians.) Modern Africans belong to six different haplogroups. 70% of the population of Cameroon belongs to the very same haplogroup as most “Aryan” Europeans, but it is rare elsewhere in Africa. The terms “African,” “Asian” and “European” are ambiguous, from a genetic standpoint.

          Furthermore, genetic differences, by themselves, are mostly meaningless and will continue to be until we have
          a better understanding of the specific ways in which genes are expressed. First, only 2% of the 3 billion base pairs of nucleotides in human DNA is actually expressed as genes. Secondly, genes are simply codes for 20 different amino acids, each represented by codons of 3 nucleotides, which assemble to form millions of different proteins. As yet, geneticists and clinicians have a very limited understanding of how these proteins cause different phenotypic traits, even for monogenic diseases caused by the mutation of a single gene.

          You probably picked a bad person with whom to argue about genetics. But by all means, insult me if that makes you feel superior.

        • Smash Islamophobia

          Cute map. See “Fish are our brothers,” above. The rest is mere pilpul, and weak pilpul at that.

        • Carole

          Oh, what an incisive argument! I was hoping you would not make that particular point, but I can see you’re more than a match for me. Looks like you’ve single-handedly disproven the Dunning-Kruger effect.

    • Philmonomer

      Good job trolling! You are getting a lot of responses.

    • http://Beautifulquitters.siterubix.com Avera Yugen

      great username though ;=)
      remember we are not the only ones our philosophies affect….all my rescue-cats know that!

    • TheNuszAbides
    • adam
      • adopt from your local shelter

        Posting that photo actually proves my point.

        The GOP wants to “Regulate Vaginas” because they don’t want to force privately owned business to pay for a woman’s birth control and abortions… you’re a fucking retard.

        I don’t like the GOP either, but the Democomms are fundamentally no different; if you believe they are, you watch too much TV.

        • adam

          But the ‘Democomms’ are fundamentally different than Republicons as you point out.

          They want everyone but the guilty party to pay for pollution in the air and in the water.

          “The GOP wants to “Regulate Vaginas” because they don’t want to force privately owned business to pay for a woman’s birth control and abortions… ”

          But the cost is higher for birth than birth control.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fe8e27776008c5b6dee5a4303b63a6b12145b0158ed081d2d0a38f0dfe3bfa5c.jpg

        • adopt from your local shelter

          I said the Democomms are fundamentally NO different than the GOP. Plus, I’m pro-abortion, and I hate Paul Ryan.

          Nevertheless, whatever the cost, that has nothing to do with forcing private businesses to pay for things that result from people’s personal sexual behavior. They shouldn’t be forced to pay for condoms either.

          Why do you want private businesses involved in people’s sex lives?

        • adam

          “Nevertheless, whatever the cost, that has nothing to do with forcing private businesses to pay for things that result from people’s personal sexual behavior. ”

          Society pays either way, private businesses are part of society.

          LIke with pollution, you pay more later in health care costs that you would have every paid not to pollute.

          “Why do you want private businesses involved in people’s sex lives?”

          Well, if they are going to provide health coverage, they are already involved.

          So they should either get on board or stop providing health coverage.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Should private businesses be forced to pay the health costs due to an accident? If so, what’s the problem with their paying the health costs due to a pregnancy accident?

          Your use of “forced” suggests that it’s a money thing. If you want to get outraged at costs, get outraged at someone carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and then having one more person on the company’s health insurance plan. Babies, kids, and teens take a lot of health care.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Is it government oppression to force privately owned businesses to pay for health care? If not, what’s the problem with the reproductive subset of health care?

  • Ben Magno

    This explains errybuddy who dun’t vote lahk me!!!

    I love how people are more than glad to unironically demonstrate the effect in the comments of the article. Very zen.

    • Annatta

      Zen in the fact that it happened, Not at all in the use of zen as a label. Ironic, most definitely.

  • Carole

    This explains the Donald Trump phenomenon, too. “I’m going to fix everything wrong with the U.S. in my first 100 days in office. I don’t know the particulars yet, but trust me, I’m a very smart guy! Sorry, losers and fakers, you just aren’t smart enough to understand me.”

    • Nigel McPhearson

      Absolutely. I propose an empirically based peer reviewed plan like Hope n change. That’s a Good clear plan.

      • Carole

        Yeah, that was a shit plan as well, as I said at the time. Clinton had more of a plan, Romney probably had more of a plan. We should be so lucky to have Romney now.

  • Smash Islamophobia

    This is commonly seen among leftists, who judge “intelligence,” not by how well a person can construct an empirically-supported argument, but by how well they can demonstrate their blind faith in the progressive establishment narrative.

    • Vtsaxon

      Sounds like dribble from your local Marxist Jew professor.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      So much for an empirically supported argument, eh? Yeah–who needs it?

    • epeeist

      This is commonly seen among leftists…

      Attack of the 50 foot straw man.

    • Paul B. Lot

      “This is commonly seen”

      Given the appropriate bias/mental illness, one “commonly” see whatever one chooses. Eg. Flying Saucers.

      You have been blessed with the gift to see what you were expecting to see: I congratulate you.

  • John W

    MRI scans have revealed that Oriental brains (East Asians) are on average 15 cubic centimetres larger than white brains. Orientals average about 105 on IQ tests, whereas whites average around 100.

    Orientals do all those things we associate with populations with a high IQ: relative to whites, they have low rates of crime, they have low rates of illegitimacy, they do well at school, have stable families, acquire professional and academic qualifications, and are generally more accomplished.

    Darwin’s theory of evolution, which all intelligent and educated people are supposed to accept, predicts that populations, once they become divided, through migration or accident, will, as a result of differing environmental pressures, begin to diverge in their physical characteristics. (If this goes on long enough a completely new species might evolve.) So it is entirely in line with the theory of evolution that Orientals should have, on average, a higher IQ than whites, since whites and Orientals were indeed separated for tens of thousands of years, and the brain is an organ of the body just like any other. Indeed it would require a miracle for whites and Orientals to be precisely the same in every characteristic, which I suppose would prove the existence of God.

    This is why people who pretend to believe that whites and Orientals have the same average IQ, in the face of the veritable mountain of evidence that shows that orientals are more intelligent, are called “liberal Creationists”.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      How is this relevant to a blog about Christianity and atheism?

      • Carole

        Hi Bob,
        This particular article doesn’t mention Christianity and atheism. I think there was a recent article in a major publication about the Dunning-Kruger effect, and Google searches drew people here. But you are quite right to be concerned when the “white power” people start jumping on your blog.
        Carole

        • MNb

          They are all gone now with the exception of Melonhead. I’m done with him (don’t enjoy it anymore) but as I like your comments I hope you will address him as well. You’ll find him on this very page.

        • Carole

          I did. But I think that his Cro-Magnon mindset is not entirely his fault. I often wonder how I would have developed socially and intellectually if I had been raised by two open-minded and sane parents. I can only imagine then what it would have been like being raised by fundamentalists who believed the world was 4000 years old. Your pupils are very lucky to have you.

        • MNb

          Thanks a lot for the compliment.
          It’s also the other way round. I am very lucky to have my pupils. They give my life meaning in a way that was not likely to happen in my native country.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks. Race is an important conversation, assuming there’s a willingness to learn by all parties. Members of men’s rights groups who simply want a platform to expound don’t have anything to add to the conversation here.

    • Breitbart2

      I mainly agree with you, but I you’ve got it backwards:
      “Morton assigned the highest brain capacity to Europeans—with the English highest of all. Second was the Chinese, third was Southeast Asians and Polynesians, fourth was American Indians, and the smallest brain capacity was assigned to Africans and Australian aborigines.”
      http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/one_race.html

      Part of the reason Asians are perceived as having the characteristics you described, is because of selection bias: smarter Asians are generally more likely to immigrate.

      Also, an even more major reason is not related to genetic intelligence, it is related to temperament. In comparison to whites, Asians tend to be more docile and respectful of authority. This is for cultural reasons, and also probably genetic reasons as well. This connects to lower crime, more career accomplishments, and stable families, as well as intelligence. For example, a lot of why Asians test better isn’t innate intelligence, it’s because they spend more time in studies (learned intelligence).

      • Hugo Fitch

        The average IQ score of Ashkenazi Jews has been calculated to be 112–115 (Cochran et al.) and 107–115 (Murray; Entine).

        • Carole

          The alt.right people don’t care. To them, the only relevant IQ difference is between European-Americans and African-Americans (who are, on average, something like 30% European). They would probably say Ashkenazi Jews cheated on the test or something.

        • MNb

          Even before African-Americans on the alt.right list come muslims. Given Israel the alt.right crowd at the moment is totally ok with jews. Dutch alt.right politician Geert Wilders even gets financed by conservative American jews and in return is a staunch supporter of Israel’s fight against the Arabs. So my guess is that alt.right is generally very happy with the high average score of Ashkenazi jews.
          Dutch jews and I suspect European jews in general don’t buy it though. Out of necessity they have developed a very good memory. Some of their Dutch spokesmen have made explicitly clear that the way alt.right treats muslims reminds them of the gruesome decade immediately before the Holocaust.

        • Carole

          Well,it’s good to know that they aren’t mistreating Jews, at least. I wonder if the European alt.right is as full of faux-military poseurs as the American alt.right. (See, e.g. Smash). 1/2 the people I know who served in Afghanistan are African-American and generally veterans have enough esprit de corps to not be racist.

        • MNb

          Warning: I’m going to link to a couple of disgusting sites.
          From a Dutch alt.right site:

          http://cult.tpo.nl/2014/09/17/beeld-jan-roos-pownews-nazi-uniform/

          Even they smell something fishy, so this guy is probably an exception. Still he was hailed by Dutch alt.right when he sucked a story out of his thumb how he held off an attacking muslim horde of a few Maroccan teens with a baseball bat.
          It’s more tough language. A “highlight” from Geert Wilders:

          http://www.barenakedislam.com/2010/10/27/geert-wilders-deport-lazy-muslim-immigrants/

          “statements Mr Wilders had made on Danish TV, when he had called for millions of Muslims who had committed a criminal offence to be deported from Europe.”
          You can watch the interview here.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMk6F_oHiCM

          Plus Dutch alt.right “fights the good fight” with heroic actions like painting swastika’s on mosques and throwing pig’s heads over their walls.

        • Breitbart2

          Carole, I did not mean to cherry-pick, as I was not aware of the data which you made note of. Thank you for sharing it.

          I thought the cultural factor didn’t require a study, as it seems evident by simply observing Asian communities, if you live around them as I do.

          Further, I agree that Jews are the most intelligent of any race. In fact, when I mentioned Europeans as being overall the most intelligent, I was not referring only to Anglos, but to all Europeans, of which Ashkenazi Jews are a subset.

        • Carole

          You’re welcome. But I don’t see how any of this proves that Europeans are the most intelligent, unless you’re going by brain mass, which is correlated with overall body mass. I had some misgivings about linking to the IQ study, as it will undoubtedly add fuel to the debate about Africa. The authors of the study apparently hoped to link national IQ with national wealth. I don’t know if they succeeded or not.

        • Michael

          I learned (accurately I believe) from Robert Heinlein many decades ago the best and brightest migrate to make a better life for themselves. Problem today is there isn’t anywhere to go. We really need a star drive.

        • Breitbart2

          Perhaps Europeans are not the most intelligent. I would imagine that whatever the case, they are fairly close to Asians. I do believe quite certainly that Ashkenazi Jews as a subset are the most intelligent however. So you have a point there.

          As for the “debate about Africa,” I don’t think that requires a study to demonstrate. Go to any African community and see it for yourself.

          Anyway I know I didn’t respond originally but this discussion just popped up on my feed again and got me looking at it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          As for the “debate about Africa,” I don’t think that requires a study to demonstrate. Go to any African community and see it for yourself.

          See what? I don’t know what your point is.

        • Breitbart2

          I have a feeling you do know.

          I have a feeling you are saying you don’t because of your position at patheos, or because you feel the need to signal your virtue to fellow liberals.

          Just in case you actually don’t know: violence, lack of family structure, lack of education, lack of civilization; Africa is war torn and dictatorial for a reason, and even in the first world, Africans still manage to create their own special little hellholes (Detroit, Chicago, etc)

          PS, you are not an “atheist” free of dogmatism if you do not accept the genetic, biological differences between the races and the sexes. The political establishment that spreads this propaganda is really no different than the corrupt Church of old, pushing BS onto the masses in order to benefit those at the top.

        • Michael Neville

          Tell me, are these “genetic, biological difference” due to genetics or biology or are they due to social conditioning?

          Granted, Sub-Saharan Africa is a mess, but how much of that is due to colonial exploitation? In India the British allowed Indians to become middle-grade civil servants and military officers, plus there was an educated middle-class. So when India and Pakistan became independent there were native people trained and experienced to take over rule of the countries, In Africa none of the colonial powers allowed Blacks to enter the civil service or be military officers. So when the African countries became independent there was a power vacuum.

          Racism is alive and well in the US. Blatant police murders of blacks are just one piece of evidence of this. Coupled with grinding poverty for the vast majority of blacks, it should not be surprising that black ghettos are “hellholes”.

          I think your racism (and yes, you’re a racist) colors your perception of blacks. But you’re a conservative and therefore blaming everyone else for your own prejudices and biases, and sucking up to those “on top”.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Just in case you actually don’t know: violence, lack of family structure, lack of education, lack of civilization; Africa is war torn and dictatorial for a reason

          You act like Africa is a country. Outsiders go in and extract resources (Nigeria, Angola), and that encourages corruption and haves vs. have-nots. To me, the problems in Zimbabwe can’t be blamed on outsiders (hey—black guys in power can be greedy assholes just like white guys. Who know?). And then you’ve got lots of countries that just don’t have much. I don’t know how you can blame that on the Africans just like you can’t blame white folks for not developing the technology of 2100 yet.

          even in the first world, Africans still manage to create their own special little hellholes (Detroit, Chicago, etc)

          You’ll have to spell out this racial view for me. I’m too stupid to get it. So black people always create shitty societies?

          PS, you are not an “atheist” free of dogmatism if you do not accept the genetic, biological differences between the races and the sexes.

          Yes, there are differences between the races and the sexes. So what?

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’ll have to spell out this racial view for me. I’m too stupid to get it. So black people always create shitty societies?

          I would say it is hard to do otherwise if one is treated like shite and the only opportunities one can take are at the shitty end of the stick.

          Persecution can have that effect and what our friend seems to ignore is that it wasn’t exclusive to the colour of ones skin, though those folk certainly got the worst of it. There were white ghetto’s too.

          Like many immigrant groups in the United States, the Irish were characterized as racial Others when they first arrived in the first half of the 19th century.

          http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/03/17/irish-americans-racism-whiteness/

        • Breitbart2

          I see my comment has garnered five responses, all critical, in less than a day; from several people who weren’t even on this thread, and despite this article being months old. That seems a little odd.

          And yeah go ahead and call me racist, sexist, Islamophobe, whatever. I’m proud to be one of Trump’s “deplorables.”

          “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I see my comment has garnered five responses …

          … to which you have no answer, apparently.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That seems a little odd.

          Not at all…if you understand a wee bit about how Disqus works.

        • adam

          “And yeah go ahead and call me racist, sexist, Islamophobe, whatever. I’m proud to be one of Trump’s “deplorables.””

          Thanks for telling us the truth about you.

          Stupid is as stupid does – Forrest Gump

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          He’s proud to be one of Trump’s stooges, though he isn’t eager to defend his positions intellectually. Surprising–although since Trump turns everything upside down, perhaps I shouldn’t be.

        • adam

          “though he isn’t eager to defend his positions intellectually. ”

          Most likely not capable due to a lack of such intelligence.

        • Greg G.

          I see my comment has garnered five responses, all critical, in less than a day; from several people who weren’t even on this thread, and despite this article being months old. That seems a little odd.

          If you look at the Desktop layout of Patheos, in the right-side column, there are recent comments. It will have a link to a new comment for a while, then replies to that comment and replies to the replies, and so on.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And if one has subscribed to e-mail notifications and has made at least one comment on a thread, Disqus will notify by e-mail every subsequent comment to that thread, regardless of how old the thread.

        • Greg G.

          I haven’t done that. I get enough notifications already.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It can lead to some daunting situations. Especially if one makes a comment on a very high traffic thread on the likes of The Friendly Atheist. I’ve come back to an inbox with Disqus notifications numbering in the hundreds. But I’m heart afraid of missing something, so will plod through the dross to find the gems.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m proud to be one of Trump’s “deplorables.”

          It’s so rare that we see pride in being a bigoted, ignorant asshole.

        • epeeist

          That seems a little odd.

          It’s obviously a conspiracy.

        • MNb

          “I have a feeling you do know”
          So do many fundagelicals – Ken Ham and Ray Comfort for instance have a feeling that we atheists do know there is a god.
          Yup – your alt-right comment is as stupid as the average creationist comment.

        • adam

          “PS, you are not an “atheist” free of dogmatism if you do not accept the
          genetic, biological differences between the races and the sexes.”

          And certainly you are racist if you think these differences determine the violence, lack of family structure, lack of education and lack of civilization, that you are claiming.

          I am guessing you have a micro penis as well.

        • Susan

          I have a feeling that you are saying you don’t because of your position at patheos, or because you feel the need to signal your virtue to fellow liberals.

          So? Your “feelings” aren’t necessarily reliable. Show your work. So far, you haven’t.

          Just in case you actually don’t know:

          Serious problems exist in Africa. Your allusions don’t seem to address those problems.

          you are not an “atheist” free of dogmatism if you do not accept the genetic, biological differences between the races and the sexes.

          Your work is crap. That does not mean I am claiming that genetics and biology aren’t real. Just that you don’t seem to have studied either one of them. So, no. I’m not “dogmatic” because you can’t rub two thoughts together in a way that’s remotely convincing.

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          Very well done. I’m sorry I wasn’t here at the time to have your back, but I understood your comment as it was meant.

          Africa – (yes, I mean all of the countries of the continent) – is the birthplace of humanity. Civilization, not so much. Civilization and technological advances come from generations adding to the combined knowledge of those who came before. Asia and Europe both have a long history of written language – from the palm scrolls in Sumatra to the sacred scrolls in Tibet and the cuneiform of the Sumerians. Egypt as part of the fertile crescent of the mid east used a written language. But the bulk of the African continent never found that, remaining tribal hunter-gatherers until the last few hundred years.

          Africa is remarkably rich in mineral resources, was where humans first developed and should be the world leader in all aspects of civilization if longevity and local wealth were all that mattered in human development.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Africa – yes, for the most part all of the countries – is the birthplace of humanity. Civilization, not so much.

          Except for Egypt. Looking at the other early hot spots for civilization–Fertile Crescent, Indus valley, China–Europe don’t look so good. Ah well, Europe ain’t bad for a Johnny-come-lately.

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          Too bad you didn’t read the whole comment I left.

          “…the cuneiform of the Sumerians. Egypt as part of the fertile crescent
          of the mid east used a written language. But the bulk of the African
          continent never found that, remaining tribal hunter-gatherers until the
          last few hundred years”

        • MNb

          Too bad you ignore empirical facts that don’t suit you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Too bad you didn’t read the whole comment I left. I was inferring a West vs. Other comparison on your part and making one of my own. Much can be said for Europe and Western civilization, but it’s not like it Europe was out in front.

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          I carefully read your comment. If you choose to read my comment as west vs. other, then there is no clarity in you.

        • MNb

          “You are not an ‘atheist’ free of dogmatism” if you do not accept empirical facts like these.

          http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/08/08/11-ancient-african-writing-systems-demolish-myth-black-people-illiterate/

          The bulk of Europe never wrote anything down until fairly recently. Around 1500 CE more than 90% (and that’s a low estimation) of the European population was illiterate.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          “Race.”

          You poor thing, there’s no such thing as ‘race’ in biology.
          Genotypes and phenotypes make up what you are.
          Race is a primitive, outdated concept better left to fade into history.

        • funkenstein

          The average person who thinks IQ is a real thing is a moron. Intelligence or the ability to solve problems and learn skills is in no way a scalar quantity.

        • Mike678

          Irony: calling people that think IQ is “a real thing” morons when the term moron is a grouping of cognitally challenged individuals by IQ.

        • funkenstein

          Sorry if context wasn’t clear. I used the word moron here to apply to a specific thing: one’s understanding of what is intelligence. It is possible to be a moron in an infinity of different topics, while still being brilliant in others. Again: the ability to solve problems and learn skills is in no way a scalar quantity.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          I think problem solving skills outstrips your ability to define ‘kestrel’ any day. Both require some cognitive skills, but the former profiles intelligence better, imo.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          IQ only measures knowledge gained by being exposed to things like encyclopedias, classes, book-larnin.

          I know several “high IQ” types who wouldn’t last a day dropped into a strange city.

          I also know people who never had a great education who are smart as hell. You could drop them anywhere and they’d thrive.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Binet was forthright about the limitations of his scale. He stressed the remarkable diversity of intelligence and the subsequent need to study it using qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, measures. Binet also stressed that intellectual development progressed at variable rates and could be influenced by the environment; therefore, intelligence was not based solely on genetics, was malleable rather than fixed, and could only be found in children with comparable backgrounds

          In 1908, H.H. Goddard, a champion of the eugenics movement, found utility in mental testing as a way to evidence the superiority of the white race. After studying abroad, Goddard brought the Binet-Simon Scale to the United States and translated it into English.

          Binet was somewhat of an isolationist in that he never traveled outside France and he barely participated in professional organizations. Additionally, his mental scale was not adopted in his own country during his lifetime and therefore was not subjected to the same fate. Finally, when Binet did become aware of the “foreign ideas being grafted on his instrument” he condemned those who with ‘brutal pessimism’ and ‘deplorable verdicts’ were promoting the concept of intelligence as a single, unitary construct.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Binet#Later_career_and_the_Binet-Simon_Test

      • Carole

        Way to cherry-pick! In fact, IQ scores by country show that citizens of east Asian countries have the highest IQs. https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country I notice that you didn’t cite any authority for the last 2 paragraphs of your comment, which are rank speculation. You “race realists” (essentially everyone on Breitbart) can’t have it both ways.

        • Gregory Mullaley

          A higher I.Q. is nice but it is not a guarantee of anything other than those that have it can often solve problems with greater ease. There are MENSA members that are doctors, scientists, businessmen/women, and engineers, and then there are others that are truck drivers, short-order cooks, and laborers. Now we come to Trump; give an idiot at least $1 million (Dad), mentor him (Dad), and even he can look reasonably smart/successful. Most of Trump’s ventures have failed miserably and left 10’s of thousands out of jobs and/or still waiting to be paid. Dunning-Kruger; I give you Donald J. Trump!!!

      • (((dagobarbz)))

        That would explain North Korea… /s

    • funkenstein
      • TheNuszAbides

        404’d, but the Wayback Machine saved it a few times last year:

        https://web.archive.org/web/20160827102038/http://frass.woodcoin.org/race-differences-in-cognitive-ability-bwahahaha/

        i like how you handle M.Moldbug, whose screeds have rubbed me the wrong way on more than one occasion in ways i can’t always entirely put my finger on, but whose homework i’ve never taken the time to check.

        What do you think a culture-only model of cognitive ability might be? No DNA required, any piece of matter could have cognitive ability? Yes. Just read Plato to that petri dish and the bacteria will learn ancient greek. Oh and what’s the only other possible model: hereditarian, in which exactly half of cognitive ability is genetic. Doesn’t matter if you are alive or dead, if you have the genes you are therefore half clever. Just put your child in a closed metal box all day, it will be exactly half as smart as it would have been with real parents. Seriously, every part of this thing is so completely broken one doesn’t know where to begin.

        the lulz indeed!

        EDIT: having identified the author.

      • TheNuszAbides

        Conversely, suppose blackness-whiteness, or degree of ancestry from sub-saharan africa, were for some reason a concern. You need an actor to play a Dagon priest in a movie about the discovery of the Sirius multistellar system, for example. Better look the part. Or maybe leucitic and albino people instinctively scare the shit out of you. Perhaps black people scare your dog.

        marry me [though i’m already married].

        • funkenstein

          I’m glad you enjoyed. Thanks for the comment! It’s ok, I’m married too so lets get together :)

        • TheNuszAbides

          let the intercontinental polygamy commence! what could go wrong?

        • TheNuszAbides

          *polyamory

        • funkenstein

          Haha! Well I should be able to tell you exactly what can go wrong, but all I can think of at the moment is having troubles spending enough time with your children. Drop me a line at funkenstein@woodcoin.org and maybe we can collaborate on a paper or something :)

  • Grandma Susan

    One of my favorite topics, Dunning-Kroger ‘s initial study.As an Engineering Manager for years in a highly complex technology testing environment, I got to see the Dunning-Kroger curve in action years before I knew of it’s existence. Hiring entry level graduates and assigning them to an experienced engineer to break them in, we ran a very predictable curve. Young men, arrogant and certain of their superior skills, would chaff at the advice of the calmer engineers, the younger guys certain that they were better and smarter. They would try to launch into their preferred corrective actions, and if it wouldn’t screw things up too much, we’d let them. A few months of this usually resulted in them reluctantly approaching for help, which was calmly and cheerful given. Some time later, I would receive praise for how wonderful and smart the older engineer was from the apprentice. We referred to it as ‘dragging him over the hump’.

    Delighted to read the study when it was released,and particularly enjoyed the graphs, describing the now famous Mt. Stupid. My youngest kid is in his mid-20’s, and only recently began his descent down Mt. Stupid. We were worried because he had planted a flag at the summit and we feared he’d stay there.

    • Michael Neville

      That sort of thing happens in other fields besides engineering. As an accountant with recent college graduates working for me I’ve watched trainees climb Mt. Stupid many times. Often it’s the intricacies of the tax laws or the GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) that cause problems.

      • Grandma Susan

        Since I first read the study, I have believed it to be a universal truth!

      • MNb

        I’m afraid that when I started to teach in 1989 that I was such a young man, arrogant and certain of my skills (though I already had recognized that there were other excellent teachers). Fortunately my pupils did a good job curing me from this idea and indeed I had a mentor who taught me a few things.

    • CravenMorehead

      Too funny.

    • Ignorant Amos

      We had the same problem with sprog officer’s coming straight out of Sandhurst Military Academy thinking they had all the experience accumulated by soldiers that had years of experience…including the skill of how to cheat.

      Passing tests does not an expert make.

      • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

        My eldest son is a remarkable soldier, I say with motherly pride. He is a US Army officer. But here’s the thing. He enlisted as a private, worked his way up to SSgt, was deployed, excelled, and then sent to OCS. He has spoken (rarely) about some of the other grads of OCS, the ones fresh out of college who knew everything. The ‘Ruperts’, as it were. He worried that they’d get good men killed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well done him.

          Ya don’t get too many going up through the ranks that are useless…mostly because of the point we are making. They have experience at all levels.

          That’s not to say that I’ve not worked under some real good eggs who came through the factory. Once they got a bit of nous.

          But yeah, some of the eejits have been a liability, but that’s always been the case.

          The idiom, “lions led by donkeys” springs to mind.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_led_by_donkeys

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          Did you hear about the US Army laying off officers in the field a few years ago? Guys in Kandahar getting pink slips? They were ALL officers who had come through the ranks, and if they stayed in the military much longer, their pension would be based on officer, not enlisted man status. So they cut them loose.

          Fortunately, a few Congressmen passed a bill allowing them to get pensions reconsidered. Did a lot of damage to morale before that.

          Lions, led by donkeys, indeed. Did you know that American Democrats (Obama and Hillary) have a Donkey as their mascot?

        • adam

          “Lions, led by donkeys, indeed. Did you know that American Democrats (Obama and Hillary) have a Donkey as their mascot?”

          Did you know American Republicans have an Ass as their mascot?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44aab366484510e98a91fb947904fa0ca7693051fb797e4079cbd4d2d928dfd7.jpg

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          No, dear, Your wrong, it’s an elephant, the Republican mascot.

          Maybe you meant to say ‘nominee’?

          Have a lovely evening.

        • adam

          “Maybe you meant to say ‘nominee’?”

          No, I’ve seen him debate, I mean mascot.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          Kinda like the San Diego Chicken with a microphone…

        • Dys

          Let’s not pretend that the GOP gives much of a damn about returning veterans. They like to hold them up as heroes, insist that everyone must support them….and then hope they fade into obscurity when they come back.

          They’ve proposed legislation that would cut health benefits for them, and killed housing bills for homeless vets and other bills that would fund job assistance training. And they dragged their feet on taking care of 9/11 first responders as well.

          And since Congress is the legislative body that’s actually responsible for passing laws…the asses you’re looking for are mostly in the GOP.

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          I’m not pretending anything, dear. Our conversation was about Duning-Kruger and the phrase “Lions, led by donkeys” was too good to pass up! The visual was stunning!

          Have a lovely evening.

        • Dys

          Sure. But you used it to take a cheap shot at the Dems, when the reality is that the Republican-led Congress is far more responsible for legislation negatively affecting veterans.

          Have a good one.

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          Honey, I’m old and tired. Taking cheap shots is the only vice I can afford and have the energy for, my primary form of entertainment.

          I do have a strong political preference, but I don’t willingly ever hurt anybody. Not my style. But I got to have a giggle today!

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          The donkeys are bait, right?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I wasn’t aware of that, no.

          The same type of dirty trick has been done by the British government.

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9337175/Soldiers-sacked-days-before-pension-date.html

          Assholes in their ivory towers more interested in feathering their own nests…all parties are guilty of it.

        • DEPLORABLE Grandma Susan

          That article was really gut-wrenching. The viewers in the ivory towers still see soldiers as cannon fodder, on the field or in their homes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s especially gut-wrenching when the state is neglecting it’s service personnel. Something the UK is expert at doing.

          http://smashinglife.co.uk/war-vet-amputee-told-to-get-back-to-work-after-terminal-cancer-diagnosis/

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          They riffed off a lot of officers when I was in the Army in the 70s, but they were mostly older, some severely alcoholic, some severely incompetent, some were both.

          Nobody missed them when they left.

        • jackflash1

          Better a Donkey than a child rapist.

      • (((dagobarbz)))

        That’s probably why fragging was a thing back during Vietnam…

        • Ignorant Amos

          I could imagine it.

          There was a time when being rich and buying a commission was the norm. No tactical knowledge required.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_of_commissions_in_the_British_Army

          Definitely a case of lions and donkeys.

          The term canon fodder comes to mind, so I could well believe a lot of officers having as many holes in their back as their front.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          Heh, yeah. Nothing like a shiny young brand new Lieutenant in charge of combat-experienced soldiers. That happened, and some of those precious snowflakes did not come home due to “friendly” fire.

          But one could see that as self-defense, since the noobs undoubtedly issued orders that put soldiers at risk. Soldiers didn’t seem to like that much.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fortunately for me, it was more of an infantry issue.

          But I can certainly understand self preservation and doing what it takes to ensure it.

          That not any thick Tom, Dick, or Harry can walk off the streets and into the forces these days, must make it more difficult for a sprog Rupert to get away with giving dopey instructions without them being questioned. Not necessarily a good thing all the time may I add.

        • (((dagobarbz)))

          Yeah, they were pretty much accepting anyone who breathed back in the 70s. Cannon fodder, yanno.

        • Michael Neville

          Why do they give 2nd lieutenants one pip or a gold bar? So no one will confuse them with officers.

          What’s the difference between a 2nd lieutenant and a sack of shit? The sack.

          You know you’re in trouble when a 2nd lieutenant says: “In my experience….”

          Can you tell I was a senior petty officer?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Uh huh…dead obvious.

          I can tell ya were once an equivalent to the NATO Rank OR-5, which is a Corporal in British money and regarded as the most respected rank to hold, because those from above and below relied on ones ability, equaly, without the contempt.

          I was going to say squaddie humour, but seeing you are a naval person, forces humour, service humour….or camaraderie…will do the job.

        • Michael Neville

          I was a Senior Chief Petty Officer, NATO OR-8, equivalent of a Warrant Officer 2. I’ll go with camaraderie or just general humo(u)r.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes, I know….but you had to pass through my rank to get there I presume?

          In other word’s, you were the equivalent to a Corporal at one point and had the sense of humour to go with it.

          Once past Corporal…plenty of good lads I know got a “stick up their arse” attitude, it came with the promotion. Which I appreciate.

        • Michael Neville

          OR-5 is an ideal rank. A corporal or second class PO has been around long enough to know what they’re doing and enough seniority to have some authority but not too much.

          I enjoyed being a senior chief. I was one of the most senior enlisted in my last two submarines and I was a division officer (sorta-kinda like a platoon officer if you don’t look too hard) at my last shore command.

          I was a Yeoman, an admin and personnel specialist. As a result, I didn’t stand watches on submarines (I was qualified Chief of the Watch, the senior enlisted watch, but I did that on my own). However I got qualified Duty Chief on my last boat due to an unusual circumstance.

          We were in port and the Captain, XO, Chief of the Boat (same-same RSM) and I were at a meeting. The Captain got a phone call and took the rest of us back to the boat. Most of the crew had food poisoning and were sent to the hospital. The Duty Officer, who was not poisoned, briefed us when we got to the boat, ending with “every single Duty Chief is gone.” The XO looked at me and said, “Looks like you’re going to be the Duty Chief for the foreseeable future.” I replied, “Aye aye sir, however I’m not qualified Duty Chief.” The Captain said, “Congratulations, you’re now qualified.” I stood the watch for the next three days until a Duty Chief returned. The Chief of the Boat then gave me a Duty Chief qualification card with the UI (under instruction) watches signed off. I got the rest of the card finished in two days.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Great story…I’m sure you received monetary compensation commensurate with your newly attained qualifications, which on top of the prestige of the position, always comes in handy.

          I recognise the Chief of the Boat rank being equal to the regimental stickman from watching The Last Ship would ya believe. Senior OR in the unit and responsible for discipline.

          I now fear we have gone way, way, OT…best we knock it on the head.

        • Greg G.

          I now fear we have gone way, way, OT…best we knock it on the head.

          Bob might have you walk the plank.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Best to not court the wrath of the Evil Overlord before that happens.

        • Greg G.

          When I was in USAF, there was a play staged on base titled “Don’t Shoot Me, I’m Just a Second Lieutenant”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seems pretty universal… LOL

        • eeee

          I’m three months late to the party, but y’all are reminding me of when I was a young Army wife in the ER with what turned out to be ovarian cysts. The doctor said if they didn’t improve we’d need to consider surgery bur for the meantime I should just act like a second lieutenant. I looked at him blankly while he and my then-husband laughed. “I don’t get it,” I said. “What does a second–”

          The doctor interrupted me, and by the time he finished his sentence my husband was speaking in unison with him: “Act important, put your feet up, and don’t lift a goddamned finger.” (c:

        • jackflash1

          Which is why there was always at least one ‘enemy weapon’ in every combat platoon.

  • funkenstein

    Thanks, and great find with the Russell quote :)
    You might enjoy this post:
    http://frass.woodcoin.org/navigating-the-post-dunning-kruger-era/

    • Martin Cunningham

      The best lack all conviction
      While the worst are full of passionate intensity.

      W. B. Yeats – The Second Coming

  • ApathyNihilism

    Very convenient that commenters tend to refer to others suffering from this self-serving bias; how do we know that we ourselves are not guilty of the same?

    Could I actually be even stupider than I think I am? That’s a depressing sobering thought. So I will have a drink, to cure the sobriety if not the depression. Except I don’t drink.

    • Tracey Woodward

      The fact that you have considered that you may be less competent than you think, would suggest you do not have this syndrome.

    • Heretic (apostate of FSM)

      People who do drink (and I’m not suggesting anyone should) tend to be more self-reflective than those who do not, which pushes them to drink. Tonight I’m sober, tomorrow I may not be!

      • Ignorant Amos

        Being Irish, drinking is in the genes.

        • Heretic (apostate of FSM)

          It may be – I’m Irish, and the first drink I had was the first time I ever felt normal.

    • (((dagobarbz)))

      I wonder that myself sometimes. Am I as smart as I think (or thought) I am?
      I don’t know. I can do abysmally stupid things. Then in a flash of genius, I connect a couple of dots and think I’m all that and a bag of chips.

      Is suspecting the quality of your intellect a sign that you DON’T have Dunning-Kruger Effect? Durrrr…I dunno…

    • Joe

      ow do we know that we ourselves are not guilty of the same?

      Firstly, we acknowledge that this is a very real possibility.
      Secondly, we hopefully check our opinions against reality to see if they match.

    • daronlady620

      The fact that you are willing to ask the question indicates that you are not.

    • Angry Spock

      Known facts vs alternative facts

  • Thor Hauff

    In a word…duh.

  • Rick Carufel

    Add to that the fact smart people sound like crazy people to stupid people, so it’s impossible to educate the idiots.

  • Henk Vandenbergh

    May I add a little twist here?
    Could it be that some people pretend to know everything, ONLY to justify the fact that they refused an education?
    Or the other way around: when they were in school and had the opportunity to get and education they thought they were too smart to NEED an education.

    • Jessica Rising

      Most people who get a higher education learn really fast that they will never know everything. That’s a big part of critical thinking, something taught to every college student.

      • lady_black

        I’m almost 58, have higher education, and am still learning new things all the time. If learning isn’t a life-long project, you aren’t doing learning right.

  • XaurreauX

    All I know is I’m retired, I do nothing, and I’m REALLY good at it.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      You lean on your strengths. Good for you.

  • rubaxter

    Stoopid + Pride = Self-propagating Teabagger-dom

    It’s the pride that inoculates them from even considering they’re stoopid.

  • Chris

    “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure
    that just ain’t so”. Mark Twain

  • Peter

    So, how do we explain this to a person suspected of having this problem?

    • Angry Spock

      We don’t. They continue on being christian.

      • Daniel Campos

        Actually, democrats.

        • adam
        • Daniel Campos

          That’s all? I’m ancap man, I oppose government.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I’m ancap man, I oppose government.

          How does a “free” market stay “free” if there are no laws regulating the use of force and protecting private property?

        • adam
        • Daniel Campos

          No government doesn’t mean no laws or no norms. The free market is all about the natural enforcement of the ethics and economics of private property. Besides, we don’t need no private property protector-expropriator like government to do something desirable. After all, if there’s a need to protect people from the use of force and their property, there can be a supply built upon market principles. So I’m confident that not only without government we’d have enforcement of property rights, it would be cheaper and we would actually have it, contrary to what there is now with government, namely, plunder.

        • adam

          “The free market is all about the natural enforcement of the ethics and economics of private property. ”

          You mean like the Great Depression, or the CDO collapse in 2008 where the Banksters outright conned TRILLIONS out of the pockets of middle class Americans?

          ” Besides, we don’t need no private property protector-expropriator like government to do something desirable.”

          Who besides government protects YOU and your PROPERTY?

          “So I’m confident that not only without government we’d have enforcement
          of property rights, it would be cheaper and we would actually have it,
          contrary to what there is now with government, namely, plunder.”

          Yes, that is demonstrated very well in anarchist areas around the world, it is what allow dictators and tyrants to assume power through FORCE.

        • Pofarmer

          Teh Schtoopid is strong with these.

        • adam
        • Daniel Campos

          “You mean like the Great Depression, or the CDO collapse in 2008 where the
          Banksters outright conned TRILLIONS out of the pockets of middle class
          Americans?”

          The great depression was caused just after the Fed was stabilished and printed money like crazy for the government. Ditto for the 2008 crisis – courtesy of the leftist Paul Krugman, the man that in 2002 suggested the creation of a housing bubble to “save” the US economy from the digital bubble – and Fannie Mae and other federal regulations didn’t help either. All of such crisis happened because of government intrusion in the market, creating distortions and malinvestiments. They wouldn’t exist without government.

          “Who besides government protects YOU and your PROPERTY?”

          The factories who produce guns and ammo. The factories who produce locks. The factories who produce doors. The factories who produce alarms. The factories who produce walls and fences. And considering I don’t have a government official walking me home every day, I suppose any other good citizen that is in the streets. And, of course, I protect myself and my property. The government barely protects me, and the harm it does me is higher than the good it brainwashes you to think it does.

          “Yes, that is demonstrated very well in anarchist areas around the world,
          it is what allow dictators and tyrants to assume power through FORCE.”

          Care to provide an example? And how surrendering already and stabilishing your own dictator and tyrant is a better solution?

          Somalia is resisting since 1991 the UN attempts to force onto them a government, paying warlords to fight and stabilish a national government there. Since 2005 the UN and the US have also been bombing the country, but they still resist. Are somali people dumb, or are UN and US bombing them evil and they should just stop?

          I’m all against the use of force. Government is a monopoly on the use of force on a givern territory. If you don’t like to use force to solve problems, you shouldn’t like government – it’s only logical.

        • adam

          “The great depression was caused just after the Fed was stabilished and printed money like crazy for the government. ”

          Nope the top heavy economy and a criminal Wall Street selling on ‘margins’, i.e. gambling on borrowed money caused both crises.

          “All of such crisis happened because of government intrusion in the market,”

          CDO’s were not created by government intrusion, but the lack thereof, margin buying the same.

          “The factories who produce guns and ammo. ”

          Those factories protect no one.
          Even they rely on government to protect them, build infrastructure that allows supplies to get to their factories, infrastructure that allows employees to get to their factorys, infrastructure that allows power to get to their factories, and standards that allow them to produce quality products that dont explode in your face.

          “Are somali people dumb, or are UN and US bombing them evil and they should just stop?”

          See, THAT’s the crux of the bisquit, the Somali people didnt run Somali, the armed militants did.

          By using your private armies.

          “Between Jan. 1991 and Aug. 2000, Somalia had no working government. A
          fragile parliamentary government was formed in 2000, but it expired in
          2003 without establishing control of the country. In 2004, a new
          transitional parliament was instituted and elected a president.” http://www.infoplease.com/country/somalia.html

          Somalia has a government now.

          “I’m all against the use of force. ”

          Then you should be FOR governments, for without them the only controlling force IS FORCE.

        • Daniel Campos

          You fail to realize, about both crisis, that they were created by government regulation and fiat money. Who garanteed bad loans would be bailed out, inflating the housing bubble? Government throught Fannie Mae. Who pushed loans for people who couldn’t pay for them, inflating the housing bubble even more? Government throught CRA. Who bailed out banks instead of allowing a market correction on the economy, not allowing the bubble to fully contract? The government.

          When factories produce means throught which I can exercise my right to self-defense, they’re actually helping me defend myself. Government doesn’t produce guns, so it begs for asking: without guns, how government would protect me? Even government need the market to try to protect myself and failm miserably at it since I can’t depend solely on it.

          And no factory would produce products that would explode in my face, at least not willingly – Samsung 7S? – because that doesn’t garantees a profit. About infrastructure, I think you mean roads, things easy to build, which the government contracts with private companies to do, which in many places were done for people who paid for them without government as the middle man.

          The armed militants were private armies to the warlords the UN financed to stabilish a government in Somalia.

          Considering that government relies on the use of force to – ta-da – *enforce* its laws instead of in voluntary agreements, you basically want a government as a force user to prevent others from using force. That’s an oxymoron, you see.

        • Paul B. Lot

          You fail to realize, about both crisis, that they were created by government regulation and fiat money.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking

        • Pofarmer

          After all, if there’s a need to protect people from the use of force and
          their property, there can be a supply built upon market principles

          So, private armies then. What could go wrong? We’ve TRIED this, ya moron.

        • Daniel Campos

          Yeah I’ve read about it. The private police was doing so good a job politicians were getting frightened. They then instilled fear in the poppulation, paid a mob to kill some of the men working in the private police, and then stabilished the FBI.

          With a bigger market on private property protection, it’s not hard to see things improving. Your gun is not made by government, nor is the lock on your door, or the wall or fence you may build, or your alarm if you have one. We *already* have a market working to protect your property, moron. The disfunctional sector is where the government has a monopoly, namely, police and military.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Upon arriving at the scene, however, the fire fighters did nothing while their employer bargained over the price of their services with the distressed property owner. If Crassus could not negotiate a satisfactory price, his men simply let the structure burn to the ground, after which he offered to purchase it for a fraction of its value.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome

        • Daniel Campos

          All the while, voluntary fire fighters are not government employees either, and having insurance to pay for your fire doesn’t hurt. Your argument is rendered innocuous.

        • Paul B. Lot

          voluntary fire fighters are not government employees either

          What do you mean? The ones who aren’t paid full wages, but do get benefits, do get Gov’t training, do use and interface with Got’v equipment and standards and communications?

          The fact that a hybrid exists between [purely gov’t employee] and [volunteer] doesn’t address this argument at all.


          having insurance to pay for your fire doesn’t hurt

          Ah, so. Insurance for the fact that Grandma couldn’t hear the alarm in the night and was burned to death.

          Or insurance to deal with the fact that your firstborn’s baby photos are ashes and Great Grandfathers war medals are melted into a puddle?

          Yeah, no. “Insurance” isn’t the full answer to “what should we do about community fire saftey”.


          Your argument is rendered innocuous.

          1) “Innocuous”, really? That’s the word-choice which fit best here? 😛

          2) You don’t seem to grasp my argument, so I’m not sure how you convinced yourself that you had dealt with it.

          We have examples of inelastic demands being met by private companies in the past – it didn’t work out well. Bad enough that people will pay almost anything to put out a fire when their loved ones and/or sentimental things are at stake, but the danger is not just to the one whose house is on fire, but also to everyone around them in range of the flames and cinders.

        • Daniel Campos

          Private firefighters still exist. Insurance companies usually have them to honor the contract with their clients.

          Besides, insurance is a way to address prevention. Insurance companies want you to never need them at all. So what they do? They work on prevention. Comparing to what government does to prevent fires – i.e., nothing – insurance companies are doing a better job than government, as always.

          And then the old “inelastic demands” or “public goods and services” arise. Having not learnt anything or conveniently forgetting anything about precification, the statist forgets that in a dangerous fire to anyone dear and near if a private firefighter were to ask for a hefty price it wouldn’t get much service to do and go out of business real quick once competition with a better price came into town.

          ZZzZzzZZzzzzzZ

        • Paul B. Lot

          Having not learnt anything or conveniently forgetting anything about precification

          Tell me more about “precification”.

          I’m all ears.


          if a private firefighter were to ask for a hefty price it wouldn’t get much service

          History disagrees with you. So sorry. 😛

        • Daniel Campos

          Prices are defined by testing and error. With many different companies selling a similar product or the same rpoduct, they seek to achieve the clearing price, i.e., the price where all the products are sold, while satisfying all the perceived demand – so there’s no perceived demand left.

          To satisfy all the perceived demand, the price on the product has to be smaller than the value perceived by the consumer, so it might want to engage in a voluntary trade where he will give money for said product. If the price is higher than the perceived value from the viewpoint of the consumer, he won’t buy it.

          On the other hand, the seller wants to sell all the products he bought, for if he doesn’t sell everything he paid for, he’s not attaining a profit from every purchase made. He also has the interest to sell all his products for many reasons: clearing his stock, promoting his product, make people recognize they can find what they want there, etc. So they cannot put prices so high as to not have customers, specially if there’s competition in town for selling that product, since it is better to sell your products at a lower price than not selling any product at all because people can buy at the competition. And sometimes shops will sell products for a price lower than what they paid for it to cut losses, when the owner of the shop failed to anticipate the desires of his customers, or for another reason.

          So, basically: prices are defined by customers. If they think the price is too high they won’t buy. This preception is increased if they find another seller willing to sell for a lower price.

          About history: what did you eat today? Food is essential to living, and people would die after many days without food. Eating is also something that you need to do more often than putting out a fire, and you and your loved ones may die if you don’t buy food. Why isn’t food more expensive? Why isn’t an apple sold at $ 1.000,00? History proves you wrong.

        • Paul B. Lot

          1) You offered to teach me about “precification”. I accepted your offer. When is my lesson coming?

          2) “So, basically: prices are defined by customers.” Did you….just spend 254 words….to tell me about “supply & demand.”

          Wow.

          3) “About history: what did you eat today?…. Why isn’t food more expensive? Why isn’t an apple sold at $ 1.000,00? History proves you wrong”

          YOU advanced the claim that “if a private firefighter were to ask for a hefty price it wouldn’t get much service”. All I needed was 1 counter example to prove you wrong.

          I found it, easily, because….education?

          Anyway, if it turns out that your claim is not “if a private firefighter were to ask for a hefty price it wouldn’t get much service”, but rather “if a private firefighter were to ask for a hefty price it [is possible to conceive of a system where he] wouldn’t get much service” – then, by all mean, make that change.

          Modify your argument to match that.

          But, until you do, all the cheap apples you can eat today won’t keep the history-doctor away.

        • Daniel Campos

          1)Already provided. It wouldn’t seem, at first, that you’d need a lesson on how to read.

          2)It really seems you don’t know about supply and demand, because

          3)you cannot conceive that in a free market there would be competition in the firefighters’ sector pushing prices down.

        • Paul B. Lot

          1)Already provided.

          It was? I missed it. Maybe you can give me another lesson, starting with the definition of the word?


          3)you cannot conceive that in a free market there would be competition in the firefighters’ sector pushing prices down.

          I absolutely can “conceive” of such a situation, I just also happen to know that in the past there have been at least n > 0 situations where private firefighting companies have extorted desperate customers, rather than provide the best possible service at the lowest possible price.

          Because n > 0, your argument fails as-stated.

        • Daniel Campos

          1)Considering that the government extorts everyone to pay for its firefighters, put them fires out or not, and

          2)considering that you expect the market to have been an utopia in the past lest you claim it to be worse than government which is no utopia at all

          You didn’t even provide a counterargument, but mere fallacies.

        • adam

          “All the while, voluntary fire fighters are not government employees either,”

          So they have no obligation to protect you for any more than you pay them for.

          And if someone with more money wants to pay them to let your place burn…..

          “and having insurance to pay for your fire doesn’t hurt.”

          So giving MORE power to an unregulated business, it YOUR answer?

          Really?
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eef8df1f840d81707d50d679a1d3e42e40175b9aa114df95ea5bbea63b3921a9.png

        • Daniel Campos

          The only unregulated business I know of is government. Market businesses depend on satisfying the consumer, so the consumer regulates businesses. Besides, your answer is giving more power to government. Have you ever studied history?

        • adam

          Government is not a business.

          ” Market businesses depend on satisfying the consumer, so the consumer regulates businesses.”

          Then why didnt consumers regulate bank CDO’s?
          Why didnt consumers regulate lead in drinking water?
          Why didnt consumers regulate cancer causes like tobacco?

          “Besides, your answer is giving more power to government.”
          Certainly more power than someone or something that operates on short term profit motives.

          ” Have you ever studied history?”

          Yes, have YOU? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cc4b34fcbb1371ec27b7817a06deafc320c90d7e12737feb2565c7b308c3c212.jpg

        • Daniel Campos

          Banks’ CDO’s were created to satisfy the demands of people who knew the house of cards would fall apart, and bet against the banks. The banks entered in the bet and they lost money to these people.

          Lead in drinking water was poison that government produced in states where the state government had a monopoly on the water system. Where the supply of drinking water was privatized, cases of lead on drinking water is rare, and when it happens the company is held responsible.

          As I said, you should study history. Do you know what happens when you surrender too much power to government? Do you know what a dictatorship is?

        • Paul B. Lot

          The only unregulated business I know of is government.

          As @disqus_xusoHBL07f:disqus points out below, the disjunction between “business” and “government” makes your assertion here unwieldy.

          But, even if we grant your unwieldy premise, you’re wrong. Many forms of “government” are constantly regulated – through elections and internal checks & balances.

          Oh man, I bet your quiver full of absurd assertions works great while debating sophomore undergrads.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Many forms of “government” are constantly regulated – through elections and internal checks & balances.”

          Now this is *the* definition of an unwieldy premise. Laughtable at best.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Laughtable (sic) at best.

          This one is going on my refrigerator, up along the other special individuals.

          Gold star!

        • Daniel Campos

          Put that one too:

          In the market, you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to many agents to receive from them what you want.

          In the government, you can try to regulate it by every 4 years trying to choose a handful of agents – because your choice may not win – to be forced to give your money to it to hopefully receive from them half of what you want.

          You statists do have weird tastes.

        • Paul B. Lot

          In the market, you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to many agents to receive from them what you want.

          Riiiiight, because in your stateless voluntary market based Randian dream-world, exactly zero contracts will be for terms longer than 24hrs.


          In the government, you can try to regulate it by every 4 years trying to choose a handful of agents – because your choice may not win – to be forced to give your money to it to hopefully receive from them half of what you want.

          What I want is a way to peacefully coexist with my neighbors and work together towards a better future with them.

          So far, the best attempts I’ve seen/read about are Socialist/Republican/Democratic representative systems.

          I’ll let you try out your An-Cap on your own, wherever you are, and if it turns out to be better I’ll adjust my thinking after witnessing the evidence of its superiority.

          Until then, though, you just seem like a wide-eyed blowhard with poor othography.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Riiiiight, because in your stateless voluntary market based Randian
          dream-world, exactly zero contracts will be for terms longer than 24hrs.”

          No Randian here. Read Hoppe or Rothbard if you want to understand my position. And baseless assertions are still fallacies.

          “What I want is a way to peacefully coexist with my neighbors and work together towards a better future with them.”

          So you have no use of an institution that coerces him to do your bidding or coerces you to do his bidding.

          “I’ll let you try out your An-Cap on your own, wherever you are, and
          if it turns out to be better I’ll adjust my thinking after witnessing
          the evidence of its superiority.

          Until then, though, you just seem like a wide-eyed blowhard with poor othography.”

          I have already mentioned Cospaia to you. There’s this place called ancapistan. Lo and behold!

          All the while, Socialism is what destroyed Somalia, Russia, Poland, Afghanistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Nigeria, Argelia, Zambia, Namibia, Congo, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Kenya, Cuba, among others. Considering Somalia’s life expectancy increased 5 years in the following 14 after it broke under the weight of socialism, infant mortality decreased 20% and mother mortality 30%, while GDP multiplyed by 4, and all this while UN, US and Ethiopia financed warlords to wreck ravoc in the country, sometimes – all the time – no government is better than some government.

        • Paul B. Lot

          No Randian here.

          Where or not you consider yourself a Randian has no bearing on whether or not the system you describe is.


          Read Hoppe or Rothbard if you want to understand my position.

          The more you talk, the less interesting your position becomes to me.


          And baseless assertions are still fallacies.

          Indeed, we could wish you made fewer! :)


          So you have no use of an institution that coerces him to do your bidding or coerces you to do his bidding.

          Unless “his bidding” is to do harm to others – then: yes, I do have a use for “coercion”.


          I have already mentioned Cospaia to you.

          I fucking dare you to show me where, you lying doofus.


          All the while, Socialism is what destroyed….

          Soviet-style Socialism is not what I’m talking about.

          Swing and a miss.


          sometimes – all the time – no government is better than some government.

          Lol, nah bruh. You’re playing equivocation games, nothing more.

          Boring.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Where or not you consider yourself a Randian has no bearing on whether or not the system you describe is.”

          Rand was an untilitarian. She was for government to exist with the police. Since I advocate for no government, and I’m no utilitarian libertarian, I’m no randian. True scottsman fallacy.

          “The more you talk, the less interesting your position becomes to me.”

          *shruggs*

          “Indeed, we could wish you made fewer! :)”

          You provided no base for why without government contracts would last 24 hours max.

          “I fucking dare you to show me where, you lying doofus.”

          https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2ytodb/the_anarchist_republic_of_cospaia/

          Also:

          https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/134479?hl=en

          Swiss socialism. Yeah, right, that parlamentaristic monarchy that is market-friendly, that is no proletarian dictatorship nor the state owns the means of production. That “socialism” that is actually no socialism. Right.

        • adam

          “https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarc…”

          A large farm is your ‘example’

          Ok, you guys are POEs, right.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Since I advocate for no government

          We’ve been over this before: no, you don’t.

          Whatever you replace “government” with will, itself, be a “government”.


          You provided no base for why without government contracts would last 24 hours max.

          Did you ever ask me to support that characterization? It seems like you want me to support it. Ok:

          In the market, you can regulate it daily


          I have already mentioned Cospaia to you.

          “I fucking dare you to show me where, you lying doofus.”

          Talking to me now about “Cospaia” does nothing to absolve you from your earlier lie that you had “already mentioned” it to me. You gormless buffoon.


          That “socialism” that is actually no socialism. Right.

          My goodness. For someone who bitches about not-being-read-carefully-enough as much as you do, you sure are guilty of the same sins, aren’t you?

          We should come up with a word for that.

          Let me reiterate: Soviet-style Socialism is not what I’m talking about.

        • Daniel Campos


          We’ve been over this before: no, you don’t.

          Whatever you replace “government” with will, itself, be a “government”.”

          No need to replace government. It is like Obamacare: only needs a repeal.

          “Did you ever ask me to support that characterization? It seems like you want me to support it. Ok:”

          Non sequitur. Market provides long term contracts, it is not unusual. After all, consistent prices is something desirable for most individuals, if not for falling prices, so altought many things change in a day in the market, not everything change in a day.

          “Let me reiterate: Soviet-style Socialism is not what I’m talking about.”

          True scottsman fallacy. You cannot claim Switzerland is a socialistic country when it doesn’t claim it is. Even Sweden claim it is not socialistic, Denmark’s PM in a visit to the US claimed Denmark wasn’t socialist, and these countries bear no political nor economical structure that bears any resemblance to anything name socialism, be it russian socialism, national socialism, fascism, or anything. You might define Switzerland as socialist because in your wet dreams socialism is a good word that doesn’t have the meaning it has, i.e., a dictatorship of the proletariat with state-owned means of production, but that’s delusional. The word has a definition, and Switzerland and scandinavian countries don’t fit in it.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Non sequitur. Market provides long term contracts, it is not unusual.

          No, not non sequitur but sequitur.

          So. There will be long-term contracts in your imagination. Excellent. Now you’e contradicted yourself:

          In the market, you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to


          You cannot claim Switzerland is …..

          Please quote back to me, you prancing jackanapes, where I said word one about Switzerland. I’ll wait.


          You might define Switzerland as socialist because in your wet dreams socialism is a good word that doesn’t have the meaning it has, i.e., a dictatorship of the proletariat with state-owned means of production, but that’s delusional. The word has a definition, and Switzerland and scandinavian countries don’t fit in it.

          I used a specific phrasing because I had a specific thing in mind, I can’t help it if you’re too stupid or incurious to have grasped or asked for my meaning.

          *shrug*

        • Daniel Campos

          “No, not non sequitur but sequitur.

          So. There will be long-term contracts in your imagination. Excellent. Now you’e contradicted yourself:”

          Apples and oranges. Every day the market changes, but not everything changes everyday. Isn’t hard to understand.

        • Paul B. Lot

          [The market as a whole] might very well fluctuate, from day to day. You didn’t talk about [the market as a whole].

          You talked about [an individual’s choices when interacting with the market].

          Recall, if your diminished mental capacity affords you that ability, that we were talking about how [citizens] can already [regulate the government].

          YOU decided to advance the conundrum of [individuals only being able to regulate once every 4 years].

          There are a host of problems with that characterization, from the varying time scales of different election cycles at different levels of government, to the fact that [elections] are not the only way citizens can effect change in their government, to the fact that you ignored “checks & balances”…..

          I let all of that idiocy slide, though, in favor of focusing on just one aspect: your juxtaposition of “every 4 years” with “daily”.

          If your fevered brain conjurs a utopian ancap system wherein the market offers [contracts which last longer than 24 hours], then it will not be the case that [every individual can make changes daily]. Some non-zero percentage of the population will not be able to “regulate it daily”. So this:

          In the market, you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to

          is false. :)

        • Daniel Campos

          You have really hard problems grasping reality, don’t you?

          The fact that market changes every day is because of people’s actions. People don’t do one action a day. People might as well change the market every day *and* hold a contract that lasts more than one day; all it is needed is to market interactions for that individual to be more than 1, with that person being able to change the market interacting with other individuals except to change the hypothetical contract. You did fail miserably here.

          And while you’re comparing free market without government with an utopia and dismissing it because an utopia it is not, you claim that you already live in an utopia because government’s “checks and balances” that spews corruption all the time? Of course you know you don’t. And while you may have as many different election cycles as you wish, you can’t change government officials daily. I’ll provide an example on how politics would apply in food chains to be clear:

          Imagine we lived in such a world where the “social contract” stated that people, to prevent violence from happening, would have to come to terms with what food they should eat. People can vote in whoever they want, but basically, we have two choices: McDonalds and Burguer King. You might be able to elect your preferred japanese restaurant in your county, but he can’t compete to be the national food chain unless he becomes part of McDonalds or Burguer King. Once “we the people” elect one of these, every day all other food chains and restaurants have to comply with their recipes for burguers, rench fries, and so on. You can only change this every four years, and you can’t complain much if that food chain caused you harm because, you know, that’s not patriotic, and you should accept the mandate of the winning food chain.

          This is, of course, absurd. We are way better served with the market operations on food. See, you can go grocery shopping and cook for yourself, and is not forced to follow other people’s recipes.

          Now apply that to all other goods and services on the market? Aren’t they way more functional than government? Damn, Obama spent 2 billion dollars and made a disfunctional website for Obamacare, a legislation that contained a mandate. Trump is gonna build a multibillion wall and do lots of harmful things on the trade front. With politics, only part of the people get what they want, and most people lose with it. In the market, most people get what they want, and most people profit from it. So I see no reason not to transfer the supply of goods and services from government to the market.

          After all, “we the people” are the market. The market is not a mystical creature: it is you and me when we engage in economical transactions. Companies, that participate in the market, are not mystical entities as well: they’re made of people.

          Really, we don’t need the government. We actually need to get rid of it, or around it.

        • adam

          “You have really hard problems grasping reality, don’t you?”

          Coming from someone whose VERY BEST EXAMPLE of their ‘system’ ‘working’ is an 815 acre ‘farm’

          and who claims to oppose coercian:

          Daniel Campos

          adam

          an hour ago

          It is done throught justified use of force.”

          Which just makes you out as a LIAR….

        • Aram

          You honestly believe all that ‘invisible hand’ bullshit? Damn, I’m amazed they still make you.

        • Daniel Campos

          I never mentioned the invisible hand, anywhere.

        • Aram

          Don’t be obtuse. Your entire argument is Adam Smith and markets working themselves out i.e. the invisible hand.

        • Daniel Campos

          You simplify that view so much, one can only wonder that maybe you don’t know what it is.

          Besides, I made arguments mentioning Adam Smith, but to show that people don’t need to be rid of vice to work for their fellow men. The example, if I recall correctly, is that the baker doesn’t bake cakes to sell you because he is autruistic towards you, but because he is greedy and wants to make a profit. But that was a minor anedoctal pointing that people like don’t know the basic of why people act as they act in the market.

        • adam

          “You simplify that view so much, one can only wonder that maybe you don’t know what it is.”

          Well with how much you simplify and ignore, one can be sure that you dont know what it is.

          “but because he is greedy and wants to make a profit.”

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act immorally]?]

        • Paul B. Lot

          Don’t be obtuse.

          I’m not sure your supplier can meet this demand.

        • adam

          “I’m not sure your supplier can meet this demand.”

          Even so, the quality is SHIT, the product description is vague AND contradictory and the only place this is SUPPOSED to work is in an 815 acre township about the size of a large farm, in Italy with some 300 people who have the country of Italy to oversee them. Who run a MONOPOLY

          “One of the reasons for the prosperity of Cospaia was that it was the only place in Italy that didn’t follow with the papal ban on tobacco growing, thus ensuring a monopoly on production.[6]”
          https://en.wikipedia.orgwiki/Republic_of_Cospaia

          THIS is their working example…

          A MONOPOLY

        • adam

          so?
          are you denying it?

        • adam

          ” you claim that you already live in an utopia because government’s “checks and balances” that spews corruption all the time? ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/24003acbe259fbd4611386b7a0761bc045ddcbd367319e26bdeed765705d3e8f.jpg

        • adam

          “You have really hard problems grasping reality, don’t you?”

          From someone whose VERY BEST example of their ‘system’ ‘working’ is an 815 acre ‘farm’?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34e5a09202be1e797d7295934ed1703dd035fc9bbd1b641ae56f71321ae05a62.jpg

        • Paul B. Lot

          And while you may have as many different election cycles as you wish, you can’t change government officials daily.

          Precisely. Nor can you change [market-provided-contracts-lasting-longer-than-24-hrs] daily.

          So.

          Either:
          a) the market only provides security/safety/fire/water/insurance/transportation contracts which do not last longer than 24 hours
          OR
          b) you were wrong when you said that one of the differences between having a traditional “coercive” government and a this make-believe “voluntary association” created “free market” is that, in the latter every, consumers can “can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to many agents to receive from them what you want”.

          As soon as a consumer purchases a good/service which lasts longer than 24 hours, they are no longer able to regulate that market on a daily basis through the purchasing/non-purchasing of that good/service. They’ll have to wait until the end of the effective term of the purchase to “vote” again by buying or not buying the product/service.

          So sorry. ;P

        • Daniel Campos

          Your juxtaposition of “individuals” with “one individual in particular” are not working to confuse me.

          When one person buys something that lasts more than 24 hours, that specific individual may or may not – because he can then discard that product or contract in favor of another, or not – produce change in that specific good or service. Other individuals, who are not binded by the purchase of the former, are free to as they please.

          Therefore, your argument fails miserably, as I stated, because the number of market interactions and individuals and changes they can produce in the market are x, being x > 1.

          Don’t be sorry. Go study some economics and stop being ignorant.

        • Paul B. Lot

          – because he can then discard that product or contract in favor of another

          Oh, what? So contracts are meaningless in your system? They can be made and discarded at will? Seems like BS to me.


          Your juxtaposition of “individuals” with “one individual in particular” are not working to confuse me.

          Lol, I’m just trying to understand and paraphrase your own arguments. I’m sorry to hear that they are in danger of confusing you. You said:

          In the market, you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to many agents to receive from them what you want.

          This is false. In point of fact “you” cannot “regulate [the market] daily” by buying goods and services which last longer than 24 hrs. If you buy a single 30 fixed-rate mortgage and have not the means to pay it off early, then you will have zero power to “regulate” the mortgage market for the next 30 years.

          You *physically could* of course discard your contracted mortgage, but then there would be consequences.

          Just like one currently living under “coercive government” *physically could* discard the rule of law NOW and begin acting howsoever they wished….but then there would be consequences.

          Your example of a dichotomy between the two, then, is debunked.

          So sorry.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Oh, what? So contracts are meaningless in your system? They can be made and discarded at will? Seems like BS to me.”

          You’re deflecting because you failed miserably. The individual can, but is not obliged. He may suffer the consequences of his actions, but he is not forced to stay in the system – it is voluntary. Usually, many businesses allows you to sign contracts and have a time to rethink if it was good to you, in which case you can them tell you’re not going to abide by the contract.

          I think your level of abstraction is too low to understand things, so you need concrete examples.

          Have you ever operated a credit card? You can use it more than once a day, affecting at your will the services and goods you have a contract with the issuer of your credit card. You can buy a sack of rice that may take 2 months for you to eat, and then go back to the same grocery store to buy something else you forgot.

          You can pay your mortgage in time, or pay in advance, or delay payment a bit and suffer the consequences, all of it in less than 30 years.

          Again, don’t be sorry. Go study economics.

        • Paul B. Lot

          The individual can, but is not obliged. He may suffer the consequences of his actions, but he is not forced to stay in the system – it is voluntary.

          How do the people who are wronged by this individual recover the money they lost as a result of his breach of contract?


          You can pay your mortgage in time, or pay in advance, or delay payment a bit and suffer the consequences, all of it in less than 30 years.

          This is the best you’ve got? Your attempt to argue against the point I made with my hypothetical is….simply to refuse to accept the terms of that hypothetical? What, are you a coward or something? :)

          I’ll repeat the terms of the hypothetical, to refresh your goldfish-like-attention-span:

          If you buy a single 30 fixed-rate mortgage and have not the means to pay it off early


          I think your level of abstraction is too low to understand things, so you need concrete examples.

          :)

          Let me cash out our argument for you again, I don’t mind holding your hand. I’ll speak slowly and try to use small-ish words for you!

          First of all, you made the absurd claim that:

          The only unregulated business I know of is government.

          I, adeptly and adroitly, pointed out (only one of many on offer) a glaring flaw in your argument:

          Many forms of “government” are constantly regulated – through elections and internal checks & balances.

          Your pathetic response was, once again, predictably idiotic:

          In the market, you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to many agents to receive from them what you want. In the government, you can try to regulate it by every 4 years

          Luckily, I was there to rebut your ridiculous response with aplomb and alacrity:

          Riiiiight, because in your stateless voluntary market based Randian dream-world, exactly zero contracts will be for terms longer than 24hrs.

          So here we are. Now we’ve moved on from your risible claims about “government” being “unregulated” to determining the implications of your eratz analyses.

          YOU claimed that, contrary to a stateful system which is only able to be regulated “every 4 years” (this premise is itself laughably idiotic – but I like to allow you to present laughably idiotic premises and see which neighborhood of Idiotsville they take us to), in a “stateless” free market system:

          you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to many agents to receive from them what you want

          But this is false.

          In your system, the only way for an individual to contribute at all to the regulation of the state non-state “free market” is with their money. Money is everything in your system. It is speech and life and food and political regulatory power.

          If a consumer only has $20,000 in savings and they obtain a $190,000, 30 year fixed-rate, loan to pay for a $200,000 house, therefore, it is simply not the case that that consumer will be able to “regulate” the mortgage market for the next 30 years.

          They bought their mortgage, their interaction with the system is done. They regulated it, once, and won’t be able to do so again until they have either paid off their current loan, or they accumulate enough money/credit to get another loan.

          Can a person, physically speaking, shirk their responsibilities and “ suffer the consequences“? Of course.

          But then, they can do that in a stateful system too.

          Your attempt to draw a dichotomy has, I regret to inform you once again, failed.

          So sorry.

        • Daniel Campos

          “How do the people who are wronged by this individual recover the money they lost as a result of his breach of contract?”

          Arbitration agencies, private courts, banks…

          The rest of your drivel assumes that all government societies are an utopia stateful system where there’s democracy. Most aren’t. In most stateful systems an individual have very little say in how things should be. Even in the US lobbists from big corporations can pour money to buy politicians that will legislate in their favour making them earn money to pour on the next politicians, thus exaberbating social tensions at best and empoverishing the average Joe at worse.

          And then we clearly see your huypothesis failing in a circular reasoning, because the feature you assume as a premise is at the conclusion: the individual won’t change anything in 30 years because the hypothesis assumes that before-hand.

          “Can a person, physically speaking, shirk their responsibilities and ” suffer the consequences”? Of course.

          But then, they can do that in a stateful system too.”

          In an utopian stateful system, government has a monopoly on the creation and enforcement of laws. This means that any underetimation or superestimation of consequences for contract breaches and other violations may affect the entire society. And since government don’t have a profit motive and has a monopoly, it will not adequate norms and practices to enrich society, since it will always operate at a *loss*.

          In a free market for arbitration, creation of norms, and enforcement of them, any superestimation or overestimation of any agent will only affect itself and its customers, thus limiting mistake widt and effect on society. It will not have the problems of economic calculation that a monopoly, be it government or not, has – i.e., it will be able to most accuratedly ascertain marginal profits and losses. I wil depend upon creating good norms to solve conflicts and to be able to enforce them in a manner that will not displease customers and society alike, because of the profit motive: they won’t exist next year if they don’t please the consumers – something that doesn’t happen if government displeases you: it keeps existing.

          The free market is perfect? No, but it is way better at solving problems than the state.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Arbitration agencies, private courts, banks…

          And what if someone just…refuses to pay? What recourse does [the wronged party] have to [recover their loses]?


          your drivel assumes that all government societies are an utopian stateful system where there’s democracy

          It does nothing of the kind. I’m spending my energies correcting your idiocies, not advancing any hypothesis of my own. Some number of “governments” (let’s forget about the fact that what you call state-less is not, in fact, state-less) are, in fact, “regulated”.

          You claimed they weren’t.

          I’m sorry that the process of disabusing you of your idiocy has been this painful for you.

          So sorry.


          And then we clearly see your hypothesis failing in a circular reasoning, because the feature you assume as a premise is at the conclusion as well: the individual won’t change anything in 30 years because the hypothesis assumes that before-hand

          I doubt it.

          It’s absolutely *possible* that my argument was circular, that one of the premises I postulated was the conclusion itself.

          But I very much doubt it, and I’d like to watch you try to demonstrate it.

          I’ll wait.

        • Daniel Campos

          “And what if someone just…refuses to pay? What recourse does [the wronged party] have to [recover their loses]?”

          Arbitration, private courts and banks would have contracts between themselves to allow for taking the money from the offender’s account to pay for the costs of their services in estabilishing justice and for the defined pay for the victim. If that person doesn’t have a bank account, the victim is justified in employing force to reobtain his compensation, since he is not the starting aggressor and he is defending himself from aggression made against him. Private courts, arbitration agencies and banks may lend security personnel to garantee the retrieval of property correspondent to damage more liabilities, being them increased for the service of the security guards.

          “I doubt it.

          It’s absolutely *possible* that my argument was circular, that one of the premises I postulated was the conclusion itself.

          But I very much doubt it, and I’d like to watch you try to demonstrate it.

          I’ll wait.”

          Your premise was that the person wouldn’t have money to make significant changes to the mortgage payment. Then your conclusion states that the person would not be able to make significant changes to the mortgage payment. You employed circular reasoning here, all right.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Arbitration, private courts and banks would have contracts between themselves to allow for taking the money from the offender’s account to pay for the costs of their services in estabilishing justice and for the defined pay for the victim. If that person doesn’t have a bank account, the victim is justified in employing force

          Wow, it’s sounding more and more like you’re talking about the exact same functions a government provides. Hmmm….


          Your premise was that the person wouldn’t have money to make significant changes to the mortgage payment. Then your conclusion states that the person would not be able to make significant changes to the mortgage payment. You employed circular reasoning here, all right.

          Not at all, you dumb mother fucker.

          Premise 1: Individuals “regulate” a given market segment through the use of their money. “Pro” = spend available money on product/service xyz, “Con” = don’t spend available money on product/service xyz.

          Premise 2: Individuals with little means will want to obtain long-term contracts from market segments like the mortgage industry.

          Premise 3: Once a person of little means buys the long term product/service xyz, such as from a mortgage lender, they are locked into xyz for the term of xyz. In the case of a mortgage, for example, they can’t pay it off (little means) until near the end of the mortgage (if at all) – people often sell with the mortgagee being paid out at closing.

          Conclusion: Since, from P1, individuals contribute to “regulating” a market segment by spending their available money on product/service xyz, and since from P2 and P3 some individuals will enter long-term contracts which tie up their available money – at least some individuals will be unable to participate in the daily regulation of a given market segment.

          —-

          (This really will have to be your last lesson today, so sorry.)

        • adam

          “Wow, it’s sounding more and more like you’re talking about the exact same functions a government provides. Hmmm….”

          Not so much,

          His Arbitration is private for profit
          His private courts are for profit
          And his banks are for profit.

          And in Daniels system, all three are VOLUNTARY, meaning they could UNVOLUNTEER at any time.

          Image YOU going to a for profit arbitration paid for by the party you are arbitrating AGAINST.

          Same with private courts

          And oversight?
          Private armies.

          MIGHT makes reicht.

        • adam

          “(This really will have to be your last lesson today, so sorry.)”

          You will only be ‘forgiven’ if you pick it again shortly.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Wow, it’s sounding more and more like you’re talking about the exact same functions a government provides. Hmmm….”

          Except that government initiates aggression, i.e., violate the non-aggression principle. I knew you would argue that, so let me stabilish an ethical difference of the most importance.

          The non-aggression principle states that no use of force or threat
          thereof is justified if used in starting aggression against another
          person’s self or property. Use of force or threat thereof is only
          justified as a means of defense against aggression initiated, being
          aggression not merely the initiation of employment of force but also the
          threat thereof.

          That being said, the free market would work using force or threat thereof to defend people against aggression initiated against them, so, differently than a government, it wouldn’t start from a position of aggression itself to then use force or threat thereof to enforce them.

          A private court, for instance, may rule that an aggressor owns his victim some sum of money or value to pay for the compensation to the damage done to the victim’s self or property.

          In this instance, the private court may have agreements with banks, so
          that the banks help the private courts transfer the necessary sum of
          money from the aggressor to the victim. The banks may even offer to
          their customers insurance against being sued so that in the case they
          don’t have enought money their monthly payments may cover the costs. The banks may reserve themselves the right to not contract such judicial
          insurances with people that are being currently sued. The banks may also sell these judicial insurances to help those in litigation to pay for
          their expenses at the court.

          In the case the aggressor doesn’t have money in the banks, or not enought, the private court, or the banks, may lend the victim some security personnel to retrieve the remaining value for compensation, or it may offer such service in the judicial insurances. Since they would be acting in defense of the victim’s self or private property, this wouldn’t constitute the initiation of aggression. In the case the aggressor doesn’t have enought resources with which to compensate for the victim’s damage, the judicial insurance may cover the costs at the expense of the bank, which will then proceed to collect the value from the aggressor after time.

          Insuch cases, even if the aggressor or the victim is poor, and is without
          judicial insurance, he may still be able to fend for himself. Since
          banks are involved, he may borrow money from the bank to make his case. He may even use proof that he is on the right side as collateral for the debt, making the interest rates lower. The bank may require to keep the evidence with itself, safe, to garantee more chances it will be
          preserved before it goes to the court.

          And private courts, of course, as well as banks, in a free market, want to conduct as many businesses as they can. They need consumers to keep existing after all, so they need to act in the interest of the consumer. Again: the baker don’t bake bread to feed you, but to feed *himself*; nonetheless, he feeds you. This is, again, Say’s Law.

          *”But your market institutions are using force. Even if it is for defense, it is a feature of government and therefore they’re acting like government so they’re government-like institutions.”*

          So, if a thieve comes to you and you use force or threat thereof to stop him from harming you and/or your property, did you just become government?

          Compare the following situations:

          Exibit A:

          A rich man is sad people don’t have health insurance. He believes poor people should have health insurance, too. So he uses his own money and buy health insurance for the poor people in a community nearby; he may create a health insurance company that gives discounts to poor people.

          A powerful politician is sad people don’t have health insurance. He believes poor people should not go without health insurance. So he uses money taken by force from other people to pass a law that will be enforced throught the use of force or threat thereof that contains a *mandate* for everyone to purchase health insurance.

          Exibit B:

          A cinema owner wants to improve the safety conditions of his rooms. He doesn’t like people entering his property with booze or guns. He then puts signs and hire some guards and train his employees to ask gently for people not to enter the cinema which is his property with alcoholic drinks and weapons, and to prevent them from entering the room in the most polite manner possible as to not frightenen other consumers.

          A politician wants to improve the safety conditions of his state. He doesn’t like people entering other people’s property with booze or guns. He then uses the government force or threat thereof to initiate aggression agains gun owners, gun shops, gun manufacturers, confiscating their property or using threat of force to coerce them into not using them in a manner that, altought do not violate the non-aggression principle, don’t conform to what the politician deems appropriate.

          Exibit C:

          A somali rich guy is worried that violence is rampant in his country, specially in the north where muslims are trying to implement a government and the UN is financing warlords to do just that. He’s sad that private property isn’t respected and he himself feels threatened by this. He then creates a private court to allow for people to feel legitimate in using force or threat thereof to *defend* themselves from use of force or threat thereof *initiated* against them. He may even provide to pay for poor people who were robbed till their last penny to go on and win on his court if they’re on the right side, along with going after the aggressor in order to garantee rightful, fair compensation to the victim.

          Some founding fathers are worried violence may become rampant in the country they are funding, specially in the west where natives are contesting their use of force or threat thereof to take their lands. They’re sad that their private properties aren’t being respected, their hipocrisy passing throught their heads unnoticed. They them create an institution that monopolizes the creation of laws and norms, to legitimize themselves the use of force or threat thereof to *initiate aggression* against anyone they deeem are their enemies and won’t give them a chance in the public courts they’re stabilishing. They may even start aggression against their own people, stealing them of their property, money, and even bodies thrught conscription, in order to perpetuate the aggression they’re initiating against the natives.

          I hope now you don’t fail to see the difference between how the market and the government solve problems, the key difference being the respect for the non-aggression principle, which emanates from our natural rights to life, self, and property.

        • adam

          “Except that government initiates aggression, i.e., violate the non-aggression principle. ”

          Just as YOU said YOUR system would.

          Daniel Campos

          adam

          It is done throught justified use of force. I have yet to explain to you what the non-aggression principle is?

          EXACTLY LIKE GOVERNMENT – JUSTIFIED USE OF FORCE.

          “I hope now you don’t fail to see the difference between how the market and the government solve problems, the key difference being the respect for the non-aggression principle, ”

          No, because you’ve demonstrated no such thing.

          Remember – private armies

        • Paul B. Lot

          Because you are largely incompetent, and therefore an untrustworthy source of information, I’m going to ignore almost all of what you wrote.

          I will, however, take issue with this:

          I hope now you don’t fail to see the difference between how the market and the government solve problems, the key difference being the respect for the non-aggression principle, which emanates from our natural rights to life, self, and property.

          “The difference” which you think you see is one which exists in practice, but not in theory. Theoretically a government such as that of the United States is founded on the same principles and respects the same non-aggression principle.

          Does it always do so in practice? Of course the answer is “no” – but it does in theory.

          So, your system and a governmental system like the Constitution of the USA are morally equivalent in theory, but you want us to believe that yours would be better in practice.

          Unfortunately, I see no reason at all to suspect that your unevidenced faith that a “free” market would, in fact, be better in practice.

        • Daniel Campos

          “”The difference” which you think you see is one which exists in
          practice, but not in theory. Theoretically a government such as that of
          the United States is founded on the same principles and respects the
          same non-aggression principle.

          Does it always do so in practice? Of course the answer is “no” – but it does in theory.”

          So, reality has debunked you.

          “So, your system and a governmental system like the Constitution of the USA are morally equivalent in theory, but you want us to believe that yours would be better in practice.”

          If the government respects the non-aggression principle only in theory, while the market respects the non-aggression principle in practice, *today*, they’re not morally equivalent *in practice*. You admitted it yourself that government, in practice, don’t respect the NAP. You have seem me propose that, without government, market institutions would still be bound to respect the NAP *in practice* becaue of the profit motive that doesn’t depend on the violationg on the NAP – as taxes depend -, but rather, profit depends on the respect for the NAP.

          “Unfortunately, I see no reason at all to suspect that your unevidenced faith that a “free” market would, in fact, be better in practice.”

          That’s because you’re dumb. You fail to realize the huge ethical difference between the government and the market *in practice*. You didn’t even dare reply my examples. Exibit C, for instance was taken from two *real* events.

          You lost.

        • adam

          “Does it always do so in practice? Of course the answer is “no” – but it does in theory.”

          So, reality has debunked you.”

          No, it is YOU who reality has debunked.

        • Paul B. Lot

          So, reality has debunked you.

          “Reality” will “debunk” any idealistic solution – humans are not ideal actors.

          I see no reason to believe that your utopia will survive the test of reality and retain anything like the idealistic shape your poor imagination assured you it would.


          If the government respects the non-aggression principle only in theory, while the market respects the non-aggression principle in practice, *today*, they’re not morally equivalent *in practice*.

          You’re asking the two letters which comprise that word “if” to do a lot of work for you.


          You have seem me propose that, without government, market institutions would still be bound to respect the NAP *in practice* becaue of ….

          I have seen you assert nonsense which is full of holes, yes. You clearly need a great deal more help than I can give. Every theory which has ever been proposed purported to describe what would be the case *in practice*. That’s what “in theory” means.

          Adding the phrase “you have seen me propose” and “would be bound” in front of the words “in practice” does not, ipso facto, take you out of the realm of “in theory”. That you have convinced yourself that they magically did, however, indicates your unfitness to discuss these matters.


          You didn’t even dare reply my examples. Exibit C, for instance was taken from two *real* events.

          You’re absolutely right – I didn’t “dare” do my mind any more violence than necessary by exposing it to more of your idiocy than required. Having now gone back and read your “Exibit (sic) C”, I remain as utterly unconvinced of your premise as I was before.


          You lost.

          Lol.

        • Daniel Campos

          “”Reality” will “debunk” any idealistic solution – humans are not ideal actors.

          I see no reason to believe that your utopia will survive the test of
          reality and retain anything like the idealistic shape your poor
          imagination assured you it would.”

          I’m not talking about utopia. I’m talking about the free market, that already works, operating throught the profit motive to replace government that seems to operate in the loss motive.

          Humans, in my system, don’t need to be ideal actors. It is government that demands angels to steer it else we’re all damned.

          “You’re asking the two letters which comprise that word “if” to do a lot of work for you.”

          Then provide a government that respects the non-aggression principle *in practice*. Oh, that’s right, you can’t, because there isn’t one. It doesn’t matter how systems work *in theory*, but *in practice*.

          “I have seen you assert nonsense which is full of holes, yes. You clearly need a great deal more help than I can give. Every theory which has ever been proposed purported to describe what would be the case *in practice*. That’s what “in theory” means.

          Adding the phrase “you have seen me propose” and “would be bound” in
          front of the words “in practice” does not, ipso facto, take you out of
          the realm of “in theory”. That you have convinced yourself that they
          magically did, however, indicates your unfitness to discuss these
          matters.”

          Except that I also provided examples of how private institutions operate in reality, as shown in exibit C, that *exposes* that your claim that only provided explanations “in theory” is false. After all, most of the time you were asking “how your system would solve this” and now claim I should have provided examples in practice, not in theory.

          “You’re absolutely right – I didn’t “dare” do my mind any more violence
          than necessary by exposing it to more of your idiocy than required.
          Having now gone back and read your “Exibit (sic) C”, I remain as utterly
          unconvinced of your premise as I was before.”

          Because you failed to discern the difference, *in practice*, between the market institutions and the government institutions.

          Since you cannot claim that government respects the NAP in practice regularly, and cannot claim that the market don’t respect the NAP in practice regularly, it is easy to see how, *in practice*, in our daily lives *today*, the market *is already superior* to the government from an ethical perspective.

          Thus, you lost.

        • Paul B. Lot

          I’m not talking about utopia. I’m talking about the free market, that already works….Except that I also provided examples of how private institutions operate in reality

          No, you’re talking about a utopia. As I said elsewhere:

          I want an example of:
          1) a large contiguous geographical region, which has no king, no parliment, no local council, no chiefs, no tribal leaders (no “government”, in other words)
          and
          2) in which humans direct their daily activities solely through their interaction with a “free market”.

          Show me that, then I’ll perk up. Until then, your “examples” are not examples of what I’m asking for.

        • adam

          “Unfortunately, I see no reason at all to suspect that your unevidenced faith that a “free” market would, in fact, be better in practice.”

          Only because you have no Faith.
          Come on Paul, it works on an 815 acre monopoly protected by the country of Italy.

          But you really understand what they really mean:
          They blocked me.
          This is what they actually BELIEVE AND ENACT as their own brand of ‘freedom’, silence and ignore those who point out their deceptions, lies and hypocrisy.

          They arent Libertarians at all, just Cultists.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Because you are largely incompetent, and therefore an untrustworthy source of information, I’m going to ignore almost all of what you wrote.

          It took me a while, but I’ve finally got there…thank fuck.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Hehe, it’s like the breuer immunization process.

          It might take a while, it might be painful, but once the immune system is attuned future outbreaks will be less and less disrupting.

        • adam

          “Except that government initiates aggression, i.e., violate the non-aggression principle.”

          Nope the government doesnt initiate agression, it merely respondes with justified use of force.

          You know, Just like YOUR system works, except government has oversight, and your system relies on Private Armies and Private Courts more affordable by the wealthy.

          Daniel Campos

          adam

          It is done throught justified use of force. I have yet to explain to you what the non-aggression principle is?

        • Paul B. Lot

          You accused me of circular reasoning, of begging the question once.

          I asked you for clarification.

          You responded:

          Your premise was that the person wouldn’t have money to make significant changes to the mortgage payment. Then your conclusion states that the person would not be able to make significant changes to the mortgage payment. You employed circular reasoning here, all right.

          I responded to your fleshed-out-charge here, wherein I explained why my argument was innocent of the charge you made.

          Your reply ignored that explanation.

          We have unfinished business. You claimed that a fallacious argument had been made, I showed otherwise. Your choices are to:
          a) explain why my defense was incorrect
          b) retract your accusaion
          or
          c) ignore the refutation of your accusation.

          It seems likely that you’ll be taking route c) – the coward’s route. I just wanted to make a note of it.

        • Daniel Campos

          “I responded to your fleshed-out-charge here, wherein I explained why my argument was innocent of the charge you made.”

          And I was not convinced, since your premise 3 *negates* necessary conditions already stabilished in premise 1. And premise 3 doesn’t follow necesasrily from premise 2 as well.

          You also ignore the possibility that the person may sell his mortgage to another one transferring the title of property for the house, because of what you assume in premise 2.

          It is going round and round, like a dog behind his tail.

        • Paul B. Lot

          And I was not convinced, since your premise 3 *negates* necessary conditions already stabilished in premise 1.

          Show us, don’t just assert, child.


          And premise 3 doesn’t follow necesasrily from premise 2 as well.

          Conclusions must “follow” from the premises, the premises themselves may very well be independent statements. Your claim, then, that you do not accept the argument’s conclusion because P3 doesn’t “follow “from P2 is a non-sequitur.


          You also ignore the possibility that the person may sell his mortgage to another one transferring the title of property for the house, because of what you assume in premise 2.

          1) The assumptions present in premise 2 have nothing whatever to say about either the loan itself being re-sold to another mortgagee and/or the home owner selling the property and using the funds to pay off the loan.

          2) That latter process takes time, the idea that normal people will be obtaining loans to buy houses then turning around in < 24 hours to sell those houses and pay off their loans is ridiculous. Further, if people did try to jump into and out of the home-mortgage market that quickly, they would quickly lose the ability to obtain financing due to their credit taking huge hits at every turn around.

          3) EVEN IF we assume that someone would want to act like that, there’s no reason to believe than any but a small fraction would. MOST people want to live in the same house they bought yesterday for more than a few hours. Thus, some large proportion of the population is going to be unable to regulate the mortgage market on a day-to-day basis.

          Similarly, most people are unable to regulate their government more often than very couple of years.


          It is going round and round, like a dog behind his tail.

          This is false.

          Whether or not my argument’s premises are true, and has no bearing on whether or not the structure of my argument is circular.

          My argument might be unsound or it might even be invalid for a reason other than that my conclusion is hidden in one of my premises.

          https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

          Jesus christ, why the fuck do internet blowhards like you always play around with using tough-sounding-words like “fallacy” and “circular reasoning” without having the slightest idea what they’re talking about?

        • adam

          “And what if someone just…refuses to pay?”

          Daniel Campos

          It is done throught justified use of force.

        • adam

          So ONLY ‘arbitration agencies, private courts, banks’ and of course PRIVATE ARMIES.

          That the OTHER parties PAID for.
          Provided you can pay equally and as often for private court or even arbitration, which, according to you, would work off PROFIT, then you probably have a fair change.

          Otherwise these ‘businesses’ are going to favor clients who maximize their Profits.

          “Even in the US lobbists from big corporations can pour money to buy politicians that will legislate in their favour making them earn money to pour on the next politicians, thus exaberbating social tensions at best and empoverishing the average Joe at worse.”

          SO YOUR answer is to eliminate any chance of impartial oversight and rely on PROFIT alone for justice?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7b4b196ac9ef2c0c44ccfdda5945b947192e261a355b78dff68175d1612e13b6.png

        • adam

          ” He may suffer the consequences of his actions, but he is not forced to stay in the system – it is voluntary.”

          Nope, you already claimed the need for the use of force

          ” Usually, many businesses allows you to sign contracts and have a time
          to rethink if it was good to you, in which case you can them tell you’re
          not going to abide by the contract.”

          nope, usually not, once signed a contract is binding.

          There are some governmental LAWS that apply in some cases, but once signed a contract is binding.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Some minor contracts, like transferring a utility such as electricity, have what’s called a cooling off period here in the UK… usually 14 days…but for such things as a house purchase, once the contract is signed, your tied in. Defaulting incurs penalties.

        • adam

          “In the market, you can regulate it daily by choosing to voluntarily give your money or not to many agents to receive from them what you want.”

          Unregulated agents with only VOLUNTARY oversight.

        • Daniel Campos

          Yes. Isn’t it wonderful? No force needed.

          Have you ever heard of a boycott?

        • adam

          “Have you ever heard of a boycott?”

          Of course

          “When the strike began, operators brought in mine guards from the
          Baldwin-Felts Detective Agency to evict miners and their families
          from company houses. The evicted miners set up tent colonies and
          lived in other makeshift housing. The mine guards’ primary
          responsibility was to break the strike by making the lives of the
          miners as uncomfortable as possible.”

          How does your system protect against such Private Armies?

        • Daniel Campos

          Repeat with me:

          com-pe-ti-tion.

          I’ll keep it to fewers words until you understand.

          What happens when it is government who makes your life as uncomfortable as possible?

        • adam

          I’ll see your competition, and raise you one Private Court, with hundreds of my private lawyers and 4 private armies.

          Your turn.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Have you ever heard of a boycott?

          Of course, named after fellow Irishman, Captain Charles Boycott.

          Not all boycott’s have been successful.

        • Daniel Campos

          And that is because?

        • Ignorant Amos

          A willingness to partake for one reason. Solidarity another.

          Remember, in such instances as Boycott or strike, the individual has no clout.

        • Daniel Campos

          Boycotts work because they’re consumers taking the whells. If enought consumers want it, or are convinced, they succeed. If it is just a minority who really cares, it doesn’t. Thus, both successful and failing boycotts are expressions of consumer sovereignty.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well it depends on the product for starters.

          Boycotting the supplier of fuel with the largest share of the market might be hard to sustain.

          Water is another commodity that might be a problem for the Boycotter.

          Margaret Thatcher couldn’t ride out a miners strike in 1981 with only a 7 week coal reserve, so capitulated to demands. Realising she would need at least a six month reserve to break a strike, the threat in 1983 was a different matter. She stood her ground and the miners were ground into the dirt.

        • Daniel Campos

          Considering that the supplier of fuel with the lrgest share in the market got there for a reason, it seems obvious why it should be hard to sustain a boycott on him. At least in a free market without government, if a fuel supplyer gets a hefty market share, he did it throught lower prices and better quality. Boycotting it for whatever reason it may, it may not work because he is good to consumers nonetheless. This is thus a non-issue.

          Water filters turns the next issue into nothing. Really, you need clay, plastic, and sand, and you’re good to go.

          Margaret Tatcher as a government official, so your example is of government making strikes not work and putting people down. Thanks for making that point for me.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          At least in a free market without government, if a fuel supplyer gets a hefty market share, he did it throught lower prices and better quality.

          And then, as the market leader, with the advantage of volume, he can afford to price the competition out of the market. And then he has a monopoly.

        • Daniel Campos

          “And then, as the market leader, with the advantage of volume, he can
          afford to price the competition out of the market. And then he has a
          monopoly.”

          If he does that, he is lowering prices *for the consumer*. Oh, poor consumer: now it has gas at a lower price.

          And once he attains monopoly, the only way he can garantee it is if he makes profit on his sector be lower than profit in all other sectors of the economy, otherwise investors will create competition for him. He would have to maintain those lower prices for the consumer forever.

          Poor consumer: condemned by a monopoly to pay lower prices on gas.

          Sad, isn’t it?

          ZzZzZZzzZZZZz

        • Paul B. Lot

          And once he attains monopoly, the only way he can garantee it is if he makes profit on his sector be lower than profit in all other sectors of the economy, otherwise investors will create competition for him. He would have to maintain those lower prices for the consumer forever.

          Not forever, no.

          The holder of the monopoly only has to lower revenue long enough to drive off potential competitors. Once there are none, the holder of the monopoly is free to increase prices/decrease quality for as long as no one else attempts to become a competitor.

          Many industries require huge capital investments to become competitive. Investors and potential competitors will necessarily refrain from entering a monopolized market until they have some reasonable expectation of being able to out-perform the monopoly holder, while making a profit themselves.

          Humans are not some sort of all-pervasive universal field who, without fail, fill every economic niche available. Humans are psychological animals, we have feelings and memories and fears and prejudices. We never have perfect information in principle, and often have hugely insufficient and/or outright bad information in practice.

          Monopolies weren’t outlawed because humans dislike low prices.

          Your idealized description of the way it would work bears no relation to the realities of history, physics, and human psychology.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Not forever, no.

          The holder of the monopoly only has to lower revenue long enough to drive off potential
          competitors. Once there are none, the holder of the monopoly is free to
          increase prices/decrease quality for as long as no one else attempts to become a competitor.”

          And once it increases prices, there will be competitors. A non-issue, as I said.

          “Many industries require huge capital investments to become competitive. Investors and potential
          competitors will necessarily refrain from entering a monopolized market
          until they have some reasonable expectation of being able to
          out-perform the monopoly holder, while making a profit themselves.”

          In the cases where they think they can’t it is because that monopoly actually managed to provide lower prices at costs others can’t mimmick. It would be actually harmful for the consumer if they managed to enter and gain market share because then prices would go up, with quality not necessarily going up as well.

          “Humans are not some sort of all-pervasive universal field who, without
          fail, fill every economic niche available. Humans are psychological
          animals, we have feelings and memories and fears and prejudices. We
          never have perfect information in principle, and often have hugely
          insufficient and/or outright bad information in practice.”

          Yep. Humans have to deal with uncertainties. That’s why a monopoly has a problem of economic calculation: any underestimation or superestimation of any economic variable will be wider than if that company had a smaller market share, thus making it increase costs or decrease profits at wider values. This would allow for competitors to better estimate these variables and be able to enter the market eventually. Except, of course, if we’re talking about government monopoly on certain services: then we’ll have to deal with its mistakes being passed to everyone and won’t be able to escape them. Obamacare comes to mind.

          “Monopolies weren’t outlawed because humans dislike low prices.”

          Monopolies weren’t outlawed. Government still keeps many of them. But different than market monopolies, government monopolies maintain their existance not throught maintaining a situation where they can profit while bearing prices so low others can’t compete with them and profit, but with coercion and force.

          “Your idealized description of the way it would work bears no relation to
          the realities of history, physics, and human psychology.”

          It actually bears resemblance to historic evens. Standard Oil managed to almost get 100% market sharers throught *lower prices*. When it failed to maintain them, or rather, when government disliked those lower costs because their cronies weren’t as good at making money, it lost part of its market share. The same goes to James Hill.

          https://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons

        • Paul B. Lot

          And once it increases prices, there will be competitors. A non-issue, as I said.

          And as a bare assertion, I would be within my rights to merely reject it.

          But I won’t merely reject it.

          I’ll point out the utter stupidity involved in stating it.

          It is not the case that competitors necessarily and immediately begin production, distribution, and sales once a monopoly holder increases prices by .000001%

          Pretend, as you are, that it is the case is why you (and perhaps your ideas) are dismissible.


          monopoly actually managed to provide lower prices at costs others can’t mimmick. It would be actually harmful for the consumer if they managed to enter and gain market share because then prices would go up

          That is not necessarily true. Economies of scale and high capital investments costs mean that prices might be higher and quality might be lower than possible, but the cost of entry combined with the inherent and unavoidable uncertainty in markets would keep competitors who *would* drive prices down and quality up out of the market.

          We’ve seen this over and over again throughout history. Companies which drive out competitors in businesses where the dollar-capital or intellectual-capital costs are high can, and do, fall off and begin producing lower quality at higher costs.

        • Daniel Campos

          “But I won’t merely reject it.

          I’ll point out the utter stupidity involved in stating it.

          It is not the case that competitors necessarily and immediately begin production, distribution, and sales once a monopoly holder increases prices by .000001%

          Pretend, as you are, that it is the case is why you (and perhaps your ideas) are dismissible.”

          Change obviously happens over time. And saying that this makes my statement rejectable just because the monopolistic entity may rise prices by ,000001% is laughtable, at best. Oh my, now the super-low prices will rise…. by .000001%. The market has failed! .000001% is outrageous! Bring back government to charge taxes and raise prices by 50%!

          Pffffff

          “That is not necessarily true. Economies of scale and high capital
          investments costs mean that prices might be higher and quality might be
          lower than possible, but the cost of entry combined with the inherent
          and unavoidable uncertainty in markets would keep competitors who
          *would* drive prices down and quality up out of the market.

          We’ve
          seen this over and over again throughout history. Companies which drive
          out competitors in businesses where the dollar-capital or
          intellectual-capital costs are high can, and do, fall off and begin
          producing lower quality at higher costs.”

          They do that because economic calculation becomes ever more difficult the more market share you have. It is something called “limit of the firm”. Thus, the market regulates itself. Once a company that has a monopoly starts lowering quality and increasing costs, new competitors can make profits and enter the market eventually. We have seen this happen throught history as well.

        • Paul B. Lot

          nd saying that this makes my statement rejectable just because the monopolistic entity may rise prices by ,000001% is laughtable, at best. Oh my, now the super-low prices will rise…. by .000001%. The market has failed! .000001% is outrageous! Bring back government to charge taxes and raise prices by 50%!
          Pffffff

          You’ve, in a shocking turn of events, misunderstood the point.

          You said, and I quote:

          And once it increases prices, there will be competitors. A non-issue, as I said.(emphasis mine)

          “Once”.

          Your use of the word “once” entails that immediately after any price increase, competition will magically appear.

          That is false.

          Let me tell you that I’m glad to see you, here and now, acknowledging that your prior characterization is false.


          They do that because economic calculation becomes ever more difficult the more market share you have.

          No doubt to some degree drift away from the optimal price/quality point occurs due to ignorance.

          We’re not talking about that.

          We’re talking about the fact that once you don’t have competitors, it is possible to stop trying so hard.


          Once a company that has a monopoly starts lowering quality and increasing costs, new competitors can make profits and enter the market eventually. We have seen this happen throught history as well.

          “Once” renders this false.

          “At some point” after a monopoly has lowered quality and increased costs, “it might be possible” for new competitors to enter the market, eventually. <- There, I've fixed your own point for you.

          But now that your own point is accurate it is
          a) much less simple, and
          b) paints a much less sanguine picture about the implications and consequences of allowing anti-competitive practices.

        • Daniel Campos

          “”Once”.

          Your use of the word “once” entails that immediately after any price increase, competition will magically appear.

          That is false.

          Let me tell you that I’m glad to see you, here and now, acknowledging that your prior characterization is false.”

          You took one word out of context to try and claim victory on a point you already lost. The point was that once investors perceive it is possible to achieve profits in a market that enjoys a monopoly, that monopoly is over. If a .000001% increase in prices don’t create such conditions, the monopoly will persist.

          “We’re talking about the fact that once you don’t have competitors, it is possible to stop trying so hard.”

          And once you stop trying so hard, it can come to a point where investors might perceive it is possible to achieve profits in a market that enjoys a monopoly, and then soon the monopoly is over. Until then, customers would still enjoy higher quality and lower prices than possible competitors could afford them.

          “”Once” renders this false.”

          You lost already. You misinterpreted my point – or gleefully pretended to – to try and claim victory, but you failed miserably again.

          “”At some point” after a monopoly has lowered quality and increased
          costs, “it might be possible” for new competitors to enter the market,
          eventually. <- There, I've fixed your own point for you."

          And before that point the monopoly supplies the best possible prices and quality. Again: a natural, free market monopoly is a non-issue because consumers regulate the market, not the companies. Say's Law in effect.

        • Paul B. Lot

          You took one word out of context

          Not at all, my dear. I am merely educating you on the meaning of your words, in English. I’m gathering that it’s probably not your first language, so I can understand that some of the nuances escape you, but the facts are the facts.

          The phrase “once xyz, then abc” entails that abc *will* happen without fail and immediately after xyz.

          So sorry.


          to try and claim victory on a point you already lost

          You sure don’t like losing, do you? That’s okay, not many people do.


          The point was that once investors perceive it is possible to achieve profits in a market that enjoys a monopoly, that monopoly is over.

          I know. I knew exactly what you meant to say, unfortunately you’re not very good at saying it.

          Now that you’ve realized the disconnect between [your point] and [your ability to make a point] – let’s examine [your point].

          Yes, it is true: once competitors perceive that it is possible to achieve profits in a market dominated by a monopolizer, those competitors might attempt to enter the market.

          *Might*.

          Why “might”? Because of a huge variety of variables which can introduce a vacuum of certainty.

          If we assume that:
          a) there will always be intelligent, motivated, educated people with access to capital and manpower observing every sector of each market, and
          b) that these people will know each segment which the monitor so well that they can know the entire possible range of price point/quality combinations, and
          c) that they will further know all of the details of the monopolizer’s business, and be able to tell:
          i) how close to the optimal price point/quality the monopolizer is currently
          ii) how close to the optimal price point/quality the monopolizer’s business is willing to go in the future
          ii) how and which particular retaliatory actions the monoplizer will engage in once a potential competitor begins making the moves necessary to enter the market
          d) that these potential competitors know the intricacies of all the subsidiary and tributary market sectors which impinge on the current one being studied, and are thus able to tell whether or not, for example, they will be getting a good deal on the Tooling/Machine Dies they are thinking of spending millions on now, or if they should wait for changes in those other market sectors before launching their capital expenditures
          e) etc.. etc…

          In short, if we assume that markets are comprised of beings which, as I put it earlier, act like a market fluid or “all-pervasive universal field who, without fail, fill every economic niche available” – then: yes. Your argument seems sound to me, from there on out.

          Unfortunately, humans do not act that way. And so your premise is false. And so your argument, like all other arguments based on false premises, is invalid.

          So sorry.


          Until then, customers would still enjoy higher quality and lower prices than possible competitors could afford them.

          False. Customers only enjoy the best quality and lowest prices currently available. Unfortunately, since there is only one source available, customers ALSO enjoy the worst quality and highest prices currently available.


          You misinterpreted my point

          No, my dear, you just can’t write for shit. (Nor think for shit, but that’ll be less obvious for you to see, given that it relies on your own brain to do the noticing – the very shit thing in question.)

          Don’t blame me for your ineptitude – I don’t accept the responsibility. (It’s a huge, huge burden.)


          And before that point the monopoly supplies the best possible prices and quality.

          TRUE!

          Unfortunately, the monopoly ALSO supplies the worst possible prices and quality.


          Again: a natural, free market monopoly is a non-issue because consumers regulate the market, not the companies.

          Lol. Why didn’t consumers regulate a private rocket company into existence in the 90’s then? Or an EV company?

          Consumers are not all-powerful, they are actors who can interact within a given set of constraints.

          There was a massive demand for vaccines in the 8th century – how well did consumers do at “regulating” them into existence?

        • Daniel Campos

          “Not at all, my dear. I am merely educating you on the meaning of your
          words, in English. I’m gathering that it’s probably not your first
          language, so I can understand that some of the nuances escape you, but
          the facts are the facts.

          The phrase “once xyz, then abc” entails that abc *will* happen without fail and immediately after xyz.”

          I concede, english is not my first language. But you clearly dismissed context to querrel. You even admitted it:

          “I know. I knew exactly what you meant to say, unfortunately you’re not very good at saying it.”

          “Unfortunately, humans do not act that way. And so your premise is false.
          And so your argument, like all other arguments based on false premises,
          is invalid.”

          You claim that humans don’t act that way. Why? Because you don’t want them to? Look around, that’s *exactally* how humans work. That’s why we’re not collectors anymore: there’s this thing called *division of labour*. It appeared to “fill every economic niche avaliable”.

          “False. Customers only enjoy the best quality and lowest prices currently available. Unfortunately, since there is only one source available, customers ALSO enjoy the worst quality and highest prices currently available.”

          But that’s not the point. Until the monopoly remains possible, it means that no better price and quality is *possible* under such economic circumstances.

          “Lol. Why didn’t consumers regulate a private rocket company into existence in the 90’s then? Or an EV company?”

          The first sattelite launched in space by a private company happened in 1962, and it was called the Telstar 1.

          “Consumers are not all-powerful, they are actors who can interact within a given set of constraints.”

          Given, wealth and comfort is not infinite. These constraints are called scarcity in the economy. Resources are scarce, time is scarce, technology is scarce. But the free market is the best to put resources to their most urgent needs. We could discuss why government hamper technological advancements throught intellectual “property”, not allowing two scientists that discovered the same thing at the same time to enjoy the same private property rights, or how this intelectuall “propety” is usually assigned to stockholders, not to the researchers.

          “There was a massive demand for vaccines in the 8th century – how well did consumers do at “regulating” them into existence?”

          Say’s Law. Nobody at the time had the necessary knowledge to produce vaccines. Thus, nobody could create such supply.

          Buit that’s not the issue. The issue is that consumers do regulate the market, i.e., they decide who remains in the market and who gets out. It is not the consumer who is responsible for creating new market agents – that’s the enterpreneur’s job.

        • Paul B. Lot

          But you clearly dismissed context to querrel. You even admitted it:
          “I know. I knew exactly what you meant to say, unfortunately you’re not very good at saying it.”

          1) The fact that I can guess at what your arguments are doesn’t mean that you’re stating them well, nor is it my job to try to guess at and rephrase your own argument for you. When YOU misspeak, it’s YOUR job to clarify.
          2) That I understand one of the premises of your argument (better even than you do) does not mean that the argument you build using that premise will be valid.


          You claim that humans don’t act that way. Why? Because you don’t want them to?

          Why are you asking me questions to which you already know the answer? I already told you this, and you agreed with me at the time.


          Look around, that’s *exactally* how humans work. That’s why we’re not collectors anymore: there’s this thing called *division of labour*. It appeared to “fill every economic niche avaliable”.

          Lol, no. That’s not how humans work. As I explained before:

          Humans are psychological animals, we have feelings and memories and fears and prejudices. We never have perfect information in principle, and often have hugely insufficient and/or outright bad information in practice.


          But that’s not the point. Until the monopoly remains possible, it means that no better price and quality is *possible* under such economic circumstances.

          Of course that’s the point. No better price is possible, nor is any worse price possible.


          The first sattelite launched in space by a private company happened in 1962, and it was called the Telstar 1.

          Hey there, you dense motherfucker, pay attention to what I write if you’re going to respond.

          “Satellite” != “rocket”.


          But the free market is the best to put resources to their most urgent needs

          It certainly can be, given the right circumstances. It is not always. You seem to have fallen into the stupid-person’s-game of assuming that [because I argue against your position] therefore [I must be for the antithesis of your position].

          That’s a bad game to play, you should stop playing it.


          The issue is that consumers do regulate the market.

          Indeed, and in at least a great number of cases than zero, citizens regulate the government (besides well as the gov’t regulating itself).

          So the gov’t/free market dichotomy you drew doesn’t exist.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Humans are psychological animals, we have feelings and memories and
          fears and prejudices. We never have perfect information in principle,
          and often have hugely insufficient and/or outright bad information in
          practice.”

          And throught the division of labour, altought information is not perfect, every need is eventually supplied for, peacefully, in the market. One thing does not exclude the possibility of the other. Alas, division of labour necessary exists because of that, because if there was precise information, no division of labour was necessary.

          “It certainly can be, given the right circumstances. It is not always.”

          Please provide an example of a market failure that wasn’t caused by government and affected all society.

          “”Satellite” != “rocket”.”

          Yeah, the sattelite never got into space, right? It’s not like a private company could find a way to put it there.

          “Indeed, and in at least a great number of cases than zero, citizens
          regulate the government (besides well as the gov’t regulating itself).

          So the gov’t/free market dichotomy you drew doesn’t exist.”

          The market allows customers to regulate it in all instances in which it is allowed to exist.

          The state doesn’t allow subjects to regulate it in all instances in which it exists, like in the case of dictatorships.

          The states that allow subjects to regulate it, at least to certain extents, are those which respect private property, free enterprise, and the market, to certain extent.

          The government is not the market.

        • Paul B. Lot

          @disqus_H7EIpb6OBu:disqus , unfortunately I’ve already given you too much of my time today. You’ll have to find another teacher for the remainder, after this.


          And throught the division of labour, altought information is not perfect, every need is eventually supplied for, peacefully, in the market.

          Vs.

          Nobody at the time had the necessary knowledge to produce vaccines. Thus, nobody could create such supply.

          I mean, of course your use of “eventually” renders your position unfalsifiable – and thus a matter of faith.
          A) This is the crux of the matter: “eventually” vaccines came about, true (although not through “the market”), but how many had to die waiting for [the supply] to [a demand] which they didn’t even understand?

          No, no, you’re trying to hide too many of [the market’s] failings in that one word “eventually”.

          B) In principle, of course, your assertion should simply be rejected out of hand for being nonsense. “every need is eventually supplied for” this is un-provable. Show me a list of every need, and show me step by step how each one was, can, and ever will be met solely through the action of “the market”. <- Impossible.


          Please provide an example of a market failure that wasn’t caused by government and affected all society.

          Vaccines.


          “”Satellite” != “rocket”.”

          Yeah, the sattelite never got into space, right? It’s not like a private company could find a way to put it there.

          So, are you a coward who won’t face when he’s beaten, or simply too stupid to know it?

          You countered my question about the non-existence of a private rocket company in the 90’s by referencing a private satelite launched in the 1960’s….on a publicly designed and built and launched rocket:

          Launched by NASA aboard a Delta rocket


          The market allows customers to regulate it in all instances in which it is allowed to exist.

          You have no empirical data to point to which supports your asserted hypothesis. I therefore take the default position of rejecting it, until further notice.

          In at least a greater number of cases than zero, citizens regulate the government (besides well as the gov’t regulating itself).

          So the gov’t/free market dichotomy you drew doesn’t exist.

        • Daniel Campos

          “I mean, of course your use of “eventually” renders your position unfalsifiable – and thus a matter of faith.”

          History is on my side. Trhrought the division of labor, more and more demands are being met. After 20 years, the market is providing more food, for instance. It is also providing new things. After all, you didn’t provide any instance where the desire consumers had were supplied by government, so, the only remaining option is that most things – if not all – were supplied by the market – or by aliens?

          “A) This is the crux of the matter: “eventually” vaccines came about,
          true (although not through “the market”), but how many had to die
          waiting for [the supply] to [a demand] which they didn’t even
          understand?”

          Your benevolent government also took a lot of time to allow private companies to create vaccines. Yep, it was private companies who researched them.

          “B) In principle, of course, your assertion should simply be rejected out of hand for being nonsense. “every need is eventually supplied for”
          this is un-provable. Show me a list of every need, and show me step by
          step how each one was, can, and ever will be met solely through the
          action of “the market”. <- Impossible."

          There seems to be only two institutions that can supply people with what they want: government and market. Since government don't supply most things demanded by consumers, it is easy to see most of them – if not all – are provided for by the market.

          "Please provide an example of a market failure that wasn't caused by government and affected all society.

          Vaccines."
          You fail:

          "At the end of the 19th century, several vaccines for humans had been
          developed. They were smallpox, rabies, plague, cholera, and typhoid
          vaccines. However, no regulation of vaccine production existed."

          http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

          "You have no empirical data to point to which supports your asserted hypothesis"

          The market allows customers to regulate it in all instances in which it is allowed to exist. The number of deodorants may be reduced, tought, if the number of brands is too high in the opinion of a powerful politician (hey Bernie Sanders, I'm mocking you).

          The number of any companies and any products whatsoever, their prices and distribution, are clearly regulated by consumers. After all, institutions that want to make a profit must convince consumers to buy what they sell. They might employ propaganda and marketing techniques to try that, but their results vary greatly and in the end they're a cost the company is bearing that may or may bot be rewarded by the consumer.

          In the end, it is the action of the consumer, buy deciding to buy in this store and not on that other one, these products rather than the others, that signals to the shop owner what makes him profit more. He will, of course, try to adjust the amount of products in his shelves to what he estimates will match the consumer desires more precisely. He might want to lower prices of those goods the consumers didn't feel inclined to purchase, and may increase the prices of those products that sold out faster. Thus, it is the actions of the consumers that decides what a store sells, at what prices.

          You want empirical data for this? ask any store manager how he decides what to sell and at what price.

          "In at least a greater number of cases than zero, citizens regulate the government (besides well as the gov't regulating itself).

          So the gov't/free market dichotomy you drew doesn't exist."

        • Paul B. Lot
          Vaccines

          You fail: They were smallpox, rabies, plague, cholera, and typhoid vaccines. However, no regulation of vaccine production existed.

          Let’s be clear what we’re discussing. YOU wanted an example of a “market failure” which was not “caused by government”. I gave you “vaccines” as an example. So, the proposition you’re arguing against is “vaccines (specifically their absence in the 9th century) are an example of a market failure which was not caused by government”.

          This is undoubtedly true, since as you yourself said:

          Nobody at the time had the necessary knowledge to produce vaccines. Thus, nobody could create such supply.

          So on that basis alone you’re wrong. If “nobody” could creat such a supply, you cannot claim that the absence of the supply from the market was “caused by government”.

          Therefore I have not failed; I have succeeded in providing an example of a non-government-caused market failure.

          But let’s dig a bit deeper, shall we? I enjoy seeing to exactly what imbecile depths you can sink.

          First of all, *as quoted* your source is wrong. “However, no regulation of vaccine production existed” <- this, as quoted, is false. You left out a crucial bit of information: "In the United States". Regulations of vaccine production did exist elsewhere:

          Eventually, vaccination was accepted, and in 1840, the British government banned variolation – the use of smallpox to induce immunity – and provided vaccination using cowpox free of charge. (See Vaccination acts).

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner#Invention_of_the_vaccine

          Moving on, you lised the following vaccines as “evidence”:
          1)smallpox
          Invented by Edward Jenner, educated at public universities and was a member of the Royal Society – government institutions. Further:

          Jenner’s continuing work on vaccination prevented him from continuing his ordinary medical practice. He was supported by his colleagues and the King in petitioning Parliament,[31] and was granted £10,000 in 1802 for his work on vaccination.[32] In 1807, he was granted another £20,000 after the Royal College of Physicians confirmed the widespread efficacy of vaccination.[32]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner#Invention_of_the_vaccine

          2)rabies & 3)cholera & [3.5) antrax, etc…]
          Invented by Louis Pasteur, the founder of germ theory. Educated at public, governmental institutions. Worked as a teacher and director for public, governmental institutions. Established a non-profit institute for research, which itself relies on both private AND public funds and governmental subsidies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur#Immunology_and_vaccination

          4)plague
          Worked on by Sir Waldemar Mordechai Wolff Haffkine, who also worked on cholera, educated at public governmental institutions, employed by governmental public institutions.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_Haffkine#Anti-plague_vaccine

          5)typhoid
          Almroth Wright, Richard Friedrich Johannes Pfeiffer, Wilhelm Kolle <- All were educated by, and variously worked at and researched in public institutions.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_vaccine

          So.

          Not only have I done what I needed to do to satisfy your initial request, every single piece of the information you used to try to counter me was, itself and unbeknownst to you, self-defeating to your argument. The market's deficiency of vacinnes was cured NOT by private, for-profit enterprise, but by non-profit and governmental efforts.

          Holy shit, son. Do you ever get tired of being exposed as an blind zealot?


          History is on my side.

          Lol.

          Er…no. Read the above.


          Your benevolent government also took a lot of time to allow private companies to create vaccines. Yep, it was private companies who researched them.

          Er…no. Read the above.


          After all, you didn’t provide any instance where the desire consumers had were supplied by government, so, the only remaining option is that most things – if not all – were supplied by the market – or by aliens?

          Conclusively shown to be false.


          “You have no empirical data to point to which supports your asserted hypothesis”

          The market allows [blah blah blah]…

          Let me assist you some more, since you don’t seem to be grasping what I’m saying:

          I want an example of:
          1) a large contiguous geographical region, which has no king, no parliament, no local council, no chiefs, no tribal leaders (no “government”, in other words)
          and
          2) in which humans direct their daily activities solely through their interaction with a “free market”.

          Show me that, then I’ll perk up. Until then, your “examples” are not examples of what I’m asking for.

          You want empirical data for this? ask any store manager how he decides what to sell and at what price.

          Lol, shut the fuck up, Donnie, you’re out of your element.

        • Daniel Campos

          Actually, read more carefully. Vaccines and some sort of similar thing – was already being done in 400 b.c.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Actually, read more carefully. Vaccines and some sort of similar thing – was already being done in 400 b.c.

          Oh, what’s that?

          You used a shitty source to prop up a bullshit claim, you got that argument destroyed piece by piece, and now you’re running away by changing the goal posts?

          Lol.

          Unsurprising.

        • Daniel Campos

          Either way, you cannot claim that government created vaccines when it might as well be the case that government prevented it.

          When government claims for itself the supply of any service or good, you obviously have some disarray in the economy. If government takes for itself the responsability to deliver free education, it i obvious it is making a price control policy for a commodity like education. After all, a private school cannot easily compete with government charging a tuition near zero. Private schools are pushed by public schools to deliver a much better education – and to charge a much higher tuition – than public schools, because if the quality was near the same as the public school, all consumers would go to government schools since there costs are hidden throught taxation, inflation, and/or public debt.

          The same holds true to vaccines and rocket launching. If government is already supplying the commodity, appearently for free for the user, why, the user things, will he pay twice, i.e., pay taxes and the market price, if he can afford to pay only the taxes?

          When government took to itself the monopoly on creating vaccines, it prevented the market from doing so at a profit. This disarray is why government supplying goods and services can be understood as a price control mechanism, and the result is, as with all price control policies, shortages in the supply. Really, it is no rocket science.

          Talking about rocket science. The same disarray can be perceived with launching rockets into space. A bit of context first, shall we?

          After decades of political struggle in the 19th century, with state nulification shining and defeating the Union’s overreachs in monetary policy, in 1913 the federal government managed to estabilish a central bank. Even tought it created it as a “private” institution, one can clearly see this to be problematic: why government needed to create it, then, if not to control it and steer the market in its favor?

          Shortly after the creation of the Fed, the same experiments made in the 19th century in central banking were employed, namely: hefty increases in the monetary supply to subzide bad investiments and increase aggregated demand throught government spending. Now, states wouldn’t dare try nulification because now the Lincoln precedent existed. And thus we had, as a result, the 1920-21 crisis.

          This crisis, in its direct effects, were way worse than the crisis of 1929. Woodrol Wilson and Warren Harding didn’t just do something: they stood there. It was the best decision ever, since the crisis of 1920-21 resumed swiftly.

          But then there was in the Fed a guy, named Benjamin Strong, that tought of something completely new in monetary policy: Printing money to increase the monetary supply, to subzide bad investiments aind increase aggregated demand throught government spending. This had already led to the 1920-21 crisis, but he wasn’t satisfied. He wanted to use the newly printed money to increase the aggregated demand, and to incentive exports. Keynes was the guy who gave the name to the idea, but it wasn’t his at all. Nor Strong’s.

          And then the 1929 crisis happened. It was terrible, and this time, government was there to help. It was Hoover’s presidency, and he was innovative: he made the New Deal, printing money like crazy to save failed investiments and increase government spending to increase demand.

          And the follow-up was even greater: Roosevelt, with the great idea of… printing money like crazy to subzide bad investiments and increase aggregate demand throught government spending.

          A decade after 1929, the US were still in a very bad economic situation, with the 1940 unemployment rate being at least as bad as that one of 1930. And since money was being printed like crazy, the GDP numbers between the crisis and 1940 must be taken with a grain of skeptcism.

          Now, what happened after 1940? That’s right: government entered the US in a world war. It ruled the economy with an iron fist during this period, controlling prices, wages, and production – i.e., resorting to the non-solutions of socialism, that led to, well, to the end of war by atomic bombing.

          After it had wrecked havoc inside and out the country, the government then proceeded to take money away from US investidors and pushing in the Marshall plan.

          And here comes the space race, invented by the US government because, you know, they wanted people to believe they were the best at launching intercontinental missiles that could deliver atomic destruction to everyone else in the world. So they took more resources from the private sector to supply the country – for a perceived price of near 0 – with the ability to launch things in space, including people.

          That despite all that, the market maaged in 1962 to produce a satellite, is nothing short of a great feat, considering all the centralization and price control policies government had enacted previously.

        • adam

          “If he does that, he is lowering prices *for the consumer*. ”

          So ‘product dumping’ is ‘for the consumer’

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7b4b196ac9ef2c0c44ccfdda5945b947192e261a355b78dff68175d1612e13b6.png

          “And once he attains monopoly, the only way he can garantee it ,”

          Not in YOUR ‘system’, he could maintain it by force, private armies, private courts.

          “Sad, isn’t it?”

          That you are stupid about the reality of monopolistic abuse, YES,

          Sad..

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Oh, poor consumer: now it has gas at a lower price.

          Even stupid governments know that that’s not the way it works. Why break up Standard Oil if they were providing the best possible price to the consumer? Do you like competition between oil companies, as we have it now, or would you rather Standard Oil continued as the primary company today?

        • Daniel Campos

          “Even stupid governments know that that’s not the way it works.”

          So how do a company get the huge market share to become a monopoly?

          And, if it starts putting high prices and low quality, won’t investors, capitalists, and enterpreneurs perceive the possibility to attain profit entering the market at a lower price and/or better quality, and try to enter it?

          ” Why break up Standard Oil if they were providing the best possible price to the consumer?”

          Because owners of companies that were not profiting enought by making refinaries just to sell to Rockefeller, but were not good enought enterpreneurs to compete directly with him, used their money to buy politicians and do the worst possible thing to consumers.

          “Do you like competition between oil companies, as we have it now, or
          would you rather Standard Oil continued as the primary company today?”

          Which one is the situation that, today, would yield the best quality and lower price? Competition is my guess, but unless we left market free, we will never know.

        • adam

          “Considering that the supplier of fuel with the lrgest share in the market got there for a reason, ”

          And the reason being dishonesty?

          “At least in a free market without government, if a fuel supplyer gets a hefty market share, he did it throught lower prices and better quality. ”

          Or dishonesty, fraud and bribery.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Considering that the supplier of fuel with the lrgest share in the market got there for a reason, it seems obvious why it should be hard to sustain a boycott on him.

          It really doesn’t matter how he got there, it’s what he can do once he has unfettered control once there.

          At least in a free market without government, if a fuel supplyer gets a hefty market share, he did it throught lower prices and better quality.

          Irrelevant. And also not necessarily the case.

          Boycotting it for whatever reason it may, it may not work because he is good to consumers nonetheless.

          Still irrelevant ya clown. And not necessarily true otherwise why Boycott? The point is, when a business gets a controlling share of the market, they start to control. There is nothing in your ideals that prevents that. Free market, remember? No regulation, remember?

          This is thus a non-issue.

          You’d like it to be, I know, but that’s because it is an inconvenience to your nonsense.

          Water filters turns the next issue into nothing. Really, you need clay, plastic, and sand, and you’re good to go.

          Oh fer feck sake…how can you be so asinine with just the one head?

          Another nothing issue, yet there are circa 5,000 African children dying every day because they have to drink dirty water. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do ya? How are you going to filter no water in places where there is very little rainfall? How ta fuck will major cities operate with a plastic bucket, clay, and sand? There are 8.5 million people in New York, London is something similar. But that is nothing compared to Tokyo at 83 million, Delhi at 25 million, Shanghai at 23 million, and Mexico City at 21 million.

          I’m trained in water supply and purification techniques, you haven’t a clue on the logistics involved.

          Margaret Tatcher as a government official, so your example is of government making strikes not work and putting people down.

          Go learn about the UK miners strikes of the 80’s before making a dick of yourself.

          Thanks for making that point for me.

          I realise you think that, but that’s only because you completely missed the actual point I was making in my example, dullard.

        • Daniel Campos

          “It really doesn’t matter how he got there, it’s what he can do once he has unfettered control once there.”

          The consumer is sovereign. If he starts practicing higher prices and lower quality, he will eventually lose market share. This is a non-issue.

          “Irrelevant. And also not necessarily the case.”

          It is not irrelevant. It is an economic phenomenon of highly importance: since we’re discussing what are the possible harms of a semi-monopolistic company can do, we have to understand first how such “evil” corporation managed to get that market share that would allow it to practice semi-monopolistic prices. Now here’s a challenge: can you mention me one – just one, c’mon – monopoly that didn’t come by without government help, that had higher prices than the competition?

          Oh fer feck sake…how can you be so asinine with just the one head?

          Another
          nothing issue, yet there are circa 5,000 African children dying every
          day because they have to drink dirty water. You really have no idea what
          you are talking about, do ya? How are you going to filter no water in
          places where there is very little rainfall? How ta fuck will major
          cities operate with a plastic bucket, clay, and sand? There are 8.5
          million people in New York, London is something similar. But that is
          nothing compared to Tokyo at 83 million, Delhi at 25 million, Shanghai
          at 23 million, and Mexico City at 21 million.

          I’m trained in water supply and purification techniques, you haven’t a clue on the logistics involved.”

          I have a water filter made with clay, plastic, and sand. It works pretty fine. We have it all over here in Brazil.

          Besides, yes, many poor kids die in Africa. Specially in Zambia, Namibia, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Argelia. You know, those countries that tried socialism. In Uganda, tought, things are looking very bright thanks to them adopting a market economy.

          It sucks to be you doesn’t it?

          “Go learn about the UK miners strikes of the 80’s before making a dick of yourself.”

          According to your own statements, the government got involved and that made things worse. It is not my fault you’re so dumb you don’t realize even that.

        • adam

          “The consumer is sovereign.”

          Nope POWER is sovereign, which is why the Founding Fathers created a government with divided powers.

        • adam

          “Considering that the supplier of fuel with the lrgest share in the market got there for a reason,”

          You mean like their own private armies and their own private courts….

        • Pofarmer

          voluntary fire fighters are not government employees either,

          Some are, some aren’t. Quite often facilities and vehicles are provided with govt funds.

        • Daniel Campos

          Which is bad for private firefighters. But that’s not the point. The point is, putting out a fire is a service, and as a service, it could perfectly be provided by the market, and the less government interference – prefferably none – the better.

        • Pofarmer

          Dude, we used to HAVE that. We voted it out. You had to pay before they would start putting out the fire. Not a good system

        • Daniel Campos

          So, now you pay first the government, every month, even if you never need a fire to be put out? Not a better system.

        • Pofarmer

          The line item on my property taxes is minmal.

        • Daniel Campos

          Don’t worry. If government fails to protect your house from fire, it will claim it didn’t have enought funds. 😉

        • Ignorant Amos

          In most parts of Eire there is a call-out charge levied for fire brigade attendance.

          It varies from county-to-county and personal circumstances are considered.

          But here’s the rub, my partners sister who lives in county Mayo, one of the most expensive areas, tells us that whoever makes the call can be liable for the call out. At a rate of €750 per hour. I think it is up to €1000 at present. There is no incentive to ring the service unless it is for oneself and the fire damage is looking like it might be more than €750.

          Mayo County Council would like to remind all persons who may require the attention of the Fire Brigade that they should consult with their insurance company and satisfy themselves that they have adequate insurance cover to meet all fire brigade charges.

          http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Services/FireService/FireServiceCharges/

          The list of charges for County Limerick and what they are for can be read at….

          https://www.limerick.ie/council/fire-service-charges

          But even when governments charge, like a private company will, the money goes unpaid in a lot of cases.

          http://www.thejournal.ie/cal-out-charges-fire-brigade-incidents-dangerous-1865320-Jan2015/

          The population want the sensible idea of government funded via taxes.

        • adam

          “So, now you pay first the government, every month, even if you never need a fire to be put out?”

          So like insurance, for times you might not be able to afford to buy your own fire crew to keep your house, or the neighbors house, or the neighborhood from burning down.

          And remember, you have no money at this point.

          You have a better system than that?
          Where has it been implimented and how well does it work.

        • Daniel Campos

          Yes, ike insurance. The difference is, you can choose your insurance out of many working out there, with an incentive to prevent fires so that you don’t earn the promised money, while government has no incentive to actually protect you – quite the contrary: if it fails to protect you from fire, it will claim it didn’t have enought money and will pass a new tax on you.

          Unless you’re the kind of person who puts all his money under the matress, you do have some money at this point. That’s what responsible people do: they don’t put all their money in one place.

          Considering there are more than 265 private firefighter companies working in the US alone, I’d say it is working pretty damn fine.

        • adam

          “if it fails to protect you from fire, it will claim it didn’t have enought money and will pass a new tax on you.”

          And what in YOUR SYSTEM ensure that private companies wont do the same thing and then enforce their decisions with their own Private Army?

          “Unless you’re the kind of person who puts all his money under the matress, you do have some money at this point.”
          But you dont, remember it all got hacked, or maybe you had a medical emergency so you had to spend your money?

          ” That’s what responsible people do: they don’t put all their money in one place.”

          There are plenty of POOR responsible people who dont have money to put anywhere.

          What happens when their fire is let burn and takes out other buildings?

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act immorally]?

          “Considering there are more than 265 private firefighter companies
          working in the US alone, I’d say it is working pretty damn fine.”

          You mean WITH regulation.

        • Daniel Campos

          “And what in YOUR SYSTEM ensure that private companies wont do the same
          thing and then enforce their decisions with their own Private Army?”

          Repeat with me:

          com-pe-ti-tion.

          “But you dont, remember it all got hacked, or maybe you had a medical emergency so you had to spend your money?”

          You’re hipothetically changing your hipothetical arguments to mke an hipothetical situation where even in an utopia you’d be poor and depend on other people’s good will.

          “There are plenty of POOR responsible people who dont have money to put anywhere.

          What happens when their fire is let burn and takes out other buildings?”

          If my neightbor is on fire, it bears me the risk of burying my house down. So, of course, I’ll help him pay for the private firefighters who, in a market, would be competing to provide us for their services. It is not that I’m a good person, I just don’t want my house on fire so I’ll gladly pay the firefighters.

          “Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable
          [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act
          immorally]?”

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable to act imorally that it is always government acting? Wars?

          “You mean WITH regulation.”

          Yes, with government* regulations, varying in 50 states. Were there no government regulations, only market ones, there would be even more.

        • adam

          “We *already* have a market working to protect your property, moron.”

          So does Drug Lord infested Mexico.
          And every Dictatorship in the world.

          That market is “might makes right”

        • Daniel Campos

          Weird. You want to blame the market but then points out to places where government has more control over society than the US. It would seem that the freer the market, the safer people are and the more companies work for a profit by putting people safe. But hey, Mexico, and any other third world country with a completely controlled market, with less economic freedom than the US, is proof that the market doesn’t work. Or something.

          Really?

        • Pofarmer

          The U.S. is founded on the idea of “equal protection under the law.” Govt of the people, by the people, for the people. That, IMHO, has been one of the great successes of the American experiment. The poor sharecropper or small landholder has the same legal standing and legal protections as the rich guy. Your property and your person is protected equally. Private protection isn’t going to provide that. It’s simply protection for people that can pay. We don’t have to go very back in society to see where wealthy landholders could simply imprison or kill someone with impunity and take their possessions. Most reasonable people don’t wish to go back to that model.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Private protection isn’t going to provide that. It’s simply protection for people that can pay.”

          Considering the price for food, which is a good everybody needs to survive, were private property protected by private institutions it would be cheaper than today, even for the poor who are “free riders” on the current system. The past time where rich people would control government and with money would put others in prison was certainly not good, but then again, it was only possible because there existed an apparatus of legalized – but immoral – force and theft, also known as government.

          Besides, locks, guns, fences, martial arts lessons, all these things are provided by the market and are not that expensive.

        • Pofarmer

          So, then, in your model, places like Somalia and Afghanistan should be excellent poaces to operate?

        • Daniel Campos

          Somalia did actually pretty fine from 1991 to 2005. It was the UN meddling with it, arming arlords, that caused mayhem, and now the US is bombing the place.

          Afghanistan was attacked by the USSR and then by the USSA; in the middle, it had a government.

          If your point was “but without government, who would protect an anarchic nation from bad governments that rob trillions of their subjects and then waste on destruction and killing devices to drop on people on the anarchic nation?” Point taken, but not in favor of government…

        • Pofarmer

          Black hawk down was in 1993.

        • Daniel Campos

          Yeah, the US government was already entering there and wreking havoc before.

        • adam

          1991 – Mohamed Siad Barre is ousted. Power struggle between clan warlords kills or wounds thousands of civilians.

          Somaliland breaks away

          1991 – Former British protectorate of Somaliland declares unilateral independence.

          1992 – US Marines land near Mogadishu ahead of a UN peacekeeping force sent to restore order and safeguard relief supplies.

          1993 –
          US Army Rangers are killed when Somali militias shoot down two US
          helicopters in Mogadishu and a battle ensues. Hundreds of Somalis die.
          US mission formally ends in March 1994.

          1995 – UN peacekeepers leave, having failed to achieve their mission.

          1996 August – Warlord Mohamed Farah Aideed dies of wounds and is succeeded by his son, Hussein.

          Puntland autonomy

          1998 – Puntland region declares autonomy.

          2000 August – Clan leaders and senior figures meeting in Djibouti elect Abdulkassim Salat Hassan president of Somalia.

          2000 October
          – Hassan and his newly-appointed prime minister, Ali Khalif Gelayadh,
          arrive in Mogadishu to heroes’ welcomes. Gelayadh announces his
          government, the first in the country since 1991.

          2001 April – Somali warlords, backed by Ethiopia, decline to support transitional administration.

        • Daniel Campos

          See? US government and the UN went there and wrecked havoc. So you can’t claim Somalia was anarchist when you had all these governments interfering, can you?

        • adam

          But you said they were fine during that time frame.

        • Daniel Campos
        • adam

          One would think….

        • adam

          “were private property protected by private institutions it would be cheaper than today, even for the poor who are “free riders” on the current system.”

          How does this work?
          How do you add a whole layer of PROFIT and make it cheaper than today?

          However, the most recent Corrections Department study that attempts to compare prison types on a level playing field concluded that per inmate costs were cheaper in state-run prisons than in private prisons.

          http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2014/10/21/az-fact-check-state-prisons-cheaper-private-prisons/17680289/

        • Daniel Campos

          “How do you add a whole layer of PROFIT and make it cheaper than today?”

          Simple: take out the entire layer of bureaucrats that don’t produce any value, while dismantling the monopolistic prices government can practice at a loss that is always at the taxpayer’s expense.

          I saw this in my country, Brazil. Government had a monopoly on the phone sector. Nobody would have a phone unless he bought it from government. A phone line would cost $ 2.000,00, and it would take six months for government to install it in your house. People made money lending their phones. Making calls was expensive as hell, and not everybody had phones. Cellphones were something only the rich had. This until 1994!

          Then the government decided it wouldn’t have a monopoly anymore, since there were always shutdowns when you couldn’t call anyone anywhere, and the government was always pouring tax money on the state-run company operated at a loss.

          Then privatization came. Now we have more cellphones than people since 2005. Phone lines are not even common today, as people prefer cellphones. And they’re not expensive: you can buy one cheap and there’s no need to put it in your testament.

        • adam

          “Simple: take out the entire layer of bureaucrats that don’t produce any value,”

          And replace them with other bureaucrats who have to demonstrate a profit.

          Private prisons demonstrate that.

        • Daniel Campos

          “And replace them with other bureaucrats who have to demonstrate a profit.”

          Bureaucrats are not seen in private companies. They’re costly and don’t produce a profit.

          Private prisons? You mean, those regulated by governments?

          LOL!

        • adam

          “Bureaucrats are not seen in private companies”

          i work for a private company, we have PLENTY of bureaucrats that needless suck money from the company, yet it is quite profitable.

          Private prisons vs public prisons

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f8fcad4b48de0e0458e6bb599c151827121f24dd676dd0b3317646ffd7e9b3b1.jpg

        • adam

          “No government doesn’t mean no laws or no norms.”

          It does however mean no laws.

        • Daniel Campos

          Tort laws. Common laws stabilished by precedent in private courts in England. Icelandic laws between the 10th and 14th centuries. Cospaia.

        • adam

          So do private armies enforce these laws?
          And when the private army works for the offender?

        • Daniel Campos

          Banks can enforce those laws if an offender has money in one or more banks that can be used to compensate for the damage done to property. If he doesn’t, people are justifyed by using force against him as long as they’re defending their own property – including own body. Have you ever heard of the non-aggression principle? Really, read a bit about it.

          Besides, there would be no such thing as a single private army or police. There would be competition in this sector as well, and a villifying private army wouldn’t attain many customers because, after all, companies want to maintain a good PR and a private army under contract with another company or person would only legitimally use force to defend it’s client’s property. If a private security company would fail that, and act as an offender, the solution on the preious paragraph would ensure it would be end of the private security company.

        • adam

          “Banks can enforce those laws if an offender has money in one or more
          banks that can be used to compensate for the damage done to property.”

          Without government why would any bank have the same ‘laws’?

          Wouldnt you want your bank to be more competitive and have LESS ‘laws’ than the bank down the street?

          “If he doesn’t, people are justifyed by using force against him as long as they’re defending their own property ”

          Ok, so YOU vs THEIR PRIVATE ARMY

          “Besides, there would be no such thing as a single private army or
          police. There would be competition in this sector as well, and a
          villifying private army wouldn’t attain many customers because, after
          all, companies want to maintain a good PR”

          Yes, we see how this played out during alcohol prohibition in the US and drug gangs around the world.

          PROFIT is KEY, not PR.

          ” If a private security company would fail that, and act as an offender, the solution on the preious paragraph would ensure it would be end of the private security company.”

          So YOU are going to ensure the end of a private security company along the order of Blackwater, the Crips or the Bloods?

          How?
          Without government?

        • Daniel Campos

          Banks wouldn’t have the same laws. You would be able to choose your bank in accordance to your preferred law. Or you could be covered by different laws if the same bank were to provide you with the choice. Thus, laws would have an incentive to serve the customer and please him, instead of being created to please voters while empoverishing them or the opposing group of voters, and banks who created bad, disfunctional laws would either correct their laws or go out of business.

          Are you in favor of restabilishing the alcohol ban? Because it was the ban that introduced disarray and created a black market that would not shy itself from disrespecting private property. Once the ban was lifted – ta-da – suddently people providing alcohol were the good guys.

          PR is a kind of profit. Besides, if a bank or the owner of a private security company decided to take my money – i.e., kill the goose of the golden eggs instead of maintaining a continuous profit – other private security companies could compete to offer to protect people from the bad apple at a fair, reasonable price .

          So, without government.

        • adam

          “Banks wouldn’t have the same laws.”

          Of course, so who enforces the Banks laws other than the Bank?

          “Thus, laws would have an incentive to serve the customer and please him,”

          Laws? you mean your VOLUNTARY ‘common law’?

          “Are you in favor of restabilishing the alcohol ban?”
          Of course not.

          “PR is a kind of profit”
          Only in a well regulated market.

          “other private security companies could compete to offer to protect people from the bad apple at a fair, reasonable price .”

          But remember, you DONT HAVE ANY MONEY at this point.
          YOUR system caters to those who have money, not those who have not.

          so without government you have no protection, your only protection is having enough wealth to buy protection against the protection of the Bank, its court and of course, it’s army.

        • Daniel Campos

          “Of course, so who enforces the Banks laws other than the Bank?”

          Arbitration companies, private courts.

          “Laws? you mean your VOLUNTARY ‘common law’?”

          Yep. Not only people would choose to be under this or that law voluntarily, since the bank which stabilished the best laws for the consumer would gain more consumers and thus more profit, all institutions would have an incentive to have good laws.

          “Of course not.”

          So what is the point of mentioning this government intrusion at all? Make a point for me that government create bad laws that affects us all throught force, wheter we voluntarily agree with them or not?

          “Only in a well regulated market.”

          PR is part of market regulation. Companies with bad PR will lose consumers. I have already explained that.

          “But remember, you DONT HAVE ANY MONEY at this point.
          YOUR system caters to those who have money, not those who have not.”

          I have replied this elsewhere. It is economically savvy to not put all your money under the mattres or in one place only.

          “so without government you have no protection, your only protection is
          having enough wealth to buy protection against the protection of the
          Bank, its court and of course, it’s army.”

          Baseless assumptions, again. It is as you don’t read what I argue.

        • adam

          “since the bank which stabilished the best laws for the
          consumer would gain more consumers and thus more profit,”

          Not if doing otherwise IS the more profitable method.

          ” all institutions would have an incentive to have good laws.”

          That’s a goal for government, but the business goal is PROFIT.

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable
          [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act
          immorally]?]

          “PR is part of market regulation”

          not for anarchy.

          “I have replied this elsewhere. It is economically savvy to not put all your money under the mattres or in one place only.”

          YOU HAVE NO MONEY.

          “Baseless assumptions, again. It is as you don’t read what I argue.”

          No, I read fine what you argue, it is just that what you argue doesnt jive with reality.

          which, I suspect is why you cant address the fundamental questions I have posed.

        • Paul B. Lot

          Common laws stabilished by precedent in private courts in England.

          [Courts] which are recognized and accepted by [the community] are, by definition, an aspect of local “government”.

          You’re hoisting yourself on your own potato.

        • Daniel Campos

          “[Courts] which are recognized and accepted by [the community] are, by definition, an aspect of local “government”.”

          False. They have an aspect of governance*, not government. You conflate the two and then call me dumb for your mistake.

        • generalisimo

          DC, there is a difference between voluntary association and coercive monopolistic states. Both are governance, but one is not market.
          The verbal gymnastics that let people think they can coerce and do so morally or economically, is to conflate these terms and then reason from that point.

        • Paul B. Lot

          They have an aspect of governance*, not government.

          This is a nonsense sentence.

          gov·ern·ment
          ˈɡəvər(n)mənt/
          noun
          1.
          the governing body of a nation, state, or community.
          “an agency of the federal government”

          A “federal” government is not the only kind possible.

          Any time humans gather together to establish broad societal regulations, that’s a “government”.

          To say that there is “governance” without a “government” is word salad: a [group of humans establishing the governance] is, by definition, [the government] of that group.

          You silly, silly person. :)

        • generalisimo

          PBL, just because you are unfamiliar with voluntary associations that confer governance without a coercive state does not mean they do not or cannot exist.

        • adam

          Which countries are these?

        • generalisimo

          Nice try, trying to get me to name an anarchic state, which is of coarse an impossibility because it is an oxymoron.
          If you would care for a discussion on free markets then roll it back a bit. Do you net see that associations, clubs, and things of the such offer the same regulatory oversight that a state does, but are not coerced?

        • Paul B. Lot

          which is of coarse an impossibility because it is an oxymoron.

          1) “of course”
          2) “contradiction in terms”, not “oxymoron”:

          ox·y·mo·ron
          ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/
          a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

          The mind boggles at the fact that these things need to be pointed out in a discussion thread on Dunning Kruger.

        • adam

          “Do you net see that associations, clubs, and things of the such offer
          the same regulatory oversight that a state does, but are not coerced?”

          Of course not, why dont you demonstrate by siting examples of states which operate this way?

          And certainly there ARE and CAN BE coerced associations, clubs, etc.

        • Paul B. Lot

          PBL, just because you are unfamiliar with voluntary associations that confer governance without a coercive state does not mean they do not or cannot exist.

          Holy shit, dude, I’m talking about definitions.

          If you decide to waltz into a conversation with your own pet definition of the word “government” which means ” a coercive state”, then a lot of people are going to be confused….because that’s not the widely-agree-upon definition.

          I’m quite happy to think about and discuss “voluntary associations” till we’re all blue in the face, till the heat death of the universe: it has no bearing on whether or not [a body which establishes broad societal laws, however local, is well-described by the word “government”.]

          It is.

          Now.

          If you and dumbfuck @disqus_H7EIpb6OBu:disqus want to stop jerking each other off with your inside-joke-definitions, and start using words the same way that the rest of the class agrees on using them: maybe a discussion will emerge.

        • generalisimo

          All righty then. You have a fine day.

        • generalisimo

          Ok, using your terms, what would you call an association that uses voluntary contractual agreements, instead of coercion? As a means to regulate behavior and establish “broad societal laws”?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Government.

        • generalisimo

          So then what do you call government without coercion? So that I can argue using your terms.

        • Paul B. Lot

          So then what do you call government without coercion?

          “Government without coercion” sounds like a fine phrase to me, as far as it goes.

          If that’s what we’re talking about, I have many questions, but if you know of a term which means “Government without coercion”, I’m happy to use it.

          “Voluntary association”, is that the word you guys use?

        • generalisimo

          Yes, that term is just fine. The point is that there is a distinction between voluntary and coerced action. Do you agree? The subjective treatment of economics is premised around this point and is why people like Mr. Campos and I take the position they we do.

        • generalisimo

          Most of those that argue for the position Campos and I assert, do so because of the arguments laid out by Mises and Rothbard. Mises built a system of economics that is completely different than what is “economics” to the mainstream. Mises, stressed that economics is a subjective social science and that it is improper to make an historical or data based model to describe the actions of humans. Free will and the ever changing fashions, circumstances, and preferences of people ensure this is so. So he took an utterly subjective approach and described economics as a category of human action. Humans act, we use our subjective values to decide what scarce means to apply to our chosen ends. Knowledge of economics is then deduced from these tautologies, not empirically derived from data, which Mises argued was erroneous. The Austrian school of econ, was borne out of this subjective treatment of econ, and provides the economic (utility) arguments for voluntarism instead of coercion. By using Mises’ arguments, we can show that voluntarism offers greater utility than coercion. So if you state your goal is greater economy, then to advocate coercion is counterproductive.
          There is also the moral argument for voluntarism, which is based on human rights.
          So it is a little misleading to immediately begin to defend a position without discussing first principles, as you quickly get into the kinds of 10,000 ft discussions where it is very hard to demonstrate the differing points, because there are relatively long chains of ratiocinations to get to that point, and it is not easy to describe them successfully in an internet post.
          Human action, and the study of it, illuminates these points. Are you familiar with Mises?

        • adam

          “Human action, and the study of it, illuminates these points. ”

          Human action and the study of it, illuminates that not all people are going to volunteer to comply with laws that have teeth, certainly not when there are no enforceable laws either, including against private armies..

          Human action and the study of it, illuminates that people will lie, cheat, steal and kill for money or other peoples possessions and properties.

          what coerces them to play your ‘common law’ scenario?

        • generalisimo

          You are exactly right, that a study of human action (economics is a sub set of human action, action that is purposive) will encounter all purposive human action, even criminal action and aggression, like you describe. Some individuals hold values that do not respect life, liberty, or property, and act on these perverse values. But why do you think there is no justice in a voluntarist system? A criminal who violates the rights of another is subject to justice, which is about making the victim whole. This a logical extension of self ownership and self defense. Perfectly in line with the libertarian ideology, in fact libertarians are consistent in the application of rights and do not arbitrarily sacrifice rights for convenience or a well intended outcome. This consistency is often what is attacked by those who have not given it the thought to think it through, from first principles to the logical end.
          I encourage you to look into what the ideas of Austrian economics, and the libertarian political philosophy before you attack what you don’t truly understand.

        • generalisimo

          Governance is a good, sought by consumers, just like any other good. The problem is that the providers of the good have established a violently protected monopoly of the provision of this good.

        • adam

          “The problem is that the providers of the good have established a violently protected monopoly of the provision of this good.”

          Is it the providers, really who establish this?
          Or is it corruption of the providers doing more of what they want to do in spite of the providers.

        • generalisimo

          Power corrupts. I’m sure there is historic precedence either way.

        • adam

          “Power corrupts”

          So having corporations with more power than governments is really the problem now.

          “I’m sure there is historic precedence either way.”

          I’m not as sure as you appear to be.
          In US history, it appears that Corporatism is far, far worse than government. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cc4b34fcbb1371ec27b7817a06deafc320c90d7e12737feb2565c7b308c3c212.jpg

        • adam

          “The problem is that the providers of the good have established a violently protected monopoly of the provision of this good.”

          And I would argue that the real problem is Corporatism, subversion of a people’s government by business interests.

          THAT is WHY it needs to be violent.

        • generalisimo

          Good grief man. “Needs to be violent”! Do you honestly believe that violence is the means that are justified by the end?

          You have a valid complaint that people buy influence over government to pillage others, but you attack the solution as though you it is the problem. The acceptance of violent aggression in any form is the evil you seek to squelch, but you are inconsistent in that you allow violent aggression, but for a good cause. What you fail to understand is that once open, the Pandora’s box of the acceptance of aggressive violence has been opened, and the application of this now only depends on the arbitrary judgement of whomever wields the power. This can work well if government was benevolent, and was staffed by philosopher kings, or had a written constitution that restrained government. But we know this not be true, and well intended people become tyrants, and criminals, because of the inconsistent application of basic human rights, without exception.

        • adam

          ” Do you honestly believe that violence is the means that are justified by the end?”
          For corporatism to flourish, violence is their means.

          nothing is more profitable than WAR.

          “What you fail to understand is that once open, the Pandora’s box of the acceptance of aggressive violence has been opened, and the application of this now only depends on the arbitrary judgement of whomever wields the power.”

          I understand this well, I understand why the US military is in so many countries around the world, primarily protecting corporatists interests.

          “well intended people become tyrants, and criminals, because of the inconsistent application of basic human rights, without exception.”

          So AGAIN, how does your ‘volunterism’ address this, what coerces these kinds of people under your ‘system’?

        • generalisimo

          So you seem to be hung up that a libertarian would not coerce people to act righteously, like a good progressive or conservative would. This goes back to 1st principles, and the consistent application of them, without exception. You do understand that a crime is an ACT, not a thought, so if someone ACTs criminally, they are now subject to justice and to recompense the victim, right? Because a libertarian does not prohibit NON ACTS you see this as a failing, where it is actually a consistent application of rights. Do you not understand that voluntarism means responsibility for one’s actions? If someone violates the rights of another, then a system of justice is made to bring the criminal into submission wrt making restitution to the victim. Does justice not suffice to serve civil society? And where in any conversation has anyone stated that institutions that carry our justice would not exist in a libertarian or voluntarist society. I would argue that they would abound and would operate on market principles to provide the best service at the best price, via the natural operation of the free market. how has the coercive and monopolistic state worked out in that regard?

          You are so close to a libertarian perspective, but refuse to apply rights consistently. Instead relying on arbitrary power, which I believe history and human nature show is quite foolish an approach.

        • adam

          “So you seem to be hung up that a libertarian would not coerce people to act righteously, like a good progressive or conservative would.”

          And you seem hung up on ad hominem, likely because the answer to my questions exposes a fraud in your philosophy.

          Should we move on, or sharpen our wits?

          “So you seem to be hung up that a libertarian would not coerce people to act righteously,”

          Sorry, but somewhere I got the idea you were vigorously opposed to coercion. I see it like I see government, as a necessary evil.

          “You are so close to a libertarian perspective, but refuse to apply rights consistently.”

          How?

          “Instead relying on arbitrary power, ”

          How so, how is it arbitrary, I see purpose to power that exists.

          How does your ‘volunteer’ system address the current power system?

        • generalisimo

          You misapply the term ad hominem. I am not attacking your character to avoid an actual argument. I’m pointing out the fact that progressivism and conservatism alike are statist political philosophies, that both believe that government coercion is a beneficial and legitimate means to an end, but have slightly different ends in mind.
          You accuse fraud! I think I’ve been more than fair and tried to honestly convey a position that you answer with terse parries that offer no substance. Most of your posts are simply quotes and open ended statements. I’ve offered citations and referenced philosophers and theory specifically. You, not so much.
          I get that you see coercion as necessary. That is all fine and dandy when you are holding power, let us hope you never have to worry about being at the business end of that kind of thinking.
          I describe you as libertarianish, because you seem to genuinely care about justice and have a somewhat vague idea that humans have rights, but you have not seen and metabolized the arguments that show coercion is less productive (Austrian econ) and immoral (rights and natural law). Which is why I even take the time to share ideas with you.
          I describe power as arbitrary because that is what it is exactly. Otherwise, to not be arbitrary, the law is known in advance and is general in all circumstances, which is exactly what natural law is and why I stress the importance of natural law as opposed to arbitrary power. That there is purpose to it I concede, it is often well intended also, but that does not relieve it from being arbitrary. One group’s idea about the use of power is not necessarily another’s perspective, these are arbitrary according to the differing values of those in power. Natural law is known regardless of who is in power and is consistent in all cases, IOWs not arbitrary.
          As far as how voluntarism is compatible with the current power system, libertarian ideas were foundational to the US system. We’ve strayed far from these ideals, and I would like to see a return of sorts. Which means things like smaller more local government, sound fiscal and monetary policy, and reformation of the criminal and justice systems to return to natural rights and victim centered justice. My pipe dream would be a completely voluntary system, but any advance toward liberty is welcome.

        • adam

          “You misapply the term ad hominem.”

          I do not, you use it to avoid being honest..

          “that both believe that government coercion is a beneficial and legitimate means to an end,.”

          AGAIN,how does your ‘volunteer’ system work with someone who refuses to volunteer?”

          I get that you see coercion as necessary.”

          AGAIN,how does your ‘volunteer’ system work with someone who refuses to volunteer?”

          “but you have not seen and metabolized the arguments that show coercion is less productive (Austrian econ) and immoral (rights and natural law).”

          Of course, I havent seen it, you havent demonstrated how your systems works against nonvolunteers.

          AGAIN,how does your ‘volunteer’ system work with someone who refuses to volunteer?”

          “I describe power as arbitrary because that is what it is exactly.”

          So how does your ‘system’ deal with arbitrary power?

          “Natural law is known regardless of who is in power and is consistent in all cases, IOWs not arbitrary.”

          So are we back to ‘might makes right’, you havent described how ‘natural law’ works in your system.

          “As far as how voluntarism is compatible with the current power system,”

          Yes, how is is?

          AGAIN,how does your ‘volunteer’ system work with someone who refuses to volunteer?”

        • generalisimo

          No one is coerced, it is not necessary, is uneconomic, and is immoral. So live and let live. How’s that for your answer about folks that don’t wish to voluntarily associate. It is perfectly within their rights to not do so, and I support their rights.
          Why must you compel people to your will? I’m sure you can rattle off a half dozen well intended reasons (general welfare, good for society, necessary evil, etc.), but ultimately your attempts are uneconomic and immoral, which seems to be just fine for you, but be honest about it.
          You believe in “because I said so” and “my values are more valid than yours” and are willing to do violence to support that. I find it abhorrent and immoral. This is not ad hominem it is an indictment of the immoral and inhumane values you hold. Is that who you are? A tyrant and aggressor? Sure seem like it based on the banter on this thread. So keep clinging to your illusion that doing bad for a good cause is anything other than a rationalization to violate human rights.

        • MNb

          Good grief man. Without a government having violent means this happens.

          http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kgRL-L82qtE/Um_lvsyjh1I/AAAAAAAAAvU/fetduA7Hr94/s1600/mine.JPG

          As a result the indigenous people are “enjoying” mercury poisoning – the result of exactly the corporatism Adam is talking about.
          But hey – libertarians are just another brand of True Believers, like American fundagelicals. Let the apologetics – ie the search for lame excuses – begin.

        • generalisimo

          This is what happens when violations of rights are given legitimacy. That you think for an instant that libertarians would oblige any violation of property rights means you have taken no time to understand the principles that you criticize, or the libertarian political philosophy in general. What you are riling against is the lack of respect of rights, specifically property rights, by criminals in corporations and government, that sanction such behavior and give it legitimacy under color of law. Rothbard does a fine job describing a system of property rights that would make polluters responsible for their harmful actions, in “For a New Liberty”, you should check it out.
          Sorry, but you confuse those who stand on principle and insist on human rights, with those who believe that might makes right, something you will never hear someone with libertarian values say.

        • MNb

          “This is what happens when violations of rights are given legitimacy. That you think for an instant that libertarians would oblige any violation of property rights ….”
          Spoken like a True Believer. An ultracreationist couldn’t have done better.
          I haven’t given violations of rights any legitimacy. I haven’t even claimed that you did. I haven’t written that libertarians would oblige any violation of property rights.
          What I have written is that libertarians refuse to tell us how they want to prevent corporations from violating such rights. But the True Believer always thinks it easer to attack a strawman than address the issue critics brought up.
          Thanks. After this dishonesty – if not straightforward lie – there is no need to read any further. You have effectively discredited yourself. However I’m all for second chances. Here you go!

          Property rights are violated by corporations here.

          http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NOLPl2f2KW4/UvYRbiWGxII/AAAAAAAAJZw/yNhe0d3xJRc/s1600/Meriamgebied+overblijfselen+porknockers+aug+2011+bron+Commissie+Ordening+Goudsector.jpg

          Not only that; this results in murder, prostitution and mercury pollution of the local indigenous people. This is possible thanks to the lack of any governmental power. What’s your libertarian remedy?
          My experience with libertarian scatterbrains like you makes me predict that you won’t answer this question. I’ll take that as another implicit admission that libertarianism is false and deliberately lacks sense of reality.

        • generalisimo

          First I want to point out that we agree that criminals cause harm to people and are not brought to justice. We differ in how we view a solution, and in how we define the offence.
          So in your example, how come the violator is not brought to justice? Because government doesn’t have enough power, right? So it is your claim that weak governments are run over by aggressive corporations and cause harm to others without being brought to justice, right? So the solution is more government power. Am I on track here?

          I see you perspective, but I challenge you to look a little closer. It is my experience and is evidenced in history, that the offenders are usually in cahoots with, or at least tacitly accepted by, governments. I absolutely agree with you that criminal types harm others, and must be brought to heel. What I argue against is your insistence that a state solution is the right way to go. If you look at the most totalitarian governments, those with the power you desire to stop the criminals, they have the worse environmental records. It is where governments are constrained and where rights are respected that you have the best records. A quick review of Soviet or Chinese environmental concerns, as opposed to the USA or UK, should illuminate this point.

          I don’t mean to change your mind, but at least consider that doubling down on policies that have not worked in the past, and claiming that now we have the right “top men” working on the solution might need some more consideration.
          A libertarian proposal goes something like this. First we must define rights succinctly. This is where the whole natural law discussion emanates. From there, a violation of rights is clearly defined, not by a government’s statutory laws and regulations, but from the idea that someone has had their rights violated. Rights do not depend on the state, they exist because ration human beings understand they exist, which is why we all know murder, theft, aggressive violence are wrong without needing a government to make a law stating so. Governments make statutory laws not in line with natural rights all the time. They do this because special interest maneuver their way to influence government to their advantage and at the expense of others. Once rights are clearly defined, and violators identified, justice is sought by way of some institution (you propose government, I propose market). Government can be a solution, but again I want to point out that in the worst aggressors tend to be governments who hold unchallenged power. A market functions not by coercion, but by choices. In a system where people like you and I are not coercively constrained by government from doing business with whomever we please, we could simply boycott and do business with another firm. The bad actors would be run out of business. We would reward the good actors, those in line with our values, with profit. Not the ones who maneuver closest to power, but the ones who satisfy the values of the consumer. One whose values are more in line with our values on rights, criminality, and environmental concerns. Nothing about libertarianism is nonviolent, we assert non-aggression (the initiation of aggressive violence) but will vehemently defend rights of everyone. It is just that we understand the superior utility and morality of market institutions over government coercive institutions.
          Values are paramount. My position is essentially defended by 2 arguments, utility and morality. Austrian economics lays out the utility of markets as superior, and if you wish to digress there I’d be happy to oblige. The moral argument is premised in the natural law arguments and the consistent application of the principles espoused in natural law, being careful not to compromise rights for a convenience or some other subordinate concern.
          Last, I know we disagree, but accusation like “scatter brain” and such, doesn’t accomplish anything, so I would encourage you to avoid that in the future. I would like to think were perfectly capable of discussing ideas without the need for that.
          The libertarian political philosophy and Austrian economics are not a hair brained schemes created on a whim, but represent a culmination of thousands of years of thought (philosophically) and hundreds of years of economic theory, not so easily swept aside. If you’re going to argue against these points I suggest you master them first, then rebut them. Mises is a great place to start.

        • MNb

          “justice is sought by way of some institution (you propose government, I propose market).”
          Market is not an institution.

          “A market functions not by coercion, but by choices.”
          And the market, with government absent, allows in my example the violation by powerful corporations of the rights of indigenous people. This evidence, directly taken from reality, shows libertarianism can’t realize what it claims but produces the exact opposite. It’s a failure.
          You seem to realize it but don’t want to admit it. Hence all the irrelevant verbosity to hide that your ideal world will look like the pictures I gave. Hence the extensive Tu Quoque “but governments are evil too”.
          What is relevant is that the indigenous people why you poorly predict to be protected by the non-institution you call market do appeal to government for protection. You tell them “no no, don’t rely on government, rely on market, which thus far always has screwed you, and everything will turn out right.”
          So now I have a choice: take sides with a scatterbrain who does his best to hide that he has nothing to offer to victims of criminal corporations or take sides with those victims.
          You promise paradise (there was no human government in Eden either). You will bring hell beyond the worst nightmares of Jeroen Bosch. Not a hard choice for me.

          “Mises is a great place to start.”
          Given you’re incapability to answer my question properly I conclude that Mises doesn’t answer it either. So I’m not going to waste my time and money on more drivel like you produced.
          But let’s make a deal. Visit the interior of Suriname, where those two pictures were taken. Listen to the indigenous people who live there. Then tell them that market will save them from mercury pollution. As soon as you have convinced them and saved from mercury pollution I’ll read that book and more. What do you say?

        • Daniel Campos

          “Any time humans gather together to establish broad societal regulations, that’s a “government”.”

          So when people gather together to stabilish how people should dress in a company, is that a government?

          When a company stabilishes nroms of conduct in its buildings, it is creating a government?

        • Paul B. Lot

          Why do you keep writing “stabilish”?

          …stabilish how people should dress in a company….company stabilishes nroms of conduct…

          “In a company” vs. “broach societal regulations”.

          No, I wouldn’t label “company dress code” as a “government”.

        • Daniel Campos

          The US laws don’t apply in Spain.

          ANARCHY!

        • adam

          “The US laws don’t apply in Spain.”

          And neither would your ‘volunteer laws’.

          It certainly seems as though your ‘volunteer’ system would only work with those who agree to it.

        • Daniel Campos

          “And neither would your ‘volunteer laws’.”

          So what?

          “It certainly seems as though your ‘volunteer’ system would only work with those who agree to it.”

          Obviously. I won’t force people to live the way I think they should. I’m not like you, a statist that want people to either live by your state decisions or leave.

        • adam

          “Obviously. I won’t force people to live the way I think they should.”

          So how does your ‘system’ deal with those who wont participate in your ‘volunteer’ ‘legal’ ‘system’?

          ” I’m not like you, a statist that want people to either live by your state decisions or leave.”

          That’s not me, just another ad hominem because you dont want to admit your system is fatally flawed from the inception.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/32a8ffcdaee0703b996e6a81b2e4640ff89f649ad01748d74aeea4ea7775ee98.jpg

        • Daniel Campos

          “So how does your ‘system’ deal with those who wont participate in your ‘volunteer’ ‘legal’ ‘system’?”

          I don’t, they’re free to go elsewhere. Like I said, I have no use to force others to comply to what I think is right. It is you who want government to do that for you.

        • adam

          “I don’t, they’re free to go elsewhere.”

          Just as they are free to stay.

          What if they refuse to leave?

          ” Like I said, I have no use to force others to comply to what I think is right.”

          LIke you said your system would use force.

          Daniel Campos

          adam

          an hour ago

          It is done throught justified use of force. I have yet to explain to you what the non-aggression principle is?

          So, I see what you are doing:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cb1bc0e5e52766a86c400647e656c73bd0feffc595cc6d0e0a06a88d4de4299.jpg

        • adam

          “Obviously. I won’t force people to live the way I think they should.”

          What OBVIOUS is that you stated you would:

          Daniel Campos

          adam

          an hour ago

          It is done throught justified use of force.”

          Which just makes you out as a LIAR….

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa80a009ff1f4dac83a249a1e00ac78183632691cd0ada80631ae87817cf4287.jpg

        • Greg G.

          His posts wouldn’t make less sense even if his “E” key was missing.

        • adam

          It’s called government.

        • Daniel Campos

          Iceland didn’t have a government between the 10th and 14th century. Cospaia didn’t have a government. Common law was never stabilished by government. You fail.

        • adam

          Common law IS government, YOU fail.

        • Daniel Campos

          common law

          noun

          1.

          the system of law originating in England, as distinct from the
          civil or Roman law and the canon or ecclesiastical law.

          2.

          the unwritten law, especially of England, based on custom or court decision, as distinct from statute law.

          3.

          the law administered through the system of courts established for the purpose, as distinct from equity or admiralty.

          No, I’m pretty sure you failed.

        • adam

          “”the system of law”

          Government
          Definition of government – Merriam Webster.

          1 : the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control

          AGAIN, it is YOU who have failed.

        • Daniel Campos

          Key word here: *authoritative*.

          I’ve been presenting how voluntary actions could replace government force to solve problems. You fail to understand.

        • adam

          “the system of law”

          So if this system of ‘law’ is not authoritative, what happens when say the Bank doesnt abide by your ‘system of law’.

          Definition of authority
          plural authorities

          1
          a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior

        • Daniel Campos

          I go to another bank, or if we have a contract, go to an arbitration company that will sue the bank. I won’t do business with a bank that doesn’t give me a copy of the contract signed, so I’m ok.

        • adam

          “I go to another bank,”

          With its own set of ‘laws’.

          “” or if we have a contract”
          Let’s say you have a contract with Bank A.
          Bank B doesnt have to recognize that contract – free market.

          “” go to an arbitration company that will sue the bank.”

          Yes, take your ‘free market lawyer’ and sue the bank in Bank Court against the hundreds or thousands of lawyers that the bank has.

          You know the very same lawyers who WROTE the ‘free market laws’ that Bank A used to tell you that you are on your own.

          “” I won’t do business with a bank that doesn’t give me a copy of the contract signed, so I’m ok.”

          Ok, so you have a contract with Bank A, that says you are screwed and on your own, it’s in the contract.

          Where are you going to BUY an IMPARTIAL court?
          So you are still screwed.

        • Daniel Campos

          But bank A does have to recognize and honor such contract. If that contract says that he has to protect me from hacking and in the event of a hacking he must garantee my deposits, and he doesn’t honor that, I can sue you. Bank B might, as a competitor, even help me to gain customers and lose a competitor, bank A.

          It is me against the bank A. If bank A don’t have a monopoly, and I’m making the case that it didn’t honor the contract we had, competitors of bank A may help me.

          I won’t sign a contract that has me screwed. Why would I do that? Except, of course, if you’re talking about the “social contract”. That I certainly didn’t sign, but got screwed by it anyways.

        • adam

          “But bank A does have to recognize and honor such contract.”

          Why? Because they VOLUNTEERED to, at the time?
          What’s to keep them from UNVOLUNTERING?

          ” I can sue you.”

          Where?
          No government – no civil courts – only YOUR VOLUNTEER ‘common law’

          “It is me against the bank A. If bank A don’t have a monopoly, and I’m making the case that it didn’t honor the contract we had, competitors of bank A may help me.”

          Maybe, and just maybe they see you as a unnecessary risk – WHO HAS NO MONEY.

          “I won’t sign a contract that has me screwed.”

          You are assuming in an unregulated market that you will even have a choice, of which there is no guarantee, only this ‘voluntary social contract’ that is your ‘free market’

        • Daniel Campos

          “Why? Because they VOLUNTEERED to, at the time?
          What’s to keep them from UNVOLUNTERING?”

          Competition. I have already stated that to you. If they don’t comply to contracts, they’ll lose consumers to the competition. I’ll not go along.

          “Where?
          No government – no civil courts – only YOUR VOLUNTEER ‘common law'”

          Private courts, arbitration companies where the bank is bound by the contract… I have already answered that before.

          “Maybe, and just maybe they see you as a unnecessary risk – WHO HAS NO MONEY.”

          If they see I can earn money throught the court, they will be willing to come by and receive part of it. Actually, it was very common for rich people to buy judicial cases from poor people if they saw the poor people was in the right side because then they could win, and the poor people would get their money by selling it to rich people. Damn it, in Somalia rich people paid for the cases of poor people because they wanted private property rights to be respected becuase, after all, it they weren’t, they rich people were the ones with the most to lose.

          “You are assuming in an unregulated market that you will even have a
          choice, of which there is no guarantee, only this ‘voluntary social
          contract’ that is your ‘free market'”

          I will have a choice. A bank won’t get many customers if it only gets contracts by pointing a gun at other people’s heads. And without government to prevent new players from entering, even if a bank attain monoplistic status – throught diminishing prices and increasing quality driving competition out, which is in my opinion no harm to the consumer – it won’t be able to prevent new competitors from entering or forming.

        • adam

          ” If they don’t comply to contracts, they’ll lose consumers to the competition.”

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable
          [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act
          immorally]?

          “Private courts, arbitration companies where the bank is bound by the contract… I have already answered that before.”

          What makes a private court bound by the bank in a volunteer system?
          A private court would have to be PAID for, so those who can pay the MOST buy such courts.

          You havent answered.

          “If they see I can earn money throught the court, they will be willing to come by and receive part of it. ”

          The Bank Court who is paid by the Bank?

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable
          [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act
          immorally]?

          “Actually, it was very common for rich people to buy judicial cases from
          poor people if they saw the poor people was in the right side because
          then they could win,”

          And it is very common for rich people to buy lawyers, drag out cases and overspend poor people to get the MOST PROFITABLE outcome out existing courts.

          What does YOUR system do to prevent such abuses?

          “A bank won’t get many customers if it only gets contracts by pointing a gun at other people’s heads.”

          It certainly does if that is the MOST PROFITABLE process.

          “And without government to prevent new players from entering,”

          What CURRENTLY prevents new players from entering the banking business?

        • Daniel Campos

          “What makes a private court bound by the bank in a volunteer system?
          A private court would have to be PAID for, so those who can pay the MOST buy such courts.”

          And yet again, you fail to realize that private courts that have their PR linked to their fair judgement would not be contacted by consumers who wanted a fair judgement if they had the mere suspisious of being selling court decisions. You know, unlike government, where no matter how much fraud happens and how many decisions are bought, it is still the only court in town.

          “And it is very common for rich people to buy lawyers, drag out cases
          and overspend poor people to get the MOST PROFITABLE outcome out
          existing courts.

          What does YOUR system do to prevent such abuses?”

          Private courts already exist, so this question is easy. The private court decision don’t take into account the amount you spent to prove your point. It makes a profit if it has customers, and it will have customers if people perceive it as a fair court.

          “It certainly does if that is the MOST PROFITABLE process.”

          It cannot be the most profitable process. Consumers won’t subject themselves to such banks. They might even start a bank themselves if there’s no other options avaliable.

          “What CURRENTLY prevents new players from entering the banking business?”

          Government regulations that imposes unnecessary costs to new players entering, while draging them throught bureaucratic forms and other devices.

        • adam

          “And yet again, you fail to realize that private courts that have their PR linked to their fair judgement ”

          Not when their goal is profit, then it is down to who can most afford to pay.

          “You know, unlike government, where no matter how much fraud happens and
          how many decisions are bought, it is still the only court in town.”

          So that those with the most money shop for the ‘justice’ they want?

          “The private court decision don’t take into account the amount you spent to prove your point.”

          Is not it’s motive PROFIT?

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable
          [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act
          immorally]?

          “It cannot be the most profitable process. Consumers won’t subject themselves to such banks. ”

          What choice would consumers have?
          BIg Business would LOVE such a system

          “Government regulations that imposes unnecessary costs to new players
          entering, while draging them throught bureaucratic forms and other
          devices.”

          And you want to introduce a Profit Court system that caters to it’s profit motive?

          Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more profitable
          [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act
          immorally]?

          What UNNECESSARY cost?

        • adam

          “I’ve been presenting how voluntary actions could replace government force to solve problems. You fail to understand.”

          What I fail to understand is how and people like Banksters and Gangs are going to “volunteer” to be under your system, which will have no enforcement ability, when they wont even voluntarily follow existing laws and norms?

        • Daniel Campos

          They don’t need to, they’re automatically excluded if they don’t respect the non-aggression principle. That’s a feature, not a bug.

        • adam

          “They don’t need to, they’re automatically excluded if they don’t respect the non-aggression principle. ”

          What?
          Deported or terminated?

          How is this done without coercion?

        • Daniel Campos

          It is done throught justified use of force. I have yet to explain to you what the non-aggression principle is?

        • adam

          “It is done throught justified use of force.”

          So aggression and coercion

          “I have yet to explain to you what the non-aggression principle is?”

          I think you just have:

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68d5eb4933179c192f95adabc4dfcc3a0815dbf0052e0514c35559067ca4e128.png

        • adam

          “It is done throught justified use of force. ”

          So coercion,

        • Paul B. Lot

          Lol.

        • Paul B. Lot

          No government doesn’t mean no laws

          It literally does. The entity which creates and enforces laws is referred to as a “government”.


          The free market is all about the natural enforcement of the ethics

          It literally is not. It’s about profit, nothing more.


          After all, if there’s a need to protect people from the use of force and their property, there can be a supply built upon market principles.

          So….you’re talking about society joining together to pool resources to support a [ ] which will create and enforce laws and protect members of society from unlawful use of force.

          Hmmm, if only we could come up with a name for [ ].

          Pfff, get out of here dooofus, come back when you have something intelligible and worthwhile to add.

        • Daniel Campos

          “It literally does. The entity which creates and enforces laws is referred to as a “government”.

          Someone has yet to read Bastiat. Have you ever heard about tort laws? Common law? Government may have stabilished its monopoly on the creation of laws but it is by no means the only institution able to create laws or enforce them.

          “It literally is not. It’s about profit, nothing more.”

          So private property ethics are naturally enforced by the market, because there would be no profit if you can’t keep it because of thieves. The very concept of *profit* necessarily means people would profit from protecting their own property.

          “So….you’re talking about society joining together to pool resources
          to support a [ ] which will create and enforce laws and
          protect members of society from unlawful use of force.

          Hmmm,
          if only we could come up with a name for [ ].”

          I have one: banks. Be it your credit card; your car, house or health insurance; your payment for services and goods, and the rules by which you may abide… It already works that way, you see. And with banks in a free market you have a competition, i.e., banks are stimulated by profit to provide the best services – the best norms – while not harming others. Ever heard of a letter credit? It is very common in international commerce and it is a private property protection institution that allows for safe and peaceful transfer of property.

        • adam

          “So private property ethics are naturally enforced by the market, because
          there would be no profit if you can’t keep it because of thieves.”

          How so.

          Say I want to break into your house and steal everything you own, maybe I steal your house as well.

          But before that I have stolen all your money, so that you cant afford to defend yourself.

          “The very concept of *profit* necessarily means people would profit from protecting their own property.”

          Yes, I understand that from Prohibition of Alcohol, from invading countries that are oil rich and corporations taking natural resources away from poor land owners.

        • Daniel Campos

          The scenario you propose is really hard to present itself in reality. If my money is in the bank, the only way for you to rob me is to be the banker himself. If you rob me, I collect proof and sue you in an arbitration agency, possibly tied to another bank, whose interest is to profit from providing services to me. They take my money you stole, give it back to me and I am no longer your client. If before that you steal my house, I can also sue you because of that damage and other banks that hold your money will be willing to comply. And I can make you lsoe clients by telling people what you did to me. Damn, competition might as well be willing to make my voice heard, so now I’m richer than before and you’re losing your customers fast.

          The only way for you to rob me in such a manner – i.e., all my money and the my house – would it be if you had a monopoly on the emission of money, on the banking system, and on enforcing norms. Basically, the only way this would be possible is if you were, say, government. You know, the institution that doesn’t respect private property by waging wars and seizing property from poor people and putting in jail minor, poor offenders.

        • adam

          “If my money is in the bank, the only way for you to rob me is to be the banker himself.”

          Nope, hacked you, your bank, everything associated with your name – free market – remember?

          “I collect proof and sue you in an arbitration agency,”

          Hacked your proof and your arbitration agency

          Free market

          “And I can make you lsoe clients by telling people what you did to me.”

          “The only way for you to rob me in such a manner – i.e., all my money and the my house – would it be if you had a monopoly on the emission of money, on the banking system, and on enforcing norms.”

          Nope, simple hacking.

        • Daniel Campos

          If you hack me, then it is the bank’s job to both give me my money by honoring the debts I have with him and going after you. After all, banks have protection and cyber security and started working with it before government regulated them. Besides, if my money in my account is in a virtual database, you could only transfer the money – thus making it easy to get it back to me.

          You cannot hack testimony (?) since you can’t hack other people’s minds.

          It seems you don’t know much about cyber security. Could you possibly be a Hillary voter?

        • adam

          “If you hack me, then it is the bank’s job to both give me my money by honoring the debts I have with him and going after you.”

          No, the banks job is make money, YOU got hacked, THAT is YOUR problem, notthe banks.

          “Besides, if my money in my account is in a virtual database, you could
          only transfer the money – thus making it easy to get it back to me.”

          It wasnt transfered, it was deleted.

          “You cannot hack testimony (?) since you can’t hack other people’s minds.”

          What testimony??

          “It seems you don’t know much about cyber security. ”

          How so?
          Have you ever been hacked, I have.

          ” Could you possibly be a Hillary voter?”
          No, Johnson.

          so , it must be YOU…

        • Daniel Campos

          If a bank fail to protect me, it fails to protect itself. I will do business with another bank, then.

          If you simply deleted my money, then you simply destroyed wealth without attaining any profit. May I ask why one would do this, if the person would not attain personal profit?

          People can testify, in front of a court, what their experiences are. If a testimony is necessary to stabilish truth in the juridical method, one cannot hack the people’s memory.

          I’ve never been hacked. That’s maybe because I learn how to protect myself from hackers every day.

          So, if you want so much government, why did you vote for a proto-libertarian?

        • adam

          “”If a bank fail to protect me, it fails to protect itself.”

          Nope, PROFITS are what protects the banks.

          “” May I ask why one would do this, if the person would not attain personal profit?”

          Sure, ask away.
          It might just be, because they can, and with no government they could.

          “”People can testify, in front of a court, what their experiences are.”

          In front of the bank court?

          “So, if you want so much government, why did you vote for a proto-libertarian?”

          Because only government can equalize the playing field.
          Because only government can break up monopolies.
          Because ONLY GOVERNMENT can establish a ‘free market economy”

        • Daniel Campos

          Banks, as any other businesses, won’t make a profit without customers.

          Government wouldn’t protect me for such a hacker now, would it? It would promise to, charge me for it, but in the end it wouldn’t. Government had NSA and you were hacked anyways.

          Government has more power than any other institution in the country, so claiming it can level the playing field is ludicrous.
          Governmnent is also a monopoly, and all monopolies I know of are governmental institutions or were stabilished and were/are maintained throught government.
          And expecting an institution that uses force to push its goals to estabilish a system where private property is protected and the non-aggression principle is respected is delusional.

        • adam

          “Banks, as any other businesses, won’t make a profit without customers.”

          So, what?
          You got hacked, your problem.

          “”Government wouldn’t protect me for such a hacker now, would it?

          Laws and court, civil court, not Bank Court.

          “”Government has more power than any other institution in the country, so claiming it can level the playing field is ludicrous.”

          No, CLAIMING that ‘no government free market’ can level the playing field is ludicrous..

          “”And expecting an institution that uses force to push its goals to
          estabilish a system where private property is protected and the
          non-aggression principle is respected is delusional.”

          Expecting a PRIVATE INSTITUTION with a profit motive to establish such a system is delusional historically.

        • Daniel Campos

          If my bank account got hacked, then the bank was hacked. Obviously, if I’m worried about hacking, I’ll look for banks that put clauses in contracts with customers that pledge to protect them in case of hacking and restitute their money if a hacker steals or deletes it.

          Will government give me my money back if it fails to protect me? No.

          No government free market would mean the customer would pick winners and losers, not government. Besides, I have already argued extensively on how a free market would stabilish the protection of private property since there is a perceived demand for it, and many services are already provided in that sense. After all, for every cop in America there are 3 private guards. So private security companies that you call “armies” exist today and you don’t see mayhem from them.

        • adam

          “I’ll look for banks that put clauses in contracts with customers that
          pledge to protect them in case of hacking and restitute their money if a
          hacker steals or deletes it. ”

          And just who is going to enforce this contract?
          Bank Court?

          “No government free market would mean the customer would pick winners and losers, not government.”

          Monopolies become the defacto winners.
          And customers lose choices.

          “Besides, I have already argued extensively on how a free market would
          stabilish the protection of private property since there is a perceived
          demand for it, and many services are already provided in that sense.”

          Yes, private army, so he with the biggest private army wins.

          “So private security companies that you call “armies” exist today and you don’t see mayhem from them.”

          Of course you do, all over the world.
          They dont cause a problem in the US, because we have a GOVERNMENT that regulates them.

        • Daniel Campos

          “And just who is going to enforce this contract?
          Bank Court?”

          Usually, in international commerce, when a company is not certain of the good faith of another, they employ banks as intermediary. They do this all the time. Sometimes, 3 or even 4 banks are involved. This prevents conflict and it is happening right now, today. It also happens when you use your credit card from your bank to pay the grocery store that has its account on another one.

          “Monopolies become the defacto winners.
          And customers lose choices.”

          The only way a company can attain monopoly without government would be to provide goods so cheap and of so higher quality than other companies that all the others are driven out. And it could only maintain such monopoly if it kept supplying goods much cheaper and better than anyone could possibly provide. I don’t see this being bad for the consumer, at all.

          But then again a natural monopoly is impossible per se. I commented on marginal utility on another post. If you understood the concept, you can clearly see why a company would never be able to become a monopoly, i.e., have 100% market share in its sector. That’s because the more you produce or buy, the harder it becomes to calculate marginal profits and costs. The more market share you have, the wider are your underestimations or superestimations of production, costs, prices, and demand, to the point that would start losing money and were forced to reduce your market share. It would become harder and harder to calculate if you needed to invest more to improve the quality of your good or service as well.

          “Yes, private army, so he with the biggest private army wins.”

          A private security company hardly fights. It doesn’t attain a profit if it destroys its own personnel, or it expends all its ammunition. That’s why private security companies that garantee safety in shopping malls, stores, cinemas, big buildings, etc., hardly fight people, and rather work on preventing problems. Private guards are usually gentle, treat you as an equal, don’t assume you have to pay his coffee. And I’ve never seen private guards demanding bribes from sotre owners. Police, on the other hand…

        • Ignorant Amos

          If you hack me, then it is the bank’s job to both give me my money by honoring the debts I have with him and going after you.

          Under whose rules?

          Federal law says that if someone takes money from your bank account you will get all of your money back if you notify your financial institution within 60 days after the fraudulent transaction appears on your bank statement.

          And you only think you get ALL your money back.

          That’s doesn’t mean individuals pay nothing for bank account breaches.

          Gerson says these incidents cost consumers time and effort to remedy and could result in fewer jobs and higher costs for banking services.

          “Banks are budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars to deal with electronic fraud. Somebody is going to pay the bill for that,” he says.

          http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/could-bank-hackers-steal-your-money-1.aspx

          And that’s with federal governments involvement.

        • Daniel Campos

          That could perfectly happen without federal government involvement. All it takes is you sign a contract with the bank. If the bank decides not to honor the contract, he is in for liabilities. If he doesn’t want to subject itself to liabilities, another bank will take my cause, earn me as a client and profiting his PR, and if he reimbursed me for the liability and hacking in the other bank, he is justified to either not pay the other bank obligations going up to the value or withhold money he owns from him.

          This happens with all the time. I saw a while ago a guy who had his cellphone explode, and the company that built the phone said they wouldn’t reimburse him. Then came along a competitor and gave the guy a new phone, top one for their company, and now he is the latter company’s client. This happens with cars. Food. Insurance. Healthcare. Clothes. It happens all the time. It also happens with banks. Really, we don’t need government to write things in paper that are supposed to protect us.

        • adam

          ” If the bank decides not to honor the contract, he is in for liabilities.”

          How does this work in your volunteer system and how does it work if the Bank unvolunteers from your system.

          ” Really, we don’t need government to write things in paper that are supposed to protect us.”

          And if competitors refuse to participate in your volunteer system?

          “Have you no notion of the fact that if and when it is more
          profitable [to act immorally] than it is [to act morally], corporations [act immorally]?”

        • adam

          “And with banks in a free market you have a competition, i.e., banks are
          stimulated by profit to provide the best services – the best norms –
          while not harming others. ”

          No, the Great Depression and the crash of 08 demonstrate that banks without regulation are stimulated by profit only, and only the service which serves THEM.

          Once they are Too Big To Fail, they act like any other dictatorship and hold the whole country to ransom.

        • Daniel Campos

          You have a lot to read about 1929 and 2008.

          BTW, here’s a hint: who decides which banks are “too big to fail”? Oh, that’s right: government. Take government out of the equation for a moment: would there be Fannie Mae backing bad loans? Would there be CRA? Would there be FDIC? Would there be bailouts? No!

          You blame the free market for banks too big to fail when in fact it was the government who created them.

        • adam

          “”You have a lot to read about 1929 and 2008.”

          Please demonstrate such,

          ” Take government out of the equation for a moment: ”

          And banks would sell whatever they view as profitable without any consumer protection.

          “Would there be bailouts? No!”

          Just as there were no such bailouts in 1929?

          “You blame the free market for banks too big to fail”

          No, the free market did NOT stop them from conning people, did NOT their dishonesty OR theft.

          It WAS your idea of ‘free market for banks’ that allowed them to get too big to fail.

          libertarian capitalism values COMPETITION over an unregulated market that allows deceptive practices and dishonesty to grow a company to be too big to fail.

          In a sense you are correct in that Big Banking USED government to keep CDOs’ UNREGULATED as ‘free market’ entities to STEAL trillions.

        • Daniel Campos

          You have already demonstrated you need to read more about it. You don’t even counter-argue my points about Fannie Mae and the CRA legislation. You fail to perceive the disarray introduced by government before such crisis that led to them.

          See the 1920-1 crisis. Considering the value loss, it was a bigger hit than 1929, but the recovery was incredibly fast. What government did to get a fast recovery? Nothing. Then comes the money printing and Ludwig von Mises, in 1927, was already predicting the crisis and why it would happen. Then the US economy didn’t recover up until 1940 – if you call that a recovery. FDR prolongued the crisis just like Obama did with printing money like there was no tomorrow and trying to buy the future into the present with fiat money.

          Really, look to the people that predicted these crisis before they hit: Mises, Peter Schiff, John Stossel… they all have an understanding of these events and how monetary policy can be detrimental.

          What is a bank too big to fail? There’s no such concept in the market: it was created by government. Government decided that if some banks failed the entire economy would collapse, so it needed to bail them out. If left to the market, government wouldn’t bail them out and therefore in the market there’s no such thing as a bank – or any company, for the matter – too big to fail.

          The rest of your vitrolic straw man don’t deserve being addressed.

        • adam

          ” You don’t even counter-argue my points about Fannie Mae and the CRA legislation.”

          I dont need to, when it has been demonstrated that FRAUD, particularly around CDO’s were the cause.

          “What is a bank too big to fail? ”

          One that causes more damage to the economy than the cost of bailout.

          ” There’s no such concept in the market: it was created by government.”

          Perhaps the ‘term’ was, but it was the Banks that blackmailed the government in 09 with the same thing that happened in 29.

          “The rest of your vitrolic straw man don’t deserve being addressed.”

          Not as straw man,

          So you’ve got NOTHING?

        • Daniel Campos

          “One that causes more damage to the economy than the cost of bailout.”

          There shouldn’t be a bailout, thats the point. Since government is the only one bailing out banks, bailing out banks is not a market feature. Therefore, the market would allow these banks to fail. Therefore, there ain’t such thing as a too big to fail bank for the market – all of them can fail.

          Maybe the banks blackmailed government. I can take that. After all, if there were no government, who the banks would blackmail to get their bailout? That’s right: no one.

          About the straw man, you blame the market for things that, were you to examine, you would come to the conclusion that they’re government features.

        • adam

          “There shouldn’t be a bailout, thats the point.”

          I agree with that, but what do you do without a government to protect against the actions of such monopolies?

          “”Therefore, there ain’t such thing as a too big to fail bank for the market – all of them can fail.”

          The problem was getting too big, which YOUR ‘free market’ does NOTHING to address.

          “After all, if there were no government, who the banks would blackmail to get their bailout?”

          The same people it did when it USED the government, US.

          They could have just had a repeat of 29,

          “”you blame the market for things that, were you to examine, you would come to the conclusion that they’re government features.”

          I have examined it well, CDO’s and the banking problems were deceptive CONS by con artists that SCAMMED people, induced by the banks themselves.

          So AGAIN, no straw man, you are just living in denial.

        • Daniel Campos

          What if I told you it is the government that creates monopolies? Was it not for government, nothing would prevent a guy from stabilishing a new bank – because there would be no regulations making impossible or very hard for him to do so. Competition would always exist as long as investors, enterpreneurs, and capitalists perceived the opportunity to attain profit. The only way the banking system would become a monopoly without government would be to not be perceived as possible to attain profit except for one player.

          Since I take you mean becoming “too big” is to have a really big market share, I don’t see banks getting as big as with government in the equation. After all, these banks are exactally those the government trusts with its debt. These are the banks the government puts trillions of dollars so that they can finance credit with fractional reserve banking and flood the market with cheap credit, taking the share of those banks that were not chosen and didn’t depend on government to stay on the banking market.

          CDO’s were created because some investors believed the housing sector was going down. Investors believed the housing sector was going down because they perceived the housing bubble was too big. The housing bubble was too big because government institutions and laws permitted banks to give loans to people who wouldn’t be able to pay them by promising to buy the loans that went unpaid throught Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 1999.

        • adam

          “What if I told you it is the government that creates monopolies?”

          How did the government create the Robber Barons monopolies?

        • Daniel Campos

          The robber barons received subzides and subzided loans from government, that withhold them for those small competitors.

          That was easy, hu?

        • adam

          “The robber barons received subzides and subzided loans from government,”

          Please demonstrate that this is true

          “That was easy, hu?”

          Making unsubstantiated claims always is.

        • Daniel Campos
        • Michael Neville

          I’m impressed by someone whose economic knowledge is so shallow and who’s so impressed by trivialities that he ignores the basic concepts of economics. I haven’t seen anyone this economically ignorant since the last time I debated a libertarian.

        • adam

          ” I haven’t seen anyone this economically ignorant since the last time I debated a libertarian.”

          Hey now, we didnt have a conversation like THIS.

        • Daniel Campos

          No counterarguments, only ad hominens. That’s all you got?

        • Michael Neville

          It’s a case of I didn’t know where to start. But I figured out that you’re an anarcho-capitalist, which means it’s useless to try to explain how fucked up your economic knowledge is because you and economic knowledge are in different time zones.

          So rant on with your bullshit. I’m not even going to watch. I’ve got more useful things to do with my time like groom my nosehair.

        • Michael Neville

          It would be worthless to try to explain economics to an anarcho-capitalist. I’ve tried before and I’ve discovered that you ignoratti will reject reality if it disagrees with your ideology.

        • MNb

          Indeed. Whenever I show an anarcho-capitalist of what’s happening in the Surinames interior right now (a goldfever that not only ruins one of the last intact jungles but also comes along with murder, prostitution, violation of indigenous rights plus of course mercury pollution – all thanks to the absence of any governmental supervision) all I get is crickets.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The example that comes to mind for me is unleaded gasoline. It was encouraged by government regulation/taxation, as I recall, and society is better for it. But what market forces would’ve done the same thing? None that I can imagine, since it was more expensive and only worked on new car engines.

          I’ve thought about this not at all, but I wonder if every Tragedy of the Commons problem would also be ignored by extreme libertarianism.

        • Paul B. Lot

          The idea of “competition will sort it all out” assumes that at all times the public will have perfect access to all the information available and/or necessary to make sound decisions.

          If the petroleum co.’s hire people to argue against the need for lead-reduction, there’s nothing to stop them.

          Oh, right, no. Nevermind. If the petroleum companies did that, they would be boycotted, no matter the cheapness of their product. /s

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The idea of “competition will sort it all out” assumes that at all times the public will have perfect access to all the information available and/or necessary to make sound decisions.

          And doesn’t it also assume that the public is rational/logical? That’s a stretch.

        • Daniel Campos

          While you deny consumers to act freely, you at the same time are supporting bureaucrats, who also don’t have perfect information, that are made from the same clay as the public, to make decisions for them and force them to comply. I fail to realize why letting people free would be worse from an ethical perspective.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I fail to realize why letting people free would be worse from an ethical perspective.

          Then there may be nothing else for us to discuss here.

        • Daniel Campos

          “The idea of government regulating businesses will sort it all out assumes that at all times bureaucrats will have better access to all the information avaliable and/or necessary to make sound decisions.

          If the petroleum co.’s hire lobbists to argue in favor of the need for lead reduction to drive out competition, there’s nothing to stop them.

          Oh, right, no. Nevermind. If the petroleum companies did that, they would be regulated, no matter the goods they provided for the consumer”

          There, fixed for you.

        • Paul B. Lot

          There, fixed for you.

          You did nothing of the kind. No one is advancing this point of view

          The idea of government regulating businesses will sort it all out

          so your attack on it is meaningless.

          You’ve knocked over a straw man.

          (Also, nice covert attack on lead regulations, lol. Out of all gov’t overreaches to complain about, lead reduction is the hill you want to die on? 😛 )

        • Daniel Campos

          No one is advancing that point? Then you want to allow individuals to have fredom to choose, without government regulating the market? Good.

        • Paul B. Lot

          No one is advancing that point? Then you want to allow individuals to have fredom to choose, without government regulating the market? Good.

          This is not how dialogue works. You don’t get to decide what the other person is saying or trying to express.

          For the record, it’s hilarious watching you say stuff like this: the guy whose hardon for a “free market” can’t help himself when he feels the urge to dictate what others believe.

          Lol.

        • Daniel Campos

          Sice you support government’s existance, then claim you don’t support government not intruding itself in the lead reduction in gasoline, one can only wonder why I infered your position to be that against consumers.

          What is really funny is your cognitive dissonance.

        • Paul B. Lot

          What is really funny is your cognitive dissonance.

          What I find funny is watching you try to use big words that you don’t quite grasp.

        • Daniel Campos