The Star Destroyer BBS Political Survey

[Pint0 Xtreme]

No, Yes, Yes. I so support making all marriages legally 'Civil Unions'.

All marriages are technically "civil unions" already- the state just grants you a lisence already. Or do you mean changing the name just to spike homosexuals?

I don't support Gay Marriage on Religious grounds, HOWEVER, I can't justify blocking the rights to homosexual partners, thus the way I defined it is the least-bad option in my head.

I never knew issuing civil marriage licenses were a religious affair.

[Simon_Jester]

No more so than heliocentrism or the classical four humors, which are taught in advanced history courses as examples of exploded prescientific notions about how the world works.

I take exception to the implied conflatation. Heliocentrism may be wrong, but it went into the effort of making a model with predictive power. You could use Ptolemy's work to figure out the location of the planets to a good degree of accuracy AND it was a theory that was falsifiable. Creationism doesn't even meet those minimum criteria.

Granted. However, the comparison of creationism with the theory of the four humors, which was mystical-superstitious in nature, difficult if not impossible to falsify, and useless as a predictive tool... that, I would say, makes more sense. Or we could compare creationism to astrology (to the detriment of both).

But yes, comparing young earth creationism to heliocentrism is an insult to Ptolemy.

Given the gross indifference of London to the economic well-being of the colonies, and their refusal to grant the colonies any means of airing their grievances effectively in London, yes.

Would that have helped? England had a much larger population and could probably out vote any American representatives if we got to be full members.

It would at the very least give the American colonies a presence in the debate, and make them a voting bloc that could shift the balance of power in the Commons in favor of the party that did the most for colonial interests.

While having MPs in London might not have made the situation in the American colonies much better, it would at least make the process mroe equitable. Which would give the colonies less justification for secession.

I don't support Gay Marriage on Religious grounds, HOWEVER, I can't justify blocking the rights to homosexual partners, thus the way I defined it is the least-bad option in my head.

I never knew issuing civil marriage licenses were a religious affair.

Timothy might oppose the state having the authority to assert that a couple of any combination of sexes are married, while supporting their right to recognize them as a "union" or "partnership" or whatever. On account of thinking that "married" is a term that has supernatural significance and which the state is not empowered to assign to couples.

I'd think he was being silly, but at least he wouldn't be violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Iosef Cross]

Got to love the tenured, boorish, absurd quasi-Nazi fantasies that arise out of the minds of privileged, well-educated, pampered Western kids in their 20s. Must be easy to think up things imagining suffering Third Worlders as ants in between masturbating to different opaque sects of sexdeathmurder metal, or whatever.

I am sure Malthus and Darwin loved the "pornogrind" genre and definitely supported the German national socialist regime.

No they didn't.

Malthus however, proposed in his most famous work, that the government should pursue policies of increasing mortality rates to reduce population growth.

Malthus worked on his view of social problems based on very primitive economic theory, compared to the modern state of the art. His model assumed the existence of two factors: Labor and land. If you increase the quantity of labor and have a fixed quantity of land, total output per worker employed will decrease. Hence, to increase per capita income you need to decrease the size of the population.

Modern economics, however, understands that the primary factors of increasing per capita income are technological improvement (driven by entrepreneurial action) and capital accumulation. Not per capita supply of land. So, Malthus was very wrong about that.

[Samuel]

Legalize all drugs.

Is that really a smart thing? Some of the drugs make you a threat to other people like PCP- should those be legalized? Or would the answer be legalization and tight control of the more dangerous drugs?

Basic policing. They are criminals attacking ships.

Yes, but the cost of policing is higher than the cost of simply paying ransoms, which has lead to the current problems.

That's a tricky question. I don't have a very solid position on this issue.

Health care is a natural monopoly (marginal cost is always lower than average cost). And since there is little innovation in the field of insurance, the government is perfectly capable of running it at a higher level of effecientcy than the private sector. Of course, for people who aren't Americans (and hence don't have a retarded government), there is the question of how the system should be set up.

If they need money from the outside to exist, that means that the opportunity cost of employing these factors of production in these companies is greater than the value that these companies can extract from these factors.

You are assuming that these companies have low fixed costs. If fixed costs in the industry is high, than bailing them out makes economic sense because even though they are inefficient they can produce goods cheaper than a new effecient firm.

Punishment in civilized societies is designed to prevent crime, anything over the punishment needed to prevent a crime is Pareto inferior, and hence, shouldn't be used.

Assuming criminals are rational and value their lives more than their freedom, the death pernalty increases the cost of commiting a crime and hence reduces criminal activity.

On concept, the states have the right of self determination.

States are administrative regions. They do not have rights, only people have rights.

Is Russia justified in dropping an nuclear weapon in New York because US troops in Iraq are violating human rights?

If Russia was at war with the United States and the US had no nuclear arsenal, than it would be in the right to use nukes.

Malthus worked on his view of social problems based on very primitive economic theory, compared to the modern state of the art. His model assumed the existence of two factors: Labor and land. If you increase the quantity of labor and have a fixed quantity of land, total output per worker employed will decrease. Hence, to increase per capita income you need to decrease the size of the population.

No, his model was better than that. He believed that population grows exponentially, but land only grew arithmetically. At some point you would run out of land and people would starve. Of course, we managed to increase productivity of farm land which has bought us more time (although he was aware that you could increase productivity), but the solution we are using is reducing the growth rate.

[Ziggy Stardust]

What do you identify yourself politically as?

Meh, I don't really put too much stock into labels. I am pretty steadfastly moderate. Vaguely liberal on social issues, and vaguely conservative on economic issues. But I am very willing to change my mind based on facts and evidence, so I have a hard time putting myself in one camp or the other. I have some anarchist tendencies, but that's just a holdover from my punk days.

What political party in the United States do you identify with the most?

On the national level, Democrats. Not that I particularly like them, but the GOP can be pretty awful. On the local level, it changes a lot. Here in Rhode Island, the Republican politicians are actually pragmatic and intelligent, so I tend to side with them.

What political party in the United Kingdom do you identify with the most?

I guess the Liberal Democrats. My knowledge of UK politics is fairly basic, and I would say I agree with all of the parties about one thing or another.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being "He should be impeached" and 10 being "One of the best Presidents" how would you rate President Barack Obama of the USA so far?

6 or 7. He has been exactly what I expected, anyway.

What country other then your home country do you favour the most?

Germany.

What past politicians and political thinkers have influenced you the most?

Thomas Paine, John Locke, Montesquieu, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ (I am thinking about his domestic policies, like the Great Society, not Vietnam), Voltaire, Aquinas, Marx (I am not a proponent of Marxism, but his political philosophy is extremely important and influential), John Rawles, Bakunin, Proudhon, Strauss ... I'm kind of all over the place, I know, but I feel it is important to read about philosophies you don't necessarily agree 100% with.

---------------------------------------------

Do you support the US and Coalition Military Operations in Iraq?

I didn't support the invasion, and I support withdrawal.

Do you support the US/NATO Military Operation in Afghanistan?

In principle? Yes. In practice? We bungled the whole fucking thing.

Do you support any sort of intervention in Darfur (Military, humanitaritan, etc,)?

Yes. Humanitarian.

What should be done with North Korea on the current nuclear crisis and the Cheonham sinking?

What the fuck can be done? Call the bluff and see what happens.

What is your opinion of the Dokdo dispute between the Republic of Korea and the Empire of Japan?

I don't particularly care, to be honest. It's a pretty minor territorial dispute. Why is this question on here? There are far more controversial/hostile border disputes.

What is your opinion of NATO and should it expand across Europe?

Don't particularly care.

What should be done about Zimbabwe?

South Africa and the AU need to stop pussyfooting around and apply some pressure. Zimbabwe doesn't give a fuck about the U.S. or Europe, but they do care about their neighbors.

What should be done about the Mexican Drug Wars and should the US and other countries intervene?

If the U.S. intervenes, it will get worse. We need to change our entire outlook towards policing drugs.

Do you support the military actions against pirates in Somalia and do you think more action should be taken?

Yes. The action being taken seems to be fairly succesful.

What should the solution to Israel/Palestine be?

If I had a solution for this, why the fuck would I be wasting my time posting here and not working with the U.N. or something?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Should there be Universal Health Care or if there is in your nation do you support it ?

Of course there should.

How should taxes be organized?

Progressive, not regressive. And less byzantine.

How should the recession be ended?

Tax reform and tighter regulations.

Do you support the US Government's Economic Stimulus Plan?

In principle. Not the way it was handled. Not enough spending on infrastructure development.

Should the automobile companies be bailed out by the US government?

Yes. But there need to be some serious strings attached.

Is the minimum wage sufficent or not?

I think so.

------------------------------------------------------

Do you support abortion and what restrictions should be placed on it?

I support the women's right to have abortion. Nobody supports abortion in and of itself, they just recognize that it is sometimes necessary.

Do you support gay marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Everyone should be able to marry anything. Hell, if Hunter Thompson can be an ordained reverend (he was ... gotta love the Universal Life Church), gay people should be able to marry.

Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in school?

Nope. The only mention should be on how to disprove them.

Do you think broadcasting, publishing etc. should be regulated for violence, profantity, sexuality etc.?

To a certain extent. It is currently regulated in extremely idiotic ways.

How do you think birth control should be regulated?

Uh ... this one kind of confuses me, to be honest. Do you mean education-wise or actual regulation of condom sales or what?

Do you support prayer in schools and if so how much (voluntary or required?)

Voluntary or not at all.

What is your opinion of capital punishment and which crimes should it be applied to?

I do support capital punishment, but recognize many of the arguments against it. My main problem is the high cost accrued to tax payers by lengthy terms on Death Row, waiting for execution, which tend to cost more than life inprisonment would have in the first place.

How much should firearms and other weapons be regulated?

A little tighter than it is in the U.S. currently (I am fine with people having weapons, but stuff like assault rifles ... nobody needs that).

--------------------------------------------------

Was the United States right in going to war against the secessionist Confederate States in the Civil War?

Fuck yes.

Was the United States justified on dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima?

Yes.

Was colonialism or at least parts of it justified?

No. That doesn't mean it didn't lead to some good things, but it wasn't justified, per se.

Was the American Revolution justified?

Fuck yes it was, revisionists be damned.

[Iosef Cross]

Legalize all drugs.

Is that really a smart thing? Some of the drugs make you a threat to other people like PCP- should those be legalized? Or would the answer be legalization and tight control of the more dangerous drugs?

Pretty much.

Basic policing. They are criminals attacking ships.

Yes, but the cost of policing is higher than the cost of simply paying ransoms, which has lead to the current problems.

Interesting. But policing remain the correct policy.

That's a tricky question. I don't have a very solid position on this issue.

Health care is a natural monopoly (marginal cost is always lower than average cost).

There are many problems with this argument:

1- If something is a natural monopoly, that doesn't mean that the government should provide it freely to it's citizens.

2- There are problems with the theory of natural monopoly itself.

In practice, health care is a service like any other. It's not like security and legal protection, with are provided by the government by definition. There is no a priori reason for government provided health care.

The usual defense for it is that the government must provide it so that all people can live for the longest period possible given modern medicine. That's a noble reason, but not something that I would support based on anything more than personal preferences. It is not an economic/social reason.

If they need money from the outside to exist, that means that the opportunity cost of employing these factors of production in these companies is greater than the value that these companies can extract from these factors.

You are assuming that these companies have low fixed costs. If fixed costs in the industry is high, than bailing them out makes economic sense because even though they are inefficient they can produce goods cheaper than a new effecient firm.

No, I am not assuming any specific property on cost curves.

Firms only own factors of production, if they cease to exist, these factors would be employed by other firms. That's include plant and equipment.

You assume that if these firms go bankrupt, their resources will be destroyed and never recovered. Actually, the other firms in the market will buy their capital equipment and use them more efficiently.

Punishment in civilized societies is designed to prevent crime, anything over the punishment needed to prevent a crime is Pareto inferior, and hence, shouldn't be used.

Assuming criminals are rational and value their lives more than their freedom, the death pernalty increases the cost of commiting a crime and hence reduces criminal activity.

Well, let me put this in an example: There is an crime, defined by A, where the criminal values it's outcome by $30. If the government fines the criminal by $35, he will not commit the crime again. If the government kill the criminal, he also will not commit the crime again. But the first punishment, $35 fine, achieves the same outcome without greatly penalizing the criminal.

On concept, the states have the right of self determination.

States are administrative regions. They do not have rights, only people have rights.

Countries have international "rights" as well.

Malthus worked on his view of social problems based on very primitive economic theory, compared to the modern state of the art. His model assumed the existence of two factors: Labor and land. If you increase the quantity of labor and have a fixed quantity of land, total output per worker employed will decrease. Hence, to increase per capita income you need to decrease the size of the population.

No, his model was better than that. He believed that population grows exponentially, but land only grew arithmetically. At some point you would run out of land and people would starve. Of course, we managed to increase productivity of farm land which has bought us more time (although he was aware that you could increase productivity), but the solution we are using is reducing the growth rate.

I actually said something like that, if you read it. If you have 2 workers on 20 acres, if you put 3 workers on the same land, production will not increase by 50%, because the same amount of land is being worked on, you need 3 workers on 30 acres to achieve the same result.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes, but the cost of policing is higher than the cost of simply paying ransoms, which has lead to the current problems.

Interesting. But policing remain the correct policy.

Because you say so? Arguing for a moment within a framework different from mine: why should the businesses or their states be obliged to expend extra revenue to accomplish the same end? Because it makes a bunch of militarists on the Internet feel like they have big cocks? What is the substantive rational basis for this stance?

Somehow I missed this gem:

Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in school?: My son's in Catholic school. It will be interesting to see how they address this. I'd say "yes," with the proviso that evolution based largely on one man's observation of a limited number of species on one remote chain of islands still is more provable than the other theories.

LOL. That's right everybody. Evolutionists are just religious worshipers of Darwin's original The Origin of the Species, and no work has been done in biology whatsoever since the Nineteenth Century. Public education is woefully bad, when we allow people to graduate with an education like Chocula. You literally should have failed high school.

[Count Chocula]

LOL. That's right everybody. Evolutionists are just religious worshipers of Darwin's original The Origin of the Species, and no work has been done in biology whatsoever since the Nineteenth Century. Public education is woefully bad, when we allow people to graduate with an education like Chocula. You literally should have failed high school.

Fuck off, IP. I'm guessing you went to public school in Florida, since you obviously missed my point; a point you would have gotten if you had an eighth-grader's ability to parse sentences. Maybe I was too subtle for your Gainesville ass. The theory of evolution was, indeed, based on Darwin's research on the Galapagos islands. What I presented was the weakest case for evolution, which, compared to creationism or intelligent design, is STILL founded on more facts than those two "theories" (and I use the term loosely). BTW fuckstick, I graduated from private school, where we covered Darwin AND further research on evolution. I say again, I used the weakest example of the theory of evolution to show it's still superior to the alternatives. You mouth-breathing dimwit. Graduate already.

[Samuel]

The theory of evolution was, indeed, based on Darwin's research on the Galapagos islands.

The theory of evolution was proposed before Darwin. In fact, he co-published natural selection with Wallace who had formed his theory in Indonesia. There were several other ideas floating around before he did his seminal work like the idea that new species were formed by hybridization that influenced Mendel, Lamarks theory that the environment caused changes in living things which were passed on, the idea that life form from non-living material and was influenced by it, etc.

What I presented was the weakest case for evolution,

Looking at isolated populations on islands that are distinguished by the fact they are made up of only species that can survive the ocean crossing and show variation based on locality is the weakest evidence? Well, compared to Lamarkism yes, but I don't believe that is a major problem for students.

1- If something is a natural monopoly, that doesn't mean that the government should provide it freely to it's citizens.

Yes, but in this case it is also a public good.

The usual defense for it is that the government must provide it so that all people can live for the longest period possible given modern medicine. That's a noble reason, but not something that I would support based on anything more than personal preferences. It is not an economic/social reason.

In that case government should pay for it until individuals retire because it is cheaper for the government to provide it and enables a nations business to be more competitive. Providing for the elderly is a personal preference and one which the voters would share if you enacted such a program- none the least because such a plan would make them more likely to reach old age.

Firms only own factors of production, if they cease to exist, these factors would be employed by other firms. That's include plant and equipment.

You assume that if these firms go bankrupt, their resources will be destroyed and never recovered. Actually, the other firms in the market will buy their capital equipment and use them more efficiently.

You are ignoring non-physical factors. While knowledge won't immediately go away, it will be scattered and slowly forgotten over time, making it significantly less useful in the future and have to be rebuilt. Imagine trying to run a car company if no one there has ever built a car before. The way to deal with that is importing expertise, but this is alot more expensive because you have to lure them away from the current firms who, with less competition, have higher profits and can afford higher wages.

This only holds true for certain industries and ignores synergies (people in metallurgy are useful in car production), but it is an important concern to remember. You could be more efficient in the field and have a temporary drop due to political factors in which case letting the company die and having a time lag before it can be reconstituted is a net negative.

Well, let me put this in an example: There is an crime, defined by A, where the criminal values it's outcome by $30. If the government fines the criminal by $35, he will not commit the crime again. If the government kill the criminal, he also will not commit the crime again. But the first punishment, $35 fine, achieves the same outcome without greatly penalizing the criminal.

That doesn't work for capital crimes- the amount of money needed to deter them (measured in income and how much they value their freedom) is less than the discounted odds of being punished. Death doesn't cover all of them, but it increases the number deterred.

Countries have international "rights" as well.

Because there is no higher administrative body so they are responsible for their inhabitants.

I actually said something like that, if you read it. If you have 2 workers on 20 acres, if you put 3 workers on the same land, production will not increase by 50%, because the same amount of land is being worked on, you need 3 workers on 30 acres to achieve the same result.

I meant improving the plants themselves.
From wiki

"We may be quite sure that among plants, as well as among animals, there is a limit to improvement, though we do not exactly know where it is. It is probable that the gardeners who contend for flower prizes have often applied stronger dressing without success. At the same time, it would be highly presumptuous in any man to say, that he had seen the finest carnation or anemone that could ever be made to grow. He might however assert without the smallest chance of being contradicted by a future fact, that no carnation or anemone could ever by cultivation be increased to the size of a large cabbage; and yet there are assignable quantities much greater than a cabbage. No man can say that he has seen the largest ear of wheat, or the largest oak that could ever grow; but he might easily, and with perfect certainty, name a point of magnitude, at which they would not arrive. In all these cases therefore, a careful distinction should be made, between an unlimited progress, and a progress where the limit is merely undefined."

[Count Chocula]

The theory of evolution was proposed before Darwin. In fact, he co-published natural selection with Wallace who had formed his theory in Indonesia. There were several other ideas floating around before he did his seminal work like the idea that new species were formed by hybridization that influenced Mendel, Lamarks theory that the environment caused changes in living things which were passed on, the idea that life form from non-living material and was influenced by it, etc.

I stand corrected. Is it more proper to aver that Darwin's observations were the first proof of the theory of evolution? IIRC, his was the first research that actually stated reasons for, for example, the different shapes of birds' beaks on different islands based on their diets.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Assuming criminals are rational and value their lives more than their freedom, the death pernalty increases the cost of commiting a crime and hence reduces criminal activity.

The assumption that criminals are rational is flawed, especially the kinds of criminals who commit capital crimes. We don't execute people for crimes of cold blooded self interest, but for bloody and spectacular crimes; irrational crimes. And on top of that, death is only a deterrent if the criminal thinks he'll get caught, and only a deterrent if he thinks that the system is fair and doesn't execute people for being poor or having the wrong skin color.

[Illuminatus Primus]

LOL. That's right everybody. Evolutionists are just religious worshipers of Darwin's original The Origin of the Species, and no work has been done in biology whatsoever since the Nineteenth Century. Public education is woefully bad, when we allow people to graduate with an education like Chocula. You literally should have failed high school.

Fuck off, IP.

I'm so fucking sorry a grown man like you is literally so fucking stupid and ignorant that this shit need be explained to you; and given your existing though shit-sack of political consciousness, capacity to search, and participation on this forum, you have no excuse for remaining so fucking ignorant that you should've failed High School.

Not to be droll, but: "Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people". Forgive me for indulging two of the three.

I'm guessing you went to public school in Florida, since you obviously missed my point; a point you would have gotten if you had an eighth-grader's ability to parse sentences. Maybe I was too subtle for your Gainesville ass.

Where did you go to college, fuckmook? Last I checked UF is the fifteenth best public university in the country and I earned a full ride, but I guess you're used to a different calibre or measure of education in your local Tea Bag, Glenn Beck biweekly circle-jerking club. My mistake.

The theory of evolution was, indeed, based on Darwin's research on the Galapagos islands.

It is still moronic to claim that that is the bedrock upon which modern evolution is substantiated, and thus presented as the most valid available theory in schools. And, as explained further, there were previous evolutionary theories (and I was presented with Lamarck in high school, so I don't know what your problem is).

What I presented was the weakest case for evolution, which, compared to creationism or intelligent design, is STILL founded on more facts than those two "theories" (and I use the term loosely). BTW fuckstick, I graduated from private school, where we covered Darwin AND further research on evolution. I say again, I used the weakest example of the theory of evolution to show it's still superior to the alternatives. You mouth-breathing dimwit. Graduate already.

That above of course just skimmed the surface. Your historical and legal education is literally completely worthless, so you should get a refund from your private school. What was it, Liberty University?

[Count Chocula]

Hurf durf circle jerk

One of my brothers is at UF, and the younger one is going there in September. I've got nothing against UF. And no interest in a cock size contest with you. Graduate already. Call me a Glenn Beck "teabagger" all you want; I don't give a shit. You haven't proved that I was incorrect by showing briefly that the (possibly) weakest case for evolution is still better than creationism or intelligent design. Have a nice life, pal.

[Samuel]

Assuming criminals are rational and value their lives more than their freedom, the death pernalty increases the cost of commiting a crime and hence reduces criminal activity.

The assumption that criminals are rational is flawed, especially the kinds of criminals who commit capital crimes. We don't execute people for crimes of cold blooded self interest, but for bloody and spectacular crimes; irrational crimes. And on top of that, death is only a deterrent if the criminal thinks he'll get caught, and only a deterrent if he thinks that the system is fair and doesn't execute people for being poor or having the wrong skin color.

If you only execute black people that doesn't make it worthless- it means it will only have an effect on black people. Which is stupid because the majority of whites are killed by other whites.

As for capital criminals are not rational, that isn't true. If it was, the distribution of murders would be the same across countries and it isn't.

Is it more proper to aver that Darwin's observations were the first proof of the theory of evolution?

No. If you read his book, you'll note he has a chapter on selective breeding, which has been practiced for thousands of years and if a much more concrete and rhetorically effective proof. You have the clafficiation system for living things, fossils and a thousand other pieces of evidence found before hand. The idea that all this depended on Darwin is asinine- Darwin nearly had the theory scooped out by another biologist. The modern theory is also different from his and has slowly been built up over the last century and a half.

That and people were proposing evolutionary theories long before Darwin. Lamark immediately comes to mind, but he wasn't the only one.

You haven't proved that I was incorrect by showing briefly that the (possibly) weakest case for evolution is still better than creationism or intelligent design.

Simple. Creationism and intelligent design predict... nothing about how life on an island would be. No seriously, they don't have any predictions that can be checked. Evolutionary theory by contrast predicts that life for small islands where the population pool would be small will only have life that can get across the ocean, that larger islands will have more variety than smaller ones, that larger animals will be selected for smaller size and that importing new species will screw over the local ecosystem.

Guess which one fits the data better?

Seriously, Geocentrism put up an infinitely better case than this. Of course that was because its proponents were honest- if Ptolemy was alive today, he'd probably smack himself for spending so much time doing calculations instead of getting the physics knowledge that would have made shortcuts possible.

[Lord of the Abyss]

If you only execute black people that doesn't make it worthless- it means it will only have an effect on black people.

It won't affect deter even black murderers if they think that black people are being executed for being black, not for being guilty.

As for capital criminals are not rational, that isn't true. If it was, the distribution of murders would be the same across countries and it isn't.

That doesn't follow. People can be irrational for all sorts of reasons, many cultural. There's no reason to think that every culture has the same level of irrationality; rather the opposite. Some cultures are less rational than others; and cultures vary in rationality over time.

[Samuel]

It won't affect deter even black murderers if they think that black people are being executed for being black, not for being guilty.

Being black and commiting murder. To be fair this runs into to the "did we get the right guy" problem. I don't know how consistently they have done that.

That doesn't follow. People can be irrational for all sorts of reasons, many cultural. There's no reason to think that every culture has the same level of irrationality; rather the opposite. Some cultures are less rational than others; and cultures vary in rationality over time.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

So the population of Saudi Arabia is more rational than in the US?

[Rye]

The same Mike who said we should offer drug addicts money to get sterilised (something I agree with)? That terrible nazi eugenicist! Being settled with real responsibilities would be more likely to make me care less about the suffering of the poor and the misled in North Korea, true. I would leave them to rot so long as my kids were okay. This is one of the antisocial dangers of the family.

There is a critical difference there. Addicts would have a choice over whether to take the money, which is not possible in your proposed plan of biological warfare. If you take issue with my terminology, then let me remind you that you are proposing a plague targeted at specific groups, but without the intention of causing general terror, so terrorism is not appropriate, and neither is any sort of messianic distortion.

That's the case, and I would support a UN fund to pay the world's poorest in the most overpopulated areas money to get their tubes snipped too. I just have my doubts that it would work as well (it wouldn't in tyrannical areas like NK, for instance).

You went from the reasonable lines of on-going atrocities and human tragedy, with the theoretical basis from Malthus, Darwin, and Mike, I suppose, and then make a completely unjustifiable leap to unleashing merciless targeted biological warfare upon a non-consenting population to rob them of their liberties without meaningful participation or influence over the events which you would have befall them. Darwin, Mike, and Malthus weren't would be apologists for unprecedented biological warfare and forcible eugenics. None of the above fills in that gap in logic, and since you are familiar with logic and fallacies you cannot possibly mean what you said. Since you can not be serious, one can safely dismiss your comments.

There's going to be merciless warfare amongst poor and non-consenting populations anyway, not to mention all the merciless deaths from thirst, starvation and disease. The difference is that if there's less people, the severity ought to be reduced. How do we get less people? Mass murder is unthinkable, and will be the consequence if people are left to their own devices. Erasing a generation that doesn't exist yet is far more ethical than leaving people to destroy themselves in far worse conditions for the same reason abortion is more ethical than bringing kids into a world that can't support them.

Malthus however, proposed in his most famous work, that the government should pursue policies of increasing mortality rates to reduce population growth.

Yes, he came at it from the opposite direction I do, and argued against poor laws and the like, something I'd find unjustifiable. Reducing population growth by slowing down the ability of the population to grow, rather than killing real people through action and inaction is far, far more ethical. As is empowering women and educating people, raising the standard of living, but resources are spread too thin due to the massive population for that to ever be accomplishable.

[His Divine Shadow]

General:

What do you identify yourself politically as?: Economically leftish by american standards, centric in europe. Socially liberal-

What political party in the United States do you identify with the most?: None really, but I suppose I would vote democrat

What political party in the United Kingdom do you identify with the most?: I have no relation or identification with the UK or its parties.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being "He should be impeached" and 10 being "One of the best Presidents" how would you rate President Barack Obama of the USA so far?: 5-6 perhaps, a dissapointment on the UHC issue.

What country other then your home country do you favour the most?: I do like Finland as it is now but I could see myself living in Sweden or America too.

What past politicians and political thinkers have influenced you the most?: To be honest, none. I have not read any political literature, or if I have and have forgotten then I do not know if they have influenced me.

Foreign Policy

Do you support the US and Coalition Military Operations in Iraq?: No, waste of time and money and political capital.

Do you support the US/NATO Military Operation in Afghanistan?: I never really had an opinion of it, when it happened I wasn't into politics and that was an american thing of no real relevance to us here. I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough on the issue to have an opinion.

Do you support any sort of intervention in Darfur (Military, humanitarian, etc,)?: It would have been better spent there than in Iraq thats for sure.

What should be done with North Korea on the current nuclear crisis and the Cheonham sinking?: No opinion.

What is your opinion of the Dokdo dispute between the Republic of Korea and the Empire of Japan?: No opinion.

What is your opinion of NATO and should it expand across Europe?: No I don't see the point for that.

What should be done about Zimbabwe?: I dunno what we could do there.

What should be done about the Mexican Drug Wars and should the US and other countries intervene?: The drug war ending would probably be one of the single most effective methods of reducing the US murder rate so lets end the whole thing.

Do you support the military actions against pirates in Somalia and do you think more action should be taken?: No opinion

What should the solution to Israel/Palestine be?: There is no solution.


Economy

Should there be Universal Health Care or if there is in your nation do you support it ?: Yes, it's the biggest failing of the US that they lack this.

How should taxes be organized?: Progressively I suppose.

How should the recession be ended?: Public works projects perhaps, it was done once wasn't it? Let the government employ people and rebuild the collapsing infrastructure, better than giving it to the banks.

Do you support the US Government's Economic Stimulus Plan?: Hardly know what it's about

Should the automobile companies be bailed out by the US government?: Don't care

Is the minimum wage sufficient or not?: In Finland it is, in america it's not.

Social/Moral

Do you support abortion and what restrictions should be placed on it?: people can have all the abortions they want as far as I am concerned.

Do you support gay marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships?: Yes.

Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in school?: No I see no reason for that, you can cover that in the usual religion classes, if you have those.

Do you think broadcasting, publishing etc. should be regulated for violence, profantity, sexuality etc.?: No, I care more about regulating it with regards to advertising.

How do you think birth control should be regulated?: Only in the sense that people shouldn't get their hands on stuff thats easy to fuck themselves up with, best let a doctor prescribe that hormone treatment right?

Do you support prayer in schools and if so how much (voluntary or required?): The idea is so alien I have never given it thought before

What is your opinion of capital punishment and which crimes should it be applied to?: Against

How much should firearms and other weapons be regulated?: US style is fine. Personally I live in a place with much more stringent gun control in place and having been through the system I can say it's such a waste of time, money and effort that provides only the illusion of safety. Frankly I can't see how anyone thought this was a good idea when putting it down on paper, but maybe they wanted to appear to be doing something, or they watched too many hollywood movies, who knows.

History

Was the United States right in going to war against the secessionist Confederate States in the Civil War?: Ofcourse

Was the United States justified on dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima?: Yes

Was colonialism or at least parts of it justified?: You mean the empires raping the globe, I dunno how the world would have looked otherwise, would it have been better?

Was the American Revolution justified?: I don't know enough to the specifics to answer.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It won't affect deter even black murderers if they think that black people are being executed for being black, not for being guilty.

Being black and commiting murder. To be fair this runs into to the "did we get the right guy" problem.

And it runs into the problem of whether or not the black people in question believe that the black murderers being executed are actually murderers. Which is unlikely if only blacks are being executed.

If anything I'd expect it to encourage murder among any whites who would otherwise be deterred by the law, since they'll assume that the cops will just pick up a black guy and pin the crime on him.

That doesn't follow. People can be irrational for all sorts of reasons, many cultural. There's no reason to think that every culture has the same level of irrationality; rather the opposite. Some cultures are less rational than others; and cultures vary in rationality over time.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

So the population of Saudi Arabia is more rational than in the US?

Or just irrational in different ways. Or, many of the people who would be arrested for assault and murder here are part of the religious police there and doing so legally. And then there's the question of how accurate that number is; to quote your link:

Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence

I don't find myself especially trusting of Saudi Arabia's honesty.

[Samuel]

Yes, he came at it from the opposite direction I do, and argued against poor laws and the like, something I'd find unjustifiable.

Malthus argued for celibacy and late marriages in order to deal with the problem. Also he was against poor laws because he believed that the poor used the money to support more kids and so you needed to stop them from having kids first for charity to result in improved conditions. He was a conservative, but he wasn't cartoonishly evil.

As is empowering women and educating people, raising the standard of living, but resources are spread too thin due to the massive population for that to ever be accomplishable.

The US GDp is 14 trillion. Our growth rate is about 3%. If we use the growth of one year that gives us 420 billion dollars. That is enough money. Even one hundredth of that is enough- if we assume 1 teacher per a hundred, 2 billion people we need to cover and a salary of 1000, we need 20 billion dollars. That is just 4.8% of the US yeary growth.

[Rye]

Malthus argued for celibacy and late marriages in order to deal with the problem.

Which is a good attempt, given his time, but they're not going to work. People are going to fuck. There's no way to stop this, really.

Also he was against poor laws because he believed that the poor used the money to support more kids and so you needed to stop them from having kids first for charity to result in improved conditions. He was a conservative, but he wasn't cartoonishly evil.

Yes, and I think that position has never really worked. It's really indistinguishable from punishing people for being poor and stupid and potentially having babies die more often, hence why they have so many.

As is empowering women and educating people, raising the standard of living, but resources are spread too thin due to the massive population for that to ever be accomplishable.

The US GDp is 14 trillion. Our growth rate is about 3%. If we use the growth of one year that gives us 420 billion dollars. That is enough money. Even one hundredth of that is enough- if we assume 1 teacher per a hundred, 2 billion people we need to cover and a salary of 1000, we need 20 billion dollars. That is just 4.8% of the US yeary growth.

That's not going to happen, and it's foolish to try and apply a universal system worldwide; people are going to be consequences of their local conditions. I would love it if the benefits of socially responsible secular liberal democracy were so obvious as to inspire conversion to it anywhere and everywhere, but they don't and they won't.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Socially 'responsible' secular liberal democracy? Excuse me but it is the U.S. and the First World which has both the most power and influence, failed to harness them for any purpose but the enrichment of their elites, pushes mankind up closest and fastest against hard limit, and generally benefits and encouraged the pauperization and economic colonization of the Third World. Somehow the idea that the crypto-racist, 'dem dur stupid poor people just can't get their shit together' is more of the boorish, tenured, bullshit I described.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Don't worry, though. With Chindia and Brazil envying our lifestyles and racing towards our ideal Heaven on Earth society, we'll soon be able to point at them and say "You so stupid!" too. And then we can all fight over whatever remains by that point. It's truly a capitalist dream come true.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Capitalism, without any possible shred of a doubt, is one of the central problems, if not the paramount problem.

[Admiral Valdemar]

While I can't say it's all been evil, I think the way we raise the pursuit of material wealth above all else as the single defining factor of capitalism is the biggest problem. As a system for exchanging goods, it works (somewhat...). When it comes to brainwashing people into working jobs they don't like, to buy shit they don't need (Tyler's words out of my mouth), or the healthy bottom line comes before the plight of fellow men or even the planet itself, then we know we've made a wrong turn. Political elections are no different to board room meetings between companies vying for the biggest slice of the pie. We're told what to buy, vote for, how to live our lives in general, by the media, yet it seems the government is the one that is always picked up on the "nanny statism" thing, never the corporate side.

It saddens me that the countries we once laughed at as backwards hellholes are now not only surpassing us in growth and development, but making the same damn mistakes we did because they got hit by the greed bug too.

And really, these problems, can anyone expect them to go away when they rely on a) people not procreating to such a large extent; b) desiring more stuff; c) having a more open mind to a whole new way of life. Those are your core problems. I don't know how to fix those before nature does.