The common wisdom leaves out liberalism altogether, the debate being whether democracy brings about wealth or wealth brings democracy. I like your argument better, as it explains more of the actual facts in places like the middle east.
China has been investing its profits into natural resource extraction the world over. It's a very smart strategy. They aren't invading, they might attempt a little stabilization; what they are really doing is simple: investing. Your second sentence in fact answers the question raised by (obviously only) halfway educated pundits. Imports. Economic focus. Put it all together, while removing the reference to invasion no one but you made.
Fox of course are idiots, only the US seems to think you need to invade a country to gobble up its natural resources. Physical warfare is so last millennium. Smart countries send in corporations with money and lawyers, not armies with guns and tanks.
Imperialism, schmerialism. It's a loaded word anyhow. The question is, did anyone over there ask for our help? If not, their problems (and their mineral assets) are none of our concern.
Chill out? Tell that to the fellow who really needs to chill out, aka czarangulus. And his post would have to make more sense in order to hit close to home, as I don't live in crazy-town.
What the guy says is trivial, it amounts to 'causation is real.' Well, duh. As for science, well, every single thing done to stop the spill is a result of science. Last I checked, praying for the spill to end hasn't worked.
Only laws against this sort of shit and maybe hanging a few fat rich bankers.
Laws are not effective measures for preventing deeds. The wicked don't follow them and the virtuous don't need to.
What about the vast majority of people who are neither wicked nor particularly virtuous? Nearly every society since the ancient Babylonians have found laws useful. If you have a practical replacement for a system of laws, I'd love to hear it.
Perfect storm? It hasn't happened yet, but if Micheal Bay is to be believed, hurricanes will soon be kicking up a flammable mist of oil and igniting it with lightning. Be prepared to face a hurricane of flaming alligators soon.Hehe, xkcd is pretty funny. But you know what isn't funny? Fucking spiritualists on their high horse condescendingly preaching to the rest of us without bothering to find out what we think, making blanket generalizations, and acting generally holier than thou. Nine times out of ten, said fucking spiritualist has their head firmly up their own ass, but you might just be that one in ten who doesn't, so here's a tip on the off chance you aren't a complete fraud: your spiritual practice does not make you better than anyone else. Here's another tip: talking down to your audience alienates them, which causes them to reject what you said no matter how right, meaning you just wasted your time and theirs.
Straw man much? No one is claiming we should save every species. You yourself say we shouldn't poison or hunt species into extinction. That is all anyone is talking about here, so you could have just said that and left out the straw man completely. It's not as if these tuna were about to go extinct on their own, and now there is a huge campaign to save them. We are responsible, and not to the tuna but to the people whose livelihood depends on them, and to the people like me who find them delicious.
Why does an OEM have to put in the Live Search Toolbar? Couldn't the user have installed it him/herself?
It's possible. It is also possible that the user could deliberately stab themselves in the eye with a rusty nail, exfoliate with a belt sander, or give themselves dozens of tiny paper cuts on their genitalia. Many things are possible, and some of those things indicate mental illness of some sort.
As for the genetics part, that's just paraphrasing an amalgam of modern research, call it original research on my part if you like, or start reading Scientific American's new Mind magazine.
You could attempt to show evidence that I am wrong, assuming you have any. My post is based on solid psychological theory and experiment. What is your opinion based on?
Well, that is my point: the utility function assumed to underlie most economic decisions is not in fact the utility function most people actually use. People will, for example, accept harm to themselves in order to punish unfairness in others. In the dictator game, for instance, people will not accept offers they consider unfair, even though the alternative is getting nothing.
While I agree with you that depending on altruism is foolish, our economic system fails to take into account the fact that the economic system itself shapes human behavior. In an unfair system, people will behave selfishly in order not to be taken advantage of. In a system where everyone has the power to enforce fairness and reciprocity, people will generally act that way. Our system concentrates power into the hands of too few people, resulting in rampant unfairness as most people feel powerless to punish unfairness and lack of reciprocity.
In short, a system that fails to take into account the 'good' parts of human nature fails just as badly as a system that fails to take into account the 'bad.' Oh, and people are not logical, either, so a system that assumes they are is simply doomed to failure.
As people have a natural tendency towards altruism, fairness, and reciprocity, those are in fact good things to base government and economics on. Because most people are not motivated primarily by self interest, that is a bad thing to base a system of government or economics on. In fact, because people only default to selfishness when they can not punish unfairness, and when people around them are being selfish, basing a system of government or economics on the idea that people are that way is a self fulfilling prophecy. The wikipedia article on games theory is a good place to start if you are unfamiliar with these modern research findings.
This is a matter of contract enforcement. These clinics are claiming things that are patently untrue. The only thing that injecting yourself with stem cells will give you is a teratoma, a particularly nasty form of cancer with hair and teeth inside it. Making false claims is not okay. Scamming people is not okay, nobody wants to be scammed, nobody wants to be lied to, and nobody wants hair and teeth growing out of their innards.
Joe Scammed does not want to be scammed, he wants a cure. These clinics are not selling cures, they are selling hairy, toothy cancer, labeled as a cure. Your argument is laughable. But at least it is novel. I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously argue for the 'right' to be taken advantage of. Did anyone ask for that? Do YOU even want that?
Eh? Says who? Fraud is on the short list of things most libertarians (aside from the anarchist variety) believe is within the legitimate realm of the state to prevent.
Eh? Says who? Anarchist libertarians (aside from the american pseudo-anarchist variety) are Anti-Capitalists so they're clearly anti-fraud as well, since capitalism is an elaborate fraud in itself. They don't belive that a legitimate realm for the state exists at all, though.
Eh? Says who? Anarchism means "no archons," i.e. no rulers, not "no state," which would be called anocracy. Most real anarchists, as opposed to the circle-A crusty street punk variety, understand the need for some sort of state to protect and maintain individual freedoms.
Read up on the dictator game and the public goods game. When cooperators are allowed to punish non-cooperation, sociopaths lose. Punishing free riders is part of being cooperative. Game theory FTW, again!
I wasn't criticizing your profanity, I was pointing out that your adversarial attitude is counter productive and based on a misunderstanding of lumpy's point.
Of course we competed for resources, but only when they were scarce. Which was rare, given our proven success at exploiting natural resources. If resources are relatively abundant, but there are localized scarcities, then developing cooperative trading strategies is more effective.
Look at many isolated rain forest tribes. They have no hierarchy, no rigidly defined sex roles, and no competitive games. Look at the Bonobos, the pygmy chimps. Non hierarchical. If you look at nature, you will see far more examples of cooperation than competition. See any multi celled organism for an example.
We have two modes of behavior, the feast mode and the famine mode. Due to our incredible success at exploiting the resources in our environment, our default mode should be feast mode. But famine mode was locked in culturally the first time we experienced large scale warfare and starvation, which could only have happened after we developed agriculture gained the surplus, structured society, and lack of mobility that comes from it.
I know this contradicts some people's dearly held belief that we a re a violent species, but truth should always win out over dogma, especially selfish and self serving dogma.
Slashdot Mirror
The common wisdom leaves out liberalism altogether, the debate being whether democracy brings about wealth or wealth brings democracy. I like your argument better, as it explains more of the actual facts in places like the middle east.
China has been investing its profits into natural resource extraction the world over. It's a very smart strategy. They aren't invading, they might attempt a little stabilization; what they are really doing is simple: investing. Your second sentence in fact answers the question raised by (obviously only) halfway educated pundits. Imports. Economic focus. Put it all together, while removing the reference to invasion no one but you made.
Fox of course are idiots, only the US seems to think you need to invade a country to gobble up its natural resources. Physical warfare is so last millennium. Smart countries send in corporations with money and lawyers, not armies with guns and tanks.
Imperialism, schmerialism. It's a loaded word anyhow. The question is, did anyone over there ask for our help? If not, their problems (and their mineral assets) are none of our concern.
Chill out? Tell that to the fellow who really needs to chill out, aka czarangulus. And his post would have to make more sense in order to hit close to home, as I don't live in crazy-town.
What the guy says is trivial, it amounts to 'causation is real.' Well, duh. As for science, well, every single thing done to stop the spill is a result of science. Last I checked, praying for the spill to end hasn't worked.
Dude you're not a genius just a nutbag.
It's fortunate for me that you believe this.
Only laws against this sort of shit and maybe hanging a few fat rich bankers.
Laws are not effective measures for preventing deeds. The wicked don't follow them and the virtuous don't need to.
What about the vast majority of people who are neither wicked nor particularly virtuous? Nearly every society since the ancient Babylonians have found laws useful. If you have a practical replacement for a system of laws, I'd love to hear it.
Mmmm, deep fried sea shark.
Perfect storm? It hasn't happened yet, but if Micheal Bay is to be believed, hurricanes will soon be kicking up a flammable mist of oil and igniting it with lightning. Be prepared to face a hurricane of flaming alligators soon.Hehe, xkcd is pretty funny. But you know what isn't funny? Fucking spiritualists on their high horse condescendingly preaching to the rest of us without bothering to find out what we think, making blanket generalizations, and acting generally holier than thou. Nine times out of ten, said fucking spiritualist has their head firmly up their own ass, but you might just be that one in ten who doesn't, so here's a tip on the off chance you aren't a complete fraud: your spiritual practice does not make you better than anyone else. Here's another tip: talking down to your audience alienates them, which causes them to reject what you said no matter how right, meaning you just wasted your time and theirs.
How do you know that the dispersants don't taste like ponzu sauce? Because that would be awesome. Except for the cancer.
Straw man much? No one is claiming we should save every species. You yourself say we shouldn't poison or hunt species into extinction. That is all anyone is talking about here, so you could have just said that and left out the straw man completely. It's not as if these tuna were about to go extinct on their own, and now there is a huge campaign to save them. We are responsible, and not to the tuna but to the people whose livelihood depends on them, and to the people like me who find them delicious.
Why does an OEM have to put in the Live Search Toolbar? Couldn't the user have installed it him/herself?
It's possible. It is also possible that the user could deliberately stab themselves in the eye with a rusty nail, exfoliate with a belt sander, or give themselves dozens of tiny paper cuts on their genitalia. Many things are possible, and some of those things indicate mental illness of some sort.
But be careful, it's highly flammable.
Okay, perhaps I should have given reference to the theory I was describing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_Briggs_Type_Indicator
As for the genetics part, that's just paraphrasing an amalgam of modern research, call it original research on my part if you like, or start reading Scientific American's new Mind magazine.
Protection of freedom requires more than just an armed force, it requires regulations to protect against economic coercion.
Prove it. There should be some evidence to the contrary out there, for you to be so certain.
Well argued.
You could attempt to show evidence that I am wrong, assuming you have any. My post is based on solid psychological theory and experiment. What is your opinion based on?
Well, that is my point: the utility function assumed to underlie most economic decisions is not in fact the utility function most people actually use. People will, for example, accept harm to themselves in order to punish unfairness in others. In the dictator game, for instance, people will not accept offers they consider unfair, even though the alternative is getting nothing.
While I agree with you that depending on altruism is foolish, our economic system fails to take into account the fact that the economic system itself shapes human behavior. In an unfair system, people will behave selfishly in order not to be taken advantage of. In a system where everyone has the power to enforce fairness and reciprocity, people will generally act that way. Our system concentrates power into the hands of too few people, resulting in rampant unfairness as most people feel powerless to punish unfairness and lack of reciprocity.
In short, a system that fails to take into account the 'good' parts of human nature fails just as badly as a system that fails to take into account the 'bad.' Oh, and people are not logical, either, so a system that assumes they are is simply doomed to failure.
As people have a natural tendency towards altruism, fairness, and reciprocity, those are in fact good things to base government and economics on. Because most people are not motivated primarily by self interest, that is a bad thing to base a system of government or economics on. In fact, because people only default to selfishness when they can not punish unfairness, and when people around them are being selfish, basing a system of government or economics on the idea that people are that way is a self fulfilling prophecy. The wikipedia article on games theory is a good place to start if you are unfamiliar with these modern research findings.
This is a matter of contract enforcement. These clinics are claiming things that are patently untrue. The only thing that injecting yourself with stem cells will give you is a teratoma, a particularly nasty form of cancer with hair and teeth inside it. Making false claims is not okay. Scamming people is not okay, nobody wants to be scammed, nobody wants to be lied to, and nobody wants hair and teeth growing out of their innards.
Joe Scammed does not want to be scammed, he wants a cure. These clinics are not selling cures, they are selling hairy, toothy cancer, labeled as a cure. Your argument is laughable. But at least it is novel. I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously argue for the 'right' to be taken advantage of. Did anyone ask for that? Do YOU even want that?
Eh? Says who? Fraud is on the short list of things most libertarians (aside from the anarchist variety) believe is within the legitimate realm of the state to prevent.
Eh? Says who? Anarchist libertarians (aside from the american pseudo-anarchist variety) are Anti-Capitalists so they're clearly anti-fraud as well, since capitalism is an elaborate fraud in itself. They don't belive that a legitimate realm for the state exists at all, though.
Eh? Says who? Anarchism means "no archons," i.e. no rulers, not "no state," which would be called anocracy. Most real anarchists, as opposed to the circle-A crusty street punk variety, understand the need for some sort of state to protect and maintain individual freedoms.
Read up on the dictator game and the public goods game. When cooperators are allowed to punish non-cooperation, sociopaths lose. Punishing free riders is part of being cooperative. Game theory FTW, again!
I wasn't criticizing your profanity, I was pointing out that your adversarial attitude is counter productive and based on a misunderstanding of lumpy's point.
Of course we competed for resources, but only when they were scarce. Which was rare, given our proven success at exploiting natural resources. If resources are relatively abundant, but there are localized scarcities, then developing cooperative trading strategies is more effective.
Look at many isolated rain forest tribes. They have no hierarchy, no rigidly defined sex roles, and no competitive games. Look at the Bonobos, the pygmy chimps. Non hierarchical. If you look at nature, you will see far more examples of cooperation than competition. See any multi celled organism for an example.
We have two modes of behavior, the feast mode and the famine mode. Due to our incredible success at exploiting the resources in our environment, our default mode should be feast mode. But famine mode was locked in culturally the first time we experienced large scale warfare and starvation, which could only have happened after we developed agriculture gained the surplus, structured society, and lack of mobility that comes from it.
I know this contradicts some people's dearly held belief that we a re a violent species, but truth should always win out over dogma, especially selfish and self serving dogma.