Unconstitutional under what grounds?

Good, and I thank you for your change of heart.  It is a difficult thing to admit you're wrong, but it shows a good level of character when one actually takes that step.  My ban is lifted.  We shall see what Flint does.

That being said, I do expect that you represent your views with your actions in the future.

Lesson of the day: The first thing to do when you realize you're digging yourself into a hole: stop digging.

That's it.  You_Fool, I'm now joining Flint in the ban.  But I'm not banning you only because you attacked Flint.  When challenged on the question, you didn't defend yourself.  Rather, you conceded that you were wrong, yet stood by your action without any defense.  You've conceded that you are operating mainly based on your own pride, as you have conceded that there is no logical justification, and you are simply "digging in" in response to somebody else.

You're clearly beyond the realm where logic can meet with you.  That has two implications:
1: Political debate can only logically take place within an acceptance that people are pursuing logical ends.  You have crossed this line.
2: Logic can only be used as a weapon insofar as both parties are willing to adhere to logic.  When one party transcends that battlefield, the only battlefield left is that of force.

This is my force:
You, you_fool, represent the very "childishness" in this forum for as long as you continue with your actions.  As one who embraces political discussion as a fair, honest, and respectful exchange of ideas, your style of discussion is a detriment to the Politics community.  I encourage that anyone who would like to see the Politics community restored to a better level of debate stand alongside this ban, until you_fool honestly makes efforts to give amenities for his actions.

The only things I'll respond to are questions regarding my ban itself, and only in this thread (consider it the equivalent of your trial).

[apology accepted]

[apology accepted]

Fair enough, then.  Thought you were challenging the great David Ricardo. 

Does that consider environmental factors?  I live in Las Vegas, in the middle of a desert.  Is it cheaper for me to build a greenhouse to grow food so that I'm not trying to grow potatoes in 100 degree summers and cold, dry winters, and attempting to increase my water rights for my greenhouse, or to just go to the store and buy something?

Or how about the loss of specialization of labor?  Look, a lawyer can make $500 an hour doing lawyer work.  No matter how good that lawyer was at farming, it would be nearly impossible for him to produce an equivalent of $500 per hour working in his personal farm.  Wouldn't it be cheaper for that lawyer to spend an hour filing paperwork, then go to the grocery store, as opposed to producing even $499 in food in that hour (which is an EXTREMELY high value for food produced by a single farmer... unless he eats nothing but cocaine)?

And before you say it, yes.  The specialization of labor argument applies to people outside of high-paid professionals.  To begin farming, a person would have to take the time learning a new skill (consequently sacrificing potential time to accrue money through work), and unless that person is a farmer by profession, it's likely they won't be as good at the work as a normal farmer.  Now it would require a larger spreadsheet and some empirical examples to extrapolate the details, but by the land being used by inefficient workers to farm, resources (and thus potential supply of resources on the market) are wasted, reducing efficiency of production.

I love that comic. 

The very fact that cities exist in the first place, creating communities that can't grow food and instead importing food from rural communities, proves you wrong, as it indicates that it's more cost-effective to have urban communities that can take advantages of the benefits of urbanization (centralized distribution of goods at stores, large-scale industrial production capacity, large flows of capital for investment opportunities, and a huge customer base for goods and services).

Get one of those 7-inch TVs!

Fair enough.  I'm just disputing whether DC is a good case study, not whether the underlying theory is true.

Yes... remember there were containment methods put into place.  How can you argue that there's no correlation between the safeguards put in place and the fact that the disease didn't spread further than you guys thought it would?