he realized that

Fam bank is ideal. It'll do the most for your family if your family has good leadership and competent players. When everyone knows what's going on and how the game works, it's advantageous to have maximum liquidity of your assets to invest them in what needs them the most as soon as possible. This means more funds invested where you need them sooner with fambanking than teaming+SS.

The problem is, MOST families are not like this. In most families the fambank hinders players who would otherwise be SS or in teams and hurts them more than helps. Attempting to fam bank in a family not ready for it easily leads to ruin for a whole fam for a round. There's nothing you can do to jump back after a bad leader misuses the fambank resources to the wrong people to produce the wrong things while leaving family members to stagnate, go inactive, and quit.

Math is only empirical to some degree? Give me some of what you're smoking.

The US education system? The US "education system" is not federally run. There is no "US education system." Vote for a better schoolboard. 8th grade algebra? We did it in 6th, and that was not counting the advanced placement program which did it sooner. If your teacher had trouble explaining what a variable is, your teacher was, in fact, mentally retarded.

Locke's psychological beliefs or believe in God do not discredit his stating of the obvious about maths.

Math is the most pure logic we have. Through advanced mathematics we come to a fuller understanding of the physical universe we live in and what forces and laws govern it. Nothing makes more sense than math.

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

The title of the thread includes "when the government fails to enforce the law." You require more clarification?

How is it hypocritical to justify vigilantism based on a breach of the social contract? Essentially vigilantism is just protecting one's rights under the social contract against those who would infringe upon them. (each's freedom extends so far as it does not infringe upon another's--when a person wants to take your stuff, they have no regard for the contract and must be stopped, with violent means if necessary)

Democracy terrifies me. It's in the hands of a stupid people. What happens? We're watching history in the making!

I saw the movie Idiocracy a few nights ago and what alarmed me was that the retards of the future weren't any worse than many people are now. Sure, people now aren't literally that mentally impaired, but they make many important decisions (such as voting on school boards) with no more information or actively engaged intelligence than the retards of the film.

You'll get a load of arguments for when the vigilante does wrong because he/she is operating outside the court systems we're used to cleaning up for when law enforcement does. This is all irrelevant because anyone can commit crimes. Murdering someone for a crime because one is a racist vigilante that one would have only demanded repayment for injury of another doesn't make the vigilante wrong because he's a vigilante; it makes him wrong because he's a racist murderer. The matter at question here is whether vigilantism is inherently wrong, which these arguments miss entirely. Vigilantism tends to be concentrated within breakdown of government power and legitimate authority; focused on times when normal government laws are not being enforced and cannot be relied upon to protect people from those among them who would oppress them (as in, oppress their right to not have all their property stolen, women raped, not lose their lives, etc).

On that note (what note? I have no idea), it's not necessarily hypocritical to accept vigilantism in light of social contract theory. When government power breaks down, there is no mechanism to protect people from criminals. A vigilante following existing laws (currently enforced by no one) who takes action against significant infractions of those existing laws (otherwise not being enforced) is merely reintroducing the laws which people previously expected to be protected by. Is it inherently wrong to beat the face in/knock some teeth out of a man (beyond self defense) who breaks into one's home and attempts to steal supplies from a family home in the case of a power break-down? I don't think so. In the absense of a legitimate authority (legitimacy here we'll just presume based on the concensus/support of the populace), wrong is still wrong and right is still right. But in this circumstance nothing protects people from criminals.

I would argue that being passive while your family is left for dead (or worse, killed [or worse yet, raped/tortured] first) because "vigilantism is wrong" is totally morally repugnant.

Weapons and a vide variety of drugs are available in my community. But nobody shoots anyone. Rarely is a kid dumb enough to do anything more than drink a few beers and smoke a few joints. It must sound so enlightening to hear yourself talk about the US government providing drugs, weapons, and HIV infected prostitutes to poor blacks as a part of their organized master plan. But these things are available to everyone in and around these areas. They PAY for them. Who buys weapons and uses them in crimes is not determined by government weapons giveaways. If you have any evidence of these do provide it. Who contracts HIV is not determined by government [HIV+]whore giveaways. If you have any evidence of these do provide it. Who is addicted to crack, heroin or anything else is not determined by government drug giveaways. If you have any evidence of these do provide it.

It's a solid story. It presumes so many facts with 0 evidence that that's all it is.

Nobody is making anyone buy a weapon and become a murderer. Nobody is making anyone purchase crack and become a crackhead. Nobody is making anyone have sex with random whores and get AIDS. Tell whatever stories you want; the problem is not the availability of guns, drugs, or STDs. These things are all available in any area despite the best and most expensive efforts a government can take to stop them. To propose that a nanny government is needed to save poor blacks from guns, drugs, and STDs is insulting. It's insulting because it perpetually portrays them as victims of their inferiority. It's additionally insulting to their intelligence because it proposes to "solve" a problem which is supposedly cause BY the presense of guns, drugs, and STDs with measures which do not remove guns, drugs, or STDs from any community. The solution does not match the problem, and the problem has been misidentified to begin with.

The availability of guns, drugs, and STDs do not lead to the problems discussed here (many here attributing the availability of these things to direct government action aimed at oppression of poor blacks). These things are available to virtually all communities, despite any and all government restrictions and bans. If any community has irregularly large problems with these things it is not a result of availability. If the price of a firearm or drug dropped in price to 50% or 25% because Uncle Sam wanted to oppress most communities I've ever known or been a part of, the impact would be minimal if there was any impact at all. The price of a gun is nothing near the difference between a decent person and one who will mug/rob/murder. The price of a drug is far less than the difference between a relatively functional, healthy human being and one who smokes crack like its their job and steals and robs to support their habbit.

Regardless of the claim of government responsibility for the availability of all of these things in certain communities (would love all the evidence we can find), to claim that availability is the absolute/real/most significant source of the problem is just fallacious reasoning. I'll be blunt; it's a lie.

Quote of the thread runner up:
>>The real question is why weren't the occupants of the hamptons, beverly hills, etc. on crack.<<
I can think of reasons other than "the government didn't pump their neighborhoods full of it."

Quote(s) of the thread:
>>How many supplies do you have in your house to mix together anthrax?<<
<coupled with>
>>I had a go at making my own leather once (I seriously have that much spare time) so: All of them.<<

And here I was thinking anthrax was a result of bacterium Bacillus anthracis. You can mix that together now?

Evolution is too short circuited of late. We shouldn't spend a single taxed dollar on improving idiots' health.

Hahahahaha