The forums have moved!

The problem is there are historical examples of riots and revolutions that spread great distances and became backed and organized by competing factions. So given our current technological status, it is sufficient that the riots are fueled by unrepresented competing interests who have jumped on the bandwagon.

But you are proposing that the nominal governments are mere actors serving a shadowy super government that is orchestrating events to justify a tyrannical world government. While possible, this is an extraordinary claim that is non-essential to the current events unfolding.

Planned by some factional organizations and special interest groups, sure. But not by a grand strategist who is the power behind the throne.

So 1848 was planned, huh? lolz.

Let me guess, the Nika riots were planned too?

Well, at least the Nika riots provide us with an example of what to do in this case. Justinian I (the real Byzantine Emperor) style!

I'm not advocating communism. I'm advocating a mixed economy with a progressive tax rate. In some sectors of the economy, it's more efficient for the government to be involved. In markets with high economies of scale and high entrance costs, a few firms will dominate it. In which case it makes sense for the government to set price controls, forcing the oligopoly or monopoly that develops to improve their efficiency and invest in R&D rather than merely raise prices. An example would be power companies.

Finally, supply-side economics is bogus because suppliers won't expand unless consumers will buy their product. If there is high unemployment and consumers have low disposable income, then excess profits of companies will not be used to hire more people. Instead, there will be hording and overseas investment. That is exactly what we have now. This is why a progressive tax rate is essential. That way consumers have more disposal income, and suppliers respond by increasing production and hiring more employees.

Having said that, the Democrats can buzz off for always labeling the upper middle class rich.

Silly Republicans don't understand that supply responds to demand. Instead, they have it reversed and that's how they justify their fantasies like trickle down economics.

Logically, this does not disprove global warming. It only means that it is less of a problem than some models predicted.

Paranoid much?

Obviously the guy:

1. Had an unusual preoccupation and contempt for the particular values espoused by Norwegian society.
2. Valued his christian and nationalist values more than his life and freedom, and the lives of the people he killed.
3. Convinced himself that the actions he committed would or probably would result in an outcome he desired.
4. The psychological penalties restraining such behavior were either absent or effectively suppressed.

I think his writing strongly suggests that he suppressed those psychological restraints. In that case, he was acting as a perfectly rational human being, intent on doing what he thought was necessary to realize his ideals. Unfortunately for him, his assumptions were flawed and the majority of the people sympathetic with his nationalist values are unlikely to sympathize with him or the methods he pursued. Moreover, nationalist sympathizers have reason to be upset because his actions will undoubtedly set their cause back in the short-run. That's all that needs to be said.

And forget the psychologists. Psychology is far too corrupted with theories that clearly fail to satisfy scientific values. Psychologists embarrass their theories on television when they hypothesize that a woman's decision to pay a plastic surgeon to enhance her breast size as a high school graduation gift was motivated by her low self esteem. I could continue to rant about Psychology, but I'll leave it at that for the purpose of staying on topic.

I didn't attack him personally. I informed him that his source was produced by an organization lacking authoritative value. It's like Acolyte citing an Austrian Economics website as a source. Austrian Economics lacks authoritative value because most authorities in Economics laugh at the Austrian school.

A Conservative, Christian website doesn't count as a source. Not that I disagree with you though.

AdriusAvangion,

1. I believe the people you mentioned, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck lack scholarly values. As for Sarah Palin, she is an imbecile.
2. I hate the GOP
3. I agree with the point of most of your GOP criticisms.

So what is the purpose of your post (currently #8 in this thread)?

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:
While I won't dispute the underlying fact you present (that wars are generally issues of national self-interest, rather than human rights-focused), doesn't the idea of human rights help to prevent some wars? If the world accepts "wars are legitimate as long as they can help one of the participants in the outcome," it generally gives nations the international legitimacy to go on whatever conquering or counter-conquering sprees they desire. However, if a nation is ethically required to conjure up some sort of casus belli for their war or risk international legitimacy loss... doesn't that at least allow rallying of nations against, say... Germany-Poland-type war scenarios?>

If they help at all, then I'm sure it only applies to popular support. I am inclined to think that political officials are thinking in terms of national interest, not so much about "human rights." And this excuse for war has been something only used in recent decades, and for thousands of years wars have been justified for other reasons just fine. So it's not essential to justify war, and furthermore I think this excuse for war is dangerous because underlying it is a justification for Terranism. And I hate Terranism.

Arachno,

1/2. First, I don't believe that a fixed, non-evolving culture is desirable. Second, I believe that some cultures have value that can benefit me and my country. In some sense, the exchange of cultures is beneficial. An example of a non-western culture that I hold in high esteem is Japanese culture. But other cultures, like some places where recent immigrants come from... are barbaric and are more costly than they're worth. In ripping off a theory from Sam Harris, think of culture as a landscape. Some of them are at high mountain tops and others at low elevations. The elevation depends on how well that culture results in human happiness and autonomy etc. Japanese and Western culture are at high elevations, while shaman cultures are at the bottom.

Immigrants ought to come from cultures at higher elevations, or at least from a liberalized segment of a country with a low culture overall. As far as assimilation of people from higher cultures, I only expect them to assimilate enough to economically participate in our society. For those from lower cultures, if they must stay for the long-run, then they have to be pushed in an upward direction. But overall, I only want people from lower cultures to be here because they are on a work visa.

3. I agree with equal rights under the law and equal opportunity. I also agree with equal opportunity for education, and that it should be fully paid by the state. I don't see it as an expense like many conservatives do, but rather as an investment. However, what I disapprove of are the Liberal schemes that give disadvantaged groups a competitive advantage for university entrance, or large housing subsidies to live in middle class neighborhoods. However, I acknowledge the US has not been consistent with equal opportunity, so I can not blame Liberals too much.

4. Yes. I mean nation-states are fully independent. There should be no international law at all. Any attempts for a world government ought to be ruthlessly opposed. And on this, I am uncompromising. I am not a Terran. I am an American.

To be realistic, the UN's power is ineffective. Ultimately, the major powers can and do ignore them whenever it suits their purposes. I approve of the fact that the UN is powerless without the cooperation of its member states. What I don't approve of is the laughable efforts by major powers to justify wars driven by self-interest under the pretenses of international law, when they ignore violations that do not concern them. And even with this defacto state of affairs in the UN, a lot still gets done. But I'm afraid that this defacto state of affairs could result in a stronger UN because of the ideas we're putting in people's heads.

5. I agree that extreme nationalism is dangerous. But I value being part of an independent country. Call it irrational all you want. In the end, "rational" motives collapse in to values, and rationality only serves values. And I value being an American, and oppose the identity of a "Terran" being imposed upon me.

And this should be an interesting lesson for you. Negotiation/discussion only works to find a solution when all parties have the same values. People often care about their best interests, so demonstrating why your solution is in each of your best interests is effective. But it doesn't work when your values differ. And values are not rational. There's nothing rational about wanting to live. You are simply born, you live, and then you die. Moreover, eventually, humans will probably become extinct.

EmperorHez,

1. Since you love China so much, lets talk about the Qin. Do you think the Emperor imposed a common system of weights and measures because he thought his system was so much nicer? Well, maybe. But the main reason is that it is more efficient for commerce. Likewise, having one national language is more efficient, and it's just more convenient for English to be the national language rather than Spanish.

Neo-conservatives are one thing. They're not even worth having contempt for. They outright ignore the evidence, and consequently only deserve to be laughed at. But, for the most part, Liberals are more consistent with scholarly values. However, they have values that deserve nothing short of contempt. And it's about time Americans stood up to them with a palatable political platform.

The values that:

1. We ought to consider ourselves part of one global, human community.
Examples
-Multiculturalism.
-No country should act independently of UN consensus.
-We ought to intervene in another country's affairs if "human rights" are violated.

2. Cultural and class segregation is wrong, so we must provide the "disadvantaged" with financial assistance so they can live in wealthier neighborhoods.

3. The government ought to play an active role to correct social injustices with employment and education quotas.

4. People are obliged to help their fellow man.
Examples
-Community service requirements as a condition for high school graduation.

These values could probably have been reduced. But in my mind, they are evil. They are why I will forever view most Liberals with contempt, and will vote for the Republican party (no matter how idiotic they are) until a better alternative is presented.

The bottom line is that self-interest is a virtue. Further, I view myself as an American first and a Westerner second. And I'm proud of it! Tell those Liberals that:

1. In our country, English should be the national language. And immigrants should assimilate.
2. Immigrants should be selected for their economic value and cultural compatibility with western values.
3. Self-interest should be praised and people judged by their merits, and the government should not force equality of housing, work or education (Investing in education is fine. Quotas are not) etc.
4. The international system ought to be anarchistic. The UN should not be a world government, but a forum to discuss and resolve problems concerning all states. If you disapprove of a member state and choose to intervene by force, then at least have the honesty to admit that it's victor's justice. These legal/"human rights" pretensions are setting a dangerous precedent that insults the sovereignty of other states.
5. Although patriotism/nationalism is dangerous at extreme levels, no politician should serve in a relevant political office if they consider their national identity to be "terran."

Rise up. Either the Liberals adopt new values or they get voted out! There can be no compromise on these 5 points!

Yell,

Women are very simple. They are people. People form relationships based on the utility they provide them, and your problem is that the ones you invest in believe they can find someone with more to offer than you.

Since you are a nerd and not a social natural (I assume), your solution is getting rich.

Regarding loans:

You would be incorrect that China owns a LOT of US debt. Actually, it owns $1.16 trillion or 26.1% of US foreign debt. Whereas Japan is a close second at $882 billion or 19.9% of US foreign debt. Most of the US debt is owned by its public, and the total US debt is around $14 trillion. At best, China owns slightly less than 10% of the US debt. That's hardly enough to state that China has the US by the balls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Another thing to consider:

The US and Europe share many similarities both economically and culturally. Although the position of the US will likely decline, the US and EU will likely come closer together. European countries may be playing all sides now, but the US and them will become closer together if pressed. This could even result in the political and economic unification of the Western World in the decades ahead. Against this power, China would be easily overshadowed.

EmperorHez,

As I said. The USA, Russia, and Canada both own the majority of the most fertile farmland. Farmland in most of the rest of the world is not nearly as productive and is fast depleting. While there are barriers to the US, like short-sighted politicians and business, they can still be overcome if the US seizes its opportunities.

Here is a map of the world's soil fertility:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Global_soils_map_USDA.jpg

The good soil is green and yellow-green. Mediocre soil is bright yellow. That soil is concentrated in North America, Russia and the states of Eastern Europe. And Canada and the US have the best technology for farming, highest agricultural productivity, and the lowest rates of soil erosion. The soil erosion in the US could reverse if it discontinued its self-destructive agricultural policies including subsidies that give farmer's the incentive to continuously produce corn, a soil depleting crop. But even with foolish public policy, soil erosion rates are substantially lower than those of India or China.

You'll also see that China has considerable farmland of good and mediocre fertility. However, that farmland is experiencing soil erosion and desertification due to rising population pressures. Moreover, the large patch of mediocre soil by China's coast is largely unavailable because that is where the majority of China's population is concentrated.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/21/china-soil-erosion-population
- The threats posed to China's northern grasslands.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/march06/soil.erosion.threat.ssl.html
- Soil erosion is 3-4x greater than the soil replenishment rates in China and India. At the same time, it's only 10x higher for the US.

There are many "what if's." But the US is very well positioned to restore its empire in the decades ahead, and become far more powerful than it's ever been. It all depends on the politicians moving the chess pieces correctly.

EmperorHez,

Well, I'm not doubting you about its economy 10-15 years ahead. I'm saying it will be a short-lived victory, and ultimately the US will enjoy a position as a major supplier of the world's food. And with a booming world population, that role will be increasingly essential. And if it plays its cards right, it could achieve unprecedented power in the decades ahead.

EmperorHez,

You really should listen to economists less, and to environmentalists more. China suffers from severe soil erosion, population pressures, and an aging population. Its production possibilities frontier is going to rebound, its resources stressed on supporting an aging population, and its people will suffer from starvation. Meanwhile, the US and Canada could potentially control a large share of the world's food supply.

China's economic projections are based on naive assumptions of unlimited resources. This limits China's growth a lot more than economists are willing to admit.

The US, Canada, and Russia have the world's most fertile soil. The future will belong to the food producers. Although, it's undetermined if Russia will develop its agriculture or not. China's GDP may exceed the US in the 2020s, but its economy will contract long before its PPP exceeds ours.

Actually Hez, China will never replace the US. I explained why in America: A New Dawn. Instead, China's growth is doomed to bust, and the US faces an opportunity to situate itself in a position more supreme than its ever been in. In fact, the rising sun is America, and only Russia is situated to challenge that position.

Right. Europeans are incredibly loud dogmatists. They presume that human rights are an inherent feature of the world. I can agree with the idea of cooperating to treat others in a civilized manner, but those Euros sure go well beyond that. To them, we ought to defend human rights everywhere in the world, and charge evil heads of states with violations... lol.

Those Euros are welcome to tell me where those rights are. And how dare they violate the sovereignty of other states by presuming that all states are bound by some natural law. WTF? I want proof!

If you think the future belongs to China, think again. The US has a large share of the world's most fertile soil.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Global_soils_map_USDA.jpg

Good Soil

Mollisols - Grassland and prairies. 21.5% of the US land area. High fertility. Cheap to farm.
Alfisols - Humid climates. By grass savannas and forest vegetation. High fertility. Cheap to farm. Not as ideal as Mollisols.
Andisols - By volcanoes. High fertility. Cheap to farm until there's an eruption.

So-So Soil

Ultisols - Have decent nutrient retention rates and low fertility. Moderately expensive to farm.

Variable Soil:
Inceptisols - By mountains. Variable productivity and expense.
Entisols - Dry or cold climates. Sand dunes and flood plains. Fertility high and expense low in flood plains.

Bad Soil

Aridsols - Deserts. Low fertility. Expensive to farm.
Spodosols - Cool and wet climates. Low fertility. Expensive to farm.
Oxisols - Tropical and subtropical climates. Low fertility. Expensive to farm.
Gelisols - Permafrost. Enough said.
Histosols - Permafrost
Vertisols - Warm, subhumid or subarid climates. Form by limestone and basalt. Low fertility due to high clay content. Good luck farming it.

http://croptechnology.unl.edu/pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1130447032&topicorder=8&maxto=16&minto=1

Now check out the soil distribution around the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Global_soils_map_USDA.jpg

As you can see, the US has a lot of highly fertile soil. Aside from the aridsols in some parts of the eastern and central USA, the US is rich in mollisols and has some alfisols. Moreover, the southern USA is rich in moderately fertile ultisols. Furthermore, the US is the most agriculturally productive country in the world and exports the most amount of food, thanks to its high development and technology.

On the other hand. Although China has rich mollisols and ultisols, it also has over a billion mouths to feed. Secondly, China's farmland fertility is suffering from increasing population pressures. Much of the area with China's ultisols is heavily populated, and the northeastern part with mollisols is suffering from severe soil erosion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/21/china-soil-erosion-population

Moreover, China and India's soil erosion is a lot worse than the US.

Finally, China has a population dilemma. The first problem is that their one child policy has created a population pyramid where the older generation will greatly exceed the younger generation. This will eventually burden the state's resources and rapidly decrease China's production. The second problem China faces is that if it increases its population by removing the 1 child limit, it will stress its agricultural production even more. The dilemma for China is consequently that its economic growth is guaranteed to slow and then rebound.

Meanwhile the United States:

1. Has nearly zero population growth.
2. Is a highly developed and technologically advanced nation.
3. Has a large portion of the most fertile land in the world.
4. US agriculture is the most productive and developed.
5. Although it suffers from soil erosion, it is still far less than the levels experienced in China and India and is reversible.
- http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/march06/soil.erosion.threat.ssl.html

What this shows is that the US faces an opportunity for a new age of prosperity and power, while China and India are facing ruin. Although the levels of soil erosion in the US are not good, there is promise to reverse the trend. But the following would have to occur.

1. The morons in government must stop promoting continuous corn production, with subsidies for high fructose corn syrup, ethanol and livestock etc, as corn is a crop that quickly depletes the soil.
2. The US government must implement policies that both increase agricultural output and do so at sustainable levels.
3. Urban sprawl would have to end and the suburban life exchanged for life in the city. Moreover, a highly concentrated population would make public transportation feasible, which would have the added benefit of decreasing the need for oil. This means having a policy of "Who cares about the housing market? Bulldoze them and build apartments instead."

http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html

- Shows how much corn is produced and how little is actually consumed by people. So inefficient when you could grow fruit, vegetables or wheat instead. Moreover, cattle is also inefficient, and reducing meat outputs in favor of wheat and vegetables would reduce health care costs.

With feasible, although painful, reforms to promote agricultural productivity and sustainability, the US could effectively control the largest share of the world's food supply. And with booming population growth around the world, US power over the world would be unprecedented. Not only would the world fear our military power, but few countries would be able to afford a halt to the flow of US food. The lives of billions of people would depend on the US.

However, there are some other considerations that need to be made.

1. Eastern Europe, especially Russia, is rich in mollisols. Russia could consequently become a major competitor to the US. However, Russia is also experiencing a declining population and has poor agricultural productivity. And Russian farmers aren't having an easy time finding investors, mainly because farming profits are currently low and it would be difficult to compete with the US right now. Although Russian agriculture will probably develop in the decades ahead, this gives the US time to become more efficient and form strategic alliances to suppress agricultural development in Russia, or dominate the world with Russia.
2. The land corresponding to Canada's provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are rich in mollisols. This is reflected in the fact that Canada is the second largest exporter of food in the world, next to the US. Of course, this competition can be easily eliminated by simply taking the provinces by force when the US is positioned to do so. It's not like Canada could put up an effective resistance, nor could the UN do anything about it when most of the world depends on US food exports.

Imagine the possibilities. America is uniquely positioned to literally become more powerful than ever while eliminating its rising Indian and Chinese competitors. All the US has to do is correctly move the chess pieces.

I'm very skeptical of Afghanistan's future. Growing opium seems to be its most profitable and employable economic possibility.

I agree with the Monroe Doctrine. It's our periphery. gtfo! If you disagree, then back it up by force.

But I agree with EmperorHez. The Falklands served no purpose other than to bolster Margaret Thatcher's reputation as a strong-willed Prime Minister. In the grand scheme of things, the place is irrelevant. Just let Argentina have it.

However, I disapprove of Obama's actions because he's being an irritating champion of fictitious values again. I have the hunch that at least 80% of the world's population subconsciously knows that "values" count for nothing in politics, only self-interest. And I'm tired of Obama's focus on values and would rather he admit our country (as well as every other one) serves its own interests. That would be a step forward in establishing a more productive dialogue about the world's problems with its leaders and people. Finally, Obama's mention of the Falklands serves no profitable purpose, and I'm concerned the man is a lunatic.

And my statement about Obama possibly being a lunatic (idealist) does not contradict my statement that states serve their own interests, or at least that that is their homeostasis, so to speak. Obama seems to merely be a disturbance of the system.

My substantiation is the logic of my reasoning, provided that the incompleteness theorem (there are 2) I cited is true. I acknowledge I am human and that my reasoning may be flawed, and that is the most practical way to disprove my position should you find fault with it.

But since you seem to be suggesting that I have not justified the incompleteness theorem I cited, then you are right but that isn't relevant. Yes, I am assuming it's true, but my assumption is reasonable because it is accepted by general consensus between mathematicians, scientists and other relevant intellectuals. Since I considered this obvious, I never bothered to prove that such a consensus exists. And anyone skeptical of my claim of consensus can verify it with little effort on their part. However, provided that this consensus exists, that does not mean individuals in these fields have truly considered the implications of it, nor that people in general are aware of it.

Since it appears to me that those who should know better haven't given it the thought it deserves and consequently subscribe to wishful fantasies of mathematics, I wanted to raise it to their attention (and I know such people exist on IC, even if less active) or receive critical feedback from them. Secondly, I wanted to raise it to the attention of those who are not familiar with it by providing it with the best explanation I could, and possibly receive critical feedback from them as well. For all I know I could have misrepresented the theorem or my understanding of its implications could be wrong. And maybe those physicists who I made no secret that I disapprove of are in fact perfectly justified in their seemingly overly-confident attitude.

The forums have moved!

Search options (Page 34 of 125)

Posts found: 826 to 850 of 3,102

826 Reply by Justinian I 09-Aug-2011 20:41:25

Re: London riots (32 replies, posted in Politics)

827 Reply by Justinian I 09-Aug-2011 19:20:57

Re: London riots (32 replies, posted in Politics)

828 Reply by Justinian I 09-Aug-2011 18:36:11

Re: London riots (32 replies, posted in Politics)

829 Reply by Justinian I 29-Jul-2011 08:14:26

Re: When is it Obama's economy for Democrats and Liberals? (48 replies, posted in Politics)

830 Reply by Justinian I 29-Jul-2011 07:50:58

Re: When is it Obama's economy for Democrats and Liberals? (48 replies, posted in Politics)

831 Reply by Justinian I 29-Jul-2011 00:47:35

Re: "Oops" says NASA... No Global Warming (17 replies, posted in Politics)

832 Reply by Justinian I 27-Jul-2011 23:36:45

Re: That Norwegian Guy (26 replies, posted in Politics)

833 Reply by Justinian I 27-Jul-2011 22:04:42

Re: That Norwegian Guy (26 replies, posted in Politics)

834 Reply by Justinian I 22-Jul-2011 18:09:00

Re: How will America handle being number 2? (59 replies, posted in Politics)

835 Reply by Justinian I 22-Jul-2011 07:15:15

Re: How will America handle being number 2? (59 replies, posted in Politics)

836 Reply by Justinian I 13-Jul-2011 02:14:50

Re: Evil Liberals (12 replies, posted in Politics)

837 Reply by Justinian I 04-Jul-2011 18:25:25

Re: Evil Liberals (12 replies, posted in Politics)

838 Reply by Justinian I 04-Jul-2011 17:46:16

Re: Evil Liberals (12 replies, posted in Politics)

839 Topic by Justinian I 04-Jul-2011 08:55:44

Topic: Evil Liberals (12 replies, posted in Politics)

840 Reply by Justinian I 30-Jun-2011 09:10:34

Re: Relationship Advice (56 replies, posted in General)

841 Reply by Justinian I 25-Jun-2011 22:19:51

Re: US Defeats Itself (64 replies, posted in Politics)

842 Reply by Justinian I 25-Jun-2011 22:12:45

Re: US Defeats Itself (64 replies, posted in Politics)

843 Reply by Justinian I 25-Jun-2011 19:25:13

Re: US Defeats Itself (64 replies, posted in Politics)

844 Reply by Justinian I 25-Jun-2011 19:01:40

Re: US Defeats Itself (64 replies, posted in Politics)

845 Reply by Justinian I 25-Jun-2011 07:51:28

Re: US Defeats Itself (64 replies, posted in Politics)

846 Reply by Justinian I 25-Jun-2011 03:58:20

Re: US Defeats Itself (64 replies, posted in Politics)

847 Topic by Justinian I 25-Jun-2011 00:58:27

Topic: America: A New Dawn (6 replies, posted in Politics)

848 Reply by Justinian I 24-Jun-2011 06:57:44

Re: US Defeats Itself (64 replies, posted in Politics)

849 Reply by Justinian I 11-Jun-2011 23:22:53

Re: Obama Slaps UK over Falklands (24 replies, posted in Politics)

850 Reply by Justinian I 03-Jun-2011 17:11:18

Re: Maths and Dogmatism (12 replies, posted in Politics)

Posts found: 826 to 850 of 3,102