Obama is a nub. I should be Emperor.

Nations never go to war for moral reasons. Only idiots (like some people here) think they do.

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

<Nonsense. Racism is the discrimination against a person or people based on race. Its much
more generalised then you say and more often then not those who are racist do some due to
a lack of interaction with another race (I.e. cultural isolation, which is a massive discussion
in itself).>

You're wrong. Racial discrimination and racism are different.

<Most practices are exercised within the confines of privacy.>

And plenty interfere with economic efficiency and social order.

I think it is good to be tactful. But I do not agree with multiculturalism. A culture is a result, or adaption to, a population's economic and political circumstances. An agrarian society will have a different culture from an early merchant or industrial society. A society exposed to war will have a different culture from one exposed to peace and trade. Culture has no inherent or aesthetic value. Immigration from a society that is nomadic to a capitalist society is bound to lead to serious adaption issues.

That said, immigration results in the United States have been mixed. In the case of Somalis, for example, integration has been difficult. Multiculturalism has done nothing but shield a primitive culture from adapting to a capitalist one. On the other hand, the Hmong have integrated very well for the most part. The majority of them have adopted Western values, women pursue careers and they have contributed to our economy. A great number of them have provided us with pleasant restaurants and exotic foods. In the case of Somalis, their value of the Koran prevents them from going anywhere economically because they are prohibited from certain economic transactions (taking out a mortgage) and social relations.

I think Multiculturalism can be a good thing, but only under certain conditions. Personally, I think immigration should be limited to cultures with similar economic circumstances or to cultures that seem like they could adapt without serious issues. But in the case of Islam, I think it's clear they can not integrate in to Western societies. Their culture has had a backlash to Western influence, for the most part they do not integrate in Western societies, and their religion predetermines them in to poverty in a Western society. That said, I have no issues with immigration from Europe or Japan. But I do not stand for immigration for the sake of immigration, nor the shielding or celebration of cultural practices that have their origins in primitive economic circumstances.

As for the PC crowd that call you racist... I just love to mock them for being idiots. I will state that racism means you subscribe to a racial taxonomy based on biology, and that I subscribe to no such thing. They are just morons for thinking it is racist to oppose multiculturalism or certain cultural practices.

Yup

The problem with the polar bear is that they have exceeded their carrying capacity in the first place. Their population has grown to 45,000 from 5,000 in the 70s. The fact is that the polar bear scare is a sham so that environmental groups can gain power.

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> Note: The experiment Justinian talks of has already taken place.  It's called the world:

No sovereign power has a monopoly on force (we should probably exclude the post-UN period due to their new role in authorizing legal wars).  How does it work out?  Is war constant?  Or are threats deterred by one another?>

I didn't mean in a global context... I meant within a state, like having protection agencies assuming the policing and military roles of the state.

> avogadro wrote:

> if theres not a monopoly on force, it doesnt mean there has to be armed conflict between the difference factions competing on force...>

Well guess what, they would have every incentive to engage in coercion and armed conflict.

Yes, lets have protection agencies instead of government, bs.

To all you free-marketeers, provide empirical evidence for why the free-market is so flawless or stfu. For the moment you are only talking about a castle in the sky, and there is plenty of case examples (especially in the 1800s) that explain why government intervention is desired. Second, there is no evidence that suggests perfect competition continues, rather it suggests that the market is dominated by one or few firms. And those firms have no incentive to play fairly or set the price at fair-market value. Whether such dominating firms collapse is irrelevant, the fact is that experience suggests "perfect competition" is short-lived.

I'm an Atheist, and I subscribe to Evolution.