w00pla

The first thing would be to refuse child grants so to prevent adults from getting children, in order to get welfare. Awarding people for getting children is wrong and stupid.

The second thing is to force mothers to reveal the father of their children. Many do not inform the state who the father is, therefore forcing the taxpayer to pay for raising the child instead of the father.

And probably the best option would be to implement policies similar to China’s one child policy. A good example would be forced sterilization after 3 children if the person receives any form government welfare (or already have kids and is imprisoned).

But in any case, well before this point, the state can spent money on voluntary sterilisation campaigns (i.e. paying the poor and drug addicts to be sterilised).

> If the point is to make the men work, then pay them a fair wage.

I agree they should be paid a fair wage. They should be given a bill for their housing and their debt to society and their victims which they can pay off with their wage. The vast majority of prisoners owe society (and their victims) more than they could ever hope to earn in a lifetime.

The whole idea of being a prisoner is to take away rights of someone who have done harm to others. This is done by taking away his freedom (i.e. by locking him up in a prison cell), taking away his right to vote (in many countries) and removing his right to freedom of association.

Locking a prisoner up is not the same as kidnapping (since you make false equivalences). Since a prisoner’s time is already wasted (by locking up in a cell), that time could just as well be used for something productive.

---

You know what is slavery though? Forcing the taxpayer to pay for the housing and maintenance of a criminal. The taxpayer doesn’t have any say in the matter and doesn’t have a choice. Each person in jail had a choice.

> Sure, but in another 50 years many of their children will have just as much land through none of their own doing.

Can't people give their wealth to whomever they want (while they are alive or dead)? In a system such as yours (where the state comes and takes all property like a vulture after someone dies) it means that every old person should spend all his money before he dies. He should also stop working (as many old people (at least in my country) spend their lives working for an inheritance for their children).

I guess such a thing such as working to provide for your children and grandchildren is wrong in your books.

Here is another example in my country: many farmers have children and teach their children farming. This is the only skill that some of them can transfer. The children works on his father's farm. If there are two sons the father will try and buy extra land. The children inherit and divide up the farm after the father’s death. You thus get people living generations on the same farm.

In your ideal communist system, the child will lose his home, his father and his job (through the sin of inheritance).

> It's possible life could have been better for everyone if not for inheritance.

If all wealth is divided up after inheritance, the best (evolutionary speaking) strategy would be to have as many children as possible. That way, your offspring can have a larger share of someone else’s inheritance.

The idea of the far left, of trying to steal someone’s property after he dies is pretty reprehensible for me. What is worse is their motivation for it. The idea that an individual’s rights (and property) are subservient to the majority. What you are basically saying is that if something is good for the majority, the minority or individual does not have rights.

> Oh no, there's no crime in Japan.

Violent crime in Japan is ridiculously low.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakuza

You know that a large percentage of the Yakuza are Korean? In any case, every country has organized crime - yet the Yakuza isn't that violent.

Japan isn't that violent - when you compare things such as murder statistics. I know, I lived in the most violent country and in Japan. Japan is a joke.

> But that's exactly why past a certain point, "getting tough" doesn't work.

The USA never had any really tough laws. I bet that if the USA starts executing major drug dealers (like Singapore), drugs would be a much smaller problem.

> In the USA, it's so out of proportion now, that in many poor or ethnic minority communities in the USA, the police are perceived as oppressors, not guardians of law and order.

The problem in the USA is that it only gets tough when it is too late (e.g. after the 3rd major offense). It should be tough on the first offense (however minor). It is much more difficult to change an established behaviour than a new behaviour - every animal trainer knows this (and it is the same with people).

In any case, the problem with certain ethnic communities is that they value crime (e.g. showing how tough you are) and idolize criminals. That is not the problem of the police - but of the communities. Idolize criminals, dress like criminals and act like criminals and you may be treated as one.

I bet that this idolization of organised crime would disappear if there were chain gangs of criminal members of the community cleaning parks, schools and toilets.

Instead criminals sit in prison doing nothing and each prison becomes a Crime University.

> Starting with the land, water, and air of this Earth, there are many resources that no one created, and no one has the right to give you.

If we divide all the land in the world equally, within 20 years some people will have more and some people will have less (due to differing productivity and non-coercive selling). This isn't unfair - it just means that some people are unproductive.

> In a city, you cannot say that you have sole right to a piece of property, to do with as you please. Everything's too packed in together. If you're blasting music at all hours of the night,

Yes you can. Blasting music is a different story - you are effecting your neighbour's quality of life (and destroying his property value).

But trust me, you can do anything on your property as long as the neighbour doesn't hear or see you.

> To put it simply: the wealth of New York City was mostly created by the city; the plumbing, the roads, the zoning laws, the building codes,

The wealth in New York city is created because highly skilled people are close to each other (a type of network effect). Just because the demand for property is higher (and therefore the asking price) doesn't mean that the wealth represented by the property is created by the state.

Maybe. But here is the thing – do you think it is fair for someone else to subsidize your children (at the cost to themselves)?

It is usually the duty of parents to raise their children (and pay for their education). The left however feels that it “takes the village to raise the child” (nice way of saying that someone else should pay for education, etc…). This means that dysfunctional people and families can externalise the consequences of their actions.

If we think of it in a crude way: wouldn’t the most fit evolutionary strategy in such a system be to just get as much children as you want? Since someone else will bust their but to pay for the raising and education of your child.

This is unfortunately what happens in many countries, and it is quite sad. In my country there are 13.4 million people on government grants and there are 12 million people working. Of those that work, only about 3 million pay tax (75% which is paid by 750,000). Of the 13.4 million receiving “social grants”, about 9 million are child grants (government pays them for each child under 16, thereby encouraging people to get children. Many people receive the child grant from their children before they stop getting their own grant).

The point of this is that each tax payer is paying to raise 3 children that are not theirs. Is that fair? Should someone really be allowed to get children if they cannot afford them?

This is also one of the reasons I believe that democracy does not work in most countries – especially countries with a high population or which is not homogeneous.

The excuse of “family location” is BS. Many people have put off or postponed having children until they can afford them, and at least kept the number of children to a minimum. Many people also at least put in the effort to raise the kids that they have properly.

> But that's not all; prison labor is now used as cheap labor to compete with foreign countries, instituting a new age of under-the-radar slavery.

This is BS IMHO. Would you rather see prisoners set free or do nothing all day?

Do you really think that a person will come out of a 6 year prison sentence (without working a day) and then start working and be a productive member of society?

In the old days in my country there was a sentence called "hard labour" - which meant that criminals got a shorter sentence and learned valuable life skills (if they were co-operative) or learned how to make big rocks smaller (if they were uncooperative).

> Why are European countries and Japan so different, though?

For a Japanese person, the conviction of a crime (and the shame it brings) is much worse than the jail sentence. If you are convicted of a crime, your family usually breaks off all ties with you.

Other countries (such as Singapore or China) has laws that are more harsh - which ensures that people do not break it (e.g. execution for drug offenses instead of imprisonment). If a person receives corporal punishment for vandalism, he will quickly stop without progressing towards further crimes (or run back to the USA with his tail between his legs).

> They do nothing towards a fair distribution of wealth.

What is the "fair distribution of wealth"? I personally believe that you are only entitled to the wealth you yourself created (or which someone voluntary gave you).

Isn't that a fair distribution of wealth? Or what other metrics do you use?

> I will assume below that you are European.

Neither.

> The arms industry in Europe can be as corrupt as it wants - it still doesn't consume the incredible proportion of GDP ours does, and it still doesn't own your government outright.

That may be true. But the European arms industry is extremely corrupt in other countries (with official sanction). The politicians are usually their bitches (e.g. BAE & Blair).

This is not just true for the arms industry – but for all major European companies. The best example of this is Siemens. Its whole business model is based on paying bribes in third world countries to get contracts. Without that, it is simply not competitive. The bribes that Siemens paid over the years ran into the billions (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,462954,00.html).

The same goes for the French arms company Thompson CSF/Thales, that had an extremely large central slush fund to pay bribes with.

While it is true that it is better if the corruption is exported, the point that I wanted to make is that without bribery firms such as Siemens is simply not competitive.

> Europe has nothing like immigration or social problems. They think they do. But they really, really don't. Large and growing Muslim minorities are, and let me make this perfectly clear, not a problem. They are a good thing.

Large amount of crimes are committed by immigrants and it threatens European culture. There have been huge riots in countries such as France and Belgium. This is a serious and growing problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Brussels_riots

I agree with you that the USA also have serious problems (e.g. Mexican immigration). Yet it seems that European countries (such as Denmark) are more prepared to do something to solve the problem.

> The birth rate collapsing is a good thing.

No. It is extremely bad (and it is a naïve thing to say). How exactly will a country function if there are more retirees than people working? Or if non-integrating minority populations grow faster than the indigenous populations?

> growing Muslim minorities are in fact paying into the retirement system. Just because it's not white, Christian money doesn't mean the system isn't working.

You ignore the fact that a large percentage of immigrants do not finish school. In germany it is just for highschool (14% among immigrant populations).

> The difference between Europe and America is that some people in Europe are at least planning management strategies; the corresponding people in America are mostly trying to figure out which part of Peru they're going to retreat to when things finally collapse.

Many countries in the EU are a lot closer to collapse (e.g. Greece) than the USA.

> has failed until you see an actual renewal of the centuries of warfare that ravaged this continent until the advent of the European Union.

To claim that the main aim of the EU is the prevention of warfare is wrong. There are good reasons why there hasn’t been another world war (some of it to do with the fact that there was an external enemy and that, with nuclear weapons, no one wants to wage war).

Just because there hasn’t been war doesn’t mean that the EU is a success. And using such a yardstick is actually a big insult to the original aspirations of the EU. And just because the EU is cheaper than a big war, doesn’t mean that it is a bargain.

> And I know Europe has its own problems, but they're actually doing some stuff here that makes the place a better place to live,

Unfortunately Europe has its own problems. The arms industry in Europe is even more corrupt than in the USA (the french company Thales/Thompson resorted to changing its name every 5 years to shake off the bad name).

The European Union is an extremely expensive and failed project and the public finances in many European countries is a huge mess (e.g. Portugal, Spain, Greece). They have big immigration problems and social problems (e.g. large and growing Muslim minorities in most countries). The birth rate has all but collapsed and they will have serious economic problems in the long term.

Really?

There are always complaints about women in technology. Yet when I spent my Saturday nights in an underground lab, there weren’t a lot of women in the lab. The bar and social spots on the humanities side were full of them though.

Is it okay to have double standards? If we make women only organizations to promote things, is it okay if we make men only organizations?

If there are complaints about too little women in engineering, why aren’t there complaints about too few men in teaching or humanities?

Incompetence does not always explain fuckups of that magnitude. Throw in equal amounts of conflicts of interest and corruption.

That is one thing I don't understand about this whole fiasco.

He advocates spending and stimulus to get out of the this. He says "And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps".

But didn't Japan spend a shitload of money during the 90ies (making their debt 200% of GDP)? Don't they now sit with that debt, a declining population and still no growth?

I'm not an economic expert and maybe I just have a biased for government/personal austerity and saving.

Maybe, but you would be surprised how many conservative black people there are.

One of the biggest is Thomas Sowell (I used to read his stuff without knowing that he was black).

<off topic>

Well, then again, Chinese girls are (IMHO) a lot more pretty than Western girls.

You also know Chinese characters (which is a massive accomplishment in my book).

The current stereotype is also that Asian people are good at math. So it is not all that bad ;)

</off topic>

Just because he set up a scholarship in his name doesn't make the things he did any better.

One of the aims of the Rhodes scholarship is Anglicization. A person who did not study in English cannot apply (even though he is fluent).

Until recently they also excluded women.

In any cases, the legacy of Rhodes is despicable - even if he left behind a scholarship program. His creation of the state of Zimbabwe (with two different ethnic groups) results in problems to this day.

Yeah. The article should maybe deal in depth with the start of De Beers.

De Beers was basically formed by an English colonialist (Cecil John Rhodes). He controlled a company which basically owned a country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_South_Africa_Company).

He also had his own private army and tried to overthrow a sovereign government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jameson_Raid).

It is not only that. Smoking cuts across cultural lines - you can smoke with someone who have great difficulty to speak English (which would otherwise be a stupid situation). You can also have a conversation with very poor (manual labourers) without it being akward.

What is also nice is that you can meet people - by just asking for a light. Most smokers are extremely friendly to other smokers and if two people stands outside a building smoking, it is natural for them to talk. It is the new Freemasons.

I've sometimes wonder why tobacco companies doesn't embrace this with a slogan such as: "Smoking turns strangers into friends".

> the price driver is not so much the cost to produce as it is the rate of production.

Yes, it will require a rapid expansion of CTL plants and demand will drop.

It would probably mirror the expansion of South African CTL plants after numerous oil boycotts.

> Market demand for oil collapses (read: recession) long before it gets anywhere close to $500/bbl.

Above $80 a barrel, alternative fuels (such as liquid fuels from coal) becomes profitable. I sincerely expect that this will expand extremely rapidly in the next 15 years.

> when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights.

Maybe. I am a firm believer that your rights stop only where my rights start.

I would not be against drug use by other individuals (even if I personally think it is a stupid idea). Unfortunately, drug addicts do their best to make their problems your problems (i.e. they externalise the consequences of their actions).

This is manifested in such things as free health care and constant welfare and unemployment benefits. So, yeah, if you want complete individual freedom, it should be coupled with individual consequences.

Why are New Atheists so obsessed with other people's personal beliefs? I have explained to you the problem of zealotry and the imposition of your beliefs on others (which is clearly wrong in most moral frameworks).

Yet New Atheists do not see this as wrong. Some have even argued that parents should be prevented from "indoctrinating" (i.e. teaching children religion and their moral framework).

This crap is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with Linux.

Another non-serious example. I used a dual-boot Linux&Vista laptop. Innocently tried to update Ubuntu. This changed the boot loader to Ubuntu only (removed the Windows menu).

This may be fine for me, but it fails the grandmother test (or any other test of a normal casual computer user). Aren't updates tested before they are added?

How many people have been killed because of the campaign of atheism and "scientific materialism" as happened in many countries (e.g. Albania, USSR, etc...).

You do not understand the problem. The problem is not beliefs or ideology, but zealotory (the insane belief that your way is the one true way and that you are better/smarter/more enlightened than anyone else).

That is pretty much an apt description for New Atheism. It is just a different form of zealotery.

The thing I hate most in the world is pseudo-intellectual atheists that just know that they are right.

Many religions teach you that the goal is not to be a douche. Most college pseudo-intellectual atheists/internet atheists are douches.

I am/was an agnostic. At this point I am willing believe the exact opposite of Dawkins and his fellow atheist zealots - since I know that they are assholes.

They (like the Khrushchev of old) just replaced religion with their own zealotous dogma.

> Those things—the working, drinking, and meat eating—

Meat is expensive in Japan. I buy a 400 gram steak and a Coke&brandy for $4.63 total.

> - Kino's Journey < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kino%27s_Journey >

The anime version of Kino's Journey is probably my favourite anime.

> My citation says that there are 6 in asian and 2 in Africa. How is this false?

You use an extremely broad “definition” of Asia (i.e. instead of the Africa, Middle-East, Asia) you group everything that is remotely in Asia as Asia. If we take your definition into account, the population of Asia is 5.7 times that of sub-Sahara Africa. You also conveniently leave out civil wars from that list (e.g. Eastern DRC, Zimbabwe, etc…).

Why is Zimbabwe left out? Do you know that thousands of people either die through state famine or killed by Zanu thugs?

> And Iraq has way more than 1000+ deaths a year.

Ahh… yeah an American war in the Middle East. Let’s group that with “Asia” and compare a land-mass of 4 billion people to a continent of less than 1.

> Living in Africa does not make you an authority. Point to some proof for your statements.

I have shown you numerous shortcomings in your Wikipedia article. Yet you persist to compare apples and oranges (sub-Sahara Africa is small compared to Asia).

Maybe living in Africa (and having lived in various African countries) does not make me an expert. But neither is someone who never even visited the continent and relies on half-baked WP articles. You are in denial about Africa and the violence in Africa.

From your posts I cannot determine if you are just extremely ignorant or if you are a troll. For your part I hope that you are a troll.

> For people like you who want to believe that Africa is in a war,

I happen to live in Africa. You ignored all of the examples I gave you. Zimbabwe has probably one of the largest displaced populations in the word – yet you do not view this as a “war”.

> Citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_conflicts

Yeah, it doesn’t include Zimbabwe. It doesn’t include the eastern DRC. So you use unfinished or badly written WP articles as your source? Or do you use an extremely strange definition of conflict?

> The Asian wars are killing a hell of a lot more people than the African wars also.

Again, you are wrong. Firstly, of the Asian countries you mentioned, only India counts as a 1000+ deaths per year (with a population of 1.5 times that of sub-Sahara Africa).

> If you want to believe that nothing is getting better, then let's not continue the conversation.

You seem to base your argument on ignorance and self-delusion that is typical of the African renaissance movement. So I doubt that this conversation would be informative from your side.

> If you are willing to actually look at the facts and compare the 80s to now, then we can talk.

You made the statement “Of the ongoing conflicts with 1000+ deaths per year, 6 are in Asia and only 2 are in Africa.” which is blatantly false (by your own citation). Sure the place stabilised since the 80ies – only because the USSR fell (a major sponsor of conflict).

Then again, the 90ies an early 00ies were not particularly rosy (Rwanda, DRC war).