Topic: Politics, statism, anarchism, racism; split from: Wall Observer thread (Read 5403 times)

Right.  Until you get owned by another libertarian.
Then you run to teh nanny state and its courts to waste my taxes.

I don't have anything against that kind of companies. If you want government regulated companies, then put your money there, but don't force everyone running a bitcoin exchange to be regulated by the government, and therefore any trader/investor to use regullated companies. As a libertarian I don't want any government meddling.



They already are in the unhampered free market. Their profits depend on how much their are trusted by their consumers. To win money, they have to please consumers, not regulators.



Yes, I would like to be able to go to a doctor that doesn't have license. I would also like to be able to get a taxi that doesn't have any license. Or to be able to buy drugs from a seller.

It's the consumer who has to decide whether he wants to buy a service or not, not a burocrat. Licenses are just a form of monopoly given by governments. They artificially lower supply.

I confess that my thinkpower is not enough to even begin to understand the argument.  Oh well.

Apparently they don't think very much. Well, nothing new there.

This is just a hypothetical. Curious what the anti-racism crowd think.

Like being white in Asia you mean? ha

Suppose, just for fun, that there was a country where a certain race - say, white people just for an example - was held in high regard just because of the color of their skin. Would that be equally "bad"?

Individuals are different in many ways, but the differences between two random individuals of the same "race" are much larger than the difference between the averages of two "races".

In my life as teacher, I have yet to see evidence that "intelligence" (whatever that means) is a matter of genes.  On the other hand, I have much evidence that it is not, it is a matter of culture and attitude.  For example, when I was an engineering undergrad, more than half of my classmates were sons of Japanese immigrants. "Japanese" then was synonym of "nerdy guy who studies hard and gets the top grades". That's because their parents (who mostly came to Brazil to work as farm laborers) valued education highly, and pressed them hard.  But the next generation of Japanese-Brazilians was nothing like that; on the contrary, they were often the laziest lowest-scoring in the class.  My explanation for the difference is that their parents had absorbed the Brazilian culture in place of the Japanese one, including in particular a laissez-faire attitude towards their children's education.

But that is not what racists want to hear, because the whole point of racism is to "prove" that *all* people of the other "race" should be kept out of good jobs, government posts, land, good schools, our women, whatever -- because they are intrinsically "inferior", and should just accept their "proper place".  

There are many things wrong with that view, starting with the fact that, for any measure, the distributions of two "races" will overlap so much that a good-scoring guy of either "race" would probably have higher score than, say, 80% of the guys from the other "race".  Also, as any computer programmer knows, differences in "hardware" (genetics) are usually dwarfed by differences in "software" (learning and attitudes); and, even for the most complicated tasks, a 10% increase in "computing power" may not make any practical difference.  Finally, racists implicitly assume that people who score higher in some measure should have more rights to something than people who score lower; which is a non-sequitur.  

In fact, egalitarianism is not saying that "all humans are equal", but "all humans, irrespective of any differences in any measure, should have the same basic rights".  Such as the right to vote and be voted for government posts, live wherever they want and afford, put their their kids in the same schools as anyone else, apply for any job, marry whoever would accept them, and so on.

Egalitarianism is so strong because many people, even educated ones, eventually realize that it is a good idea.  

Interesting POV, but I think you missed my POV. Even if I believe that - statistically - African blacks are intellectually somewhat inferior to European (more or less) whites,
my point is that they have other genetic advantages that make them fit to live in Africa (where I would die). And I don't see them as "sub-humans" or other crap like that.
Why is the egalitarianism so strong, even among educated people? I believe that people are borne different, live different and die different, and this is not racism.
However I prefer to think that in my DNA there is some Neanderthal and not Denisovan or archaic African hominin.

collectivism...gotta love it

Children are not racist.  Human beings in isolation are not racist.  On the contrary, humans have an innate tendency to marry outside their immediate group.

Racism is learned, and a social thing: always the result of some part of a population fighting against another part for resources, jobs, power, whatever.   Skin color and other superficial traits are just an easy way to define who is "us" and who is "them", especially if the two groups came from different parts of the world.  But when those markers won't work, some other marker can be used -- language, religion, pedigree, etc..   Skin color only became significant in Europe when European countries established colonies abroad, and had to separate themselves from the natives to prevent them from infiltrating their local administration and weakening their control.  In the Americas, physical appearance was instrumental to oppress the natives first, the African slaves later.  Skin color worked in the US initially, but when races started to mix, the "whites" had to invent the "one drop rule", based on pedigree, to preserve the "black"/"white" dichotomy.  Hair and eye color are as conspicuous as skin color, but were never used as "racial" markers in historical Europe, for the obvious reason.  Religion, even just the brand of Christianity, served for the purpose  in Europe for centuries after the Protestant revolt, and is still used in Northern Ireland, Palestine, Bosnia x Serbia, Hindus x Muslims, and many other places.  I have been told (don't know if seriously) that the only distinctive marker that Serbians and Croatians could find was the alphabet used to write their language.  In India, the caste system seems to be maintained mostly by pedigree; that is also how the Japanese separate themselves from the pariah who do "impure" jobs, and from the "Koreans" who have been living in Japan for generations.

"Race" is not a biologically meaningful concept.   Racists hate modern genetics, because it thoroughly trashes the axioms that they built their worldview and their lives upon.  Humans are exceedingly mobile and promiscuous, and genetically varied.  Skin color is a trait that evolves quickly in response to the environment; the light-skinned American natives in Patagonia probably descended from dark-skinned Peruvian natives who descended from light-skinned Siberians who descended from dark-skined Africans.  Under the skin, there is much more diffrerence between individuals of the same race than between the "average" individuals of two different races.  (I recall a marathon in an Olimpiad, many years ago, when the first three places were an Italian, a Japanese, and a Kenyan -- who crossed the line within a few meters of each other, after a 40'000 meter run.  That means, less than 0.1% difference in their running speeds.  So it seems that race is a totally negligible factor in races, at least.  )

If one rounds the average time between generations to 30 years, a person living today had about two ancestors of the same age living 30 years ago, four living 60 years ago, and so on.   600 years ago --- that is, 20 generations ago -- the count would be 2²⁰, which is about one million.  While Caesar was having fun in bed with Cleopatra, some 2000 years ago, each person alive today had about 2⁶⁶ slots on his genealogical tree.  So, in order to ensure one's purity of blood, one has only to verify that none of those 73'786'976'294'838'206'464 ancestors, give or take a few quintillion, was African, Jew, Latino, Pariah, Hindu, Mongol, Samaritan, or whatever other "inferior race" is in one's book.

Of course, most of those potential ancestors were the same person; that is to say, the ancestry of one person may have been "only" a few thousand distinct individuals, 600 years ago; and probably "only" a million, 2000 years ago.   Still, those ancestors were probably scattered all over the world; and each one of the person's genes may have been inherited from any one of those ancestors, almost independently.   (If you are French, for example, you may well be a descendant of the king of the Carijó from Southern Brazil, whose son was taken to Normandy in the early 1500s and there died as a respected citizen, with many children and grandchildren.  Recently I learned that, according to ancient historians, some of my ancestors may have came from Paflagonia (not Patagonia!), a kingdom on the northern shore of the Black Sea that I had never heard of before. It is told that they left their country to fight in the Trojan War, and could not return home because of a coup d'état, so they wandered around and finally settled in the marshes where Venice is now.  Oh, and I bet that I am also a descendant of Caesar and Cleopatra, through their son who lived in Rome before being forgotten by History.)

No human population on Earth has been isolated from the rest of mankind for more than about 50'000 years.  One population of Negritos, in a small island of the Andaman Archipelago, may win the title as the most isolated. To this day, they kill anyone who lands on their island, even shipwrecked sailors.  They have been there for 60'000 years, perhaps, since the sea level rose and the land bridge to the Andaman was submerged.  But no one knows how long they have been applying that highly selective immigration policy.  Anyway, 60'000 years may be enough for natural selection to change some vital traits (like resistance to local parasites, tolerance to local diet, and making enough melanin to stand in the tropical sun without your skin immediately divorcing you), but not enough for really fundamental changes.

No culture has been so strict about racial purity that it could prevent "foreign" genes from jumping the fence and climbing through the window.  Even the "modern men" of Europe are now known to have interbred with the "primitive" Nanderthals that they replaced some 30'000 years ago.  African and Asian individuals have been traveling and settling down in Europe, and vice-versa, since humans developed feet.

Fact is, we are all of the same race -- the Mongrels...

Well only a dumb ass creationist would think this is a viable answer in the first place. Can you comprehend, from an evolutionist point of view,why your responses are a contradiction? Or don't you have the IQ for that.

No need to answer...

Ever thought of geological conditions?

Or do you mean that because your ancestors settled in Europe they were smarter?

So you are saying that my ancestors made better decisions than the african ancestors, and this benefit is being passed down to me?

Careful about that ignore button, you don't wanna remove people who have something to add but who you merely not agree with. This is a general warning to all btw. One of the biggest problems we face is the inability to consider opinions that contradict our currently favored worldview - such things are transient.

short version: the  mediterranean and europe had an enviroment that caters better towards agricultural civilisations with even basic technology. With better food production less human resources had to be employed towards basic needs. This resulted in faster technological development and bigger civilisations.

But I can imagine this is to hard for you to comprehend! It's like trying to explain evolutionism to a creationist.

Bullshit, you're both changing what I said. I said there were countries that had been colonised and turned out OK.

Now suddenly your'e saying I should find countries that have been colonised and not changed at all? Is that what you want? Countris where colonialism took over, had no impact, changed nothing and everyone lived happily ever after?

That's a bit different from countries that had been colonised and turned out OK, but if completely changing the meaning of what I said is how you two pretend to win internet arguments then cool.

Stockholm syndrome.

In any large enough group of people where power imbalances are natural, you will have some of the strong who bind together and decide to parasatize the productive. These people are often called bandits, outlaws, whatever. In time, this becomes formalized and you have knights, lords, kings and such. This allows the neo-bandits to draw from the ranks of the productive and go pillage neighboring knights, lords, kings and such. The concentration of power causes this to be a stable situation. Because people tend to rationalize their situation (proven fact), they come to accept this state of affairs as a "good thing" and you end up with such nonsense as the divine right of kings.

In the case of the US, a tool for power, the gun, was introduced to the hands of the peasantry, allowing for a rebalance of power which duly followed. In no small part was the rifle, primarily a hunting weapon, responsible for the overthrow of the British government which was still largely arming its soldiers with muskets. Unfortunately, the formalism of government was too strong (likely partly because many of the founding fathers were rich landowners) and although things did move largely towards self-ownership and individual power, they left a core which over the intervening years has been able to consolidate and grow its power, leading to something which, well, we all know the things we dislike about the government so I won't go into that here. And no, you don't get to pick and choose, you get the package. All of it.

So here we are, governments are wild, out of control and banditing more than they ever have, even when they were a bunch of outlaws sitting around a fire in the hills sharpening their daggers. Meanwhile, despite efforts to suppress, the people they prey on add more and more tools to take care of themselves. It's time for another redress of power.

you are right, it is just a waste of time and energy.

A wise decision from a wise person...