http://www.marriedtothesea.com/030506/worse-than-harding.jpg 

is from a difference in focus that we have on the subject, and sleep deprivation. That was a lot of hours in front of the computer screen. I'll return to sort out that conundrum a bit later as my head is still a bit rattled. I'll try to make it pointed and brief ;)

Incidentaly, I'm closer to the Minarchist school of thought than the Anarco-Capitalist; though the Rothbard approach is sound in theory, most of what is political possible or viable depends on the circumstances at a given time.

Lun, you are still the cat's pajamas in my book. 

it's a argument so familar on this side of the Atlantic that I used a little short hand in making it so I understand why you may not have got its geist.

Here you'll find it a more comprehensive form.

http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-Social-1950-1980/dp/0465042333

The second review is a pretty good summary. 

Oh no that will surely bring on the collapse of society.

I didn't really see much of a good explanation of the term in that review though but that might be related to experiencing a very large cultural divide when reading it. 

 

I'm still dogged tired on my end. Maybe more than
just sleepdep. I was wondering though, have you read your fellow Briton author Paul Johnson's excellent Modern Times? Parts of your arguments reminded me of the WWI section for some reason I can't put my finger on.

CZG -- what alawys happens when peeps go after Warren 'the original G.' Harding. Shit goes kkkrazy. 

so you think private property is good? 

I'll give you an address you can mail all of your stuff to me. 

thanks for taking my question seriously... 

because monadic theory is not very useful to how people transact in the real world.

Okay, I'll take a little time to explain. This is generaly the argument of Von Mises I'm going to use.

There was a time when a more hard core variation of Socialism dominated academia that considered it essential to the progress of human society to eliminate private property. The dominate socialist argument of today is quite a bit different, and Bambuz did a good job of elaborating its moral argument in the Philosophy thread. It uses Rawls veil of ignorance (what would everyone agree to in terms of basic property division if you did not know what status in life you would be born to before the decision was made) as a starting point. It is a softer form of socialism that is more interested in regulating the sphere of private activity then to eliminate it. It has it's own share of intractable problems, but we are dealing with your question here.

Before socialism (the first order kind) can function it must be able to
soundly replicate the hundreds of millions of human transactions that occur in the volantary free market every minute, if it is not able to do this then society collapses. Replacing this from a command structure that can calculate these transactions is an impossibilaty because the minute by minute transaction of privately held property is an extreme example of a non linear equation. 

The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard132.html 

you are against democratic or consensus decision making influencing distribution of resources? 

if you have been paying attention and at least read through the essay I linked to; I took the time to reread it, in case you had questions on aspects I didn't mention, like Lange-Lerner counter theory of equilibrium, or the role entreprenuers play in calculation, but you didn't, so I'm signing off now.

As me mum says, tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry. 

Just because you link an article doesn't mean you agree with that article in its entirety. And, I'm glad to have used so little energy to unintentionally insult you -- my job is done. 

I wouldn't care about this crap even if I understood what the hell you were talking about.

Of course, feel free to tell me where to shove it... I'm sure you'll start telling me how freedom of speech is your constitutional right and all that.

</asshole>

(actually I don't think I can toggle asshole mode off, personally!) 

My suggestion was to create "USA political discussion thread", but I guess you can't have quotes in a subject line?

</dumbass> 

Pleaselaborate on this comment for me (unless you are being classist or racist, then don't bother):

What is sick is the mentality of dependence that tells you to wait around for your mayor to tell you what to do instead of getting out of the way of a fucking hurricane 

http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=30244

Although some sceners will disagree I like it when demos actually have a solid direction and isn't just effect spamming (also it's a <200k dl so you can't go wrong as long as you have the hardware to run it). 

There's already one here
http://www.celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=60040

P.S. Reagan was the worst president, no question about it! 

It was your opinion I was after, not quotes from others.

Never mind, it's all in the past anyway. 

By the time I was feeling better yesterday evening, I made the mistake of humoring a wheedler with extremely low time expectations, a something for nothing type who feels others are there to amuse him and to generaly be his chump to get around to fullfilling your request.

You are right, the impetus for that argument is spent, but if you find yourself feeling up to it next weekend, give me an email hollar and I'll gladly see what I can come up with. 

Can someone give me the Cliff's of what the hell kind of clusterfuck I missed? 

I said 'Bush sucks' and then Calvin Coolidge rapes ponies, and then other people said stuff and now Thump and Inerto are going 1on1. In the angry flame war kind of way, not the sexual way. 

This guy rocks: http://www.mattiasadolfsson.se/ 

i'm glad that me asking your opinion and asking you some very basic questions means i am a "wheedler" and a "something for nothing type"