Research group finds creating boundaries key to reducing ethnic violence

Oct 13, 2011 by Bob Yirka report
Maps of Switzerland showing the 2000 census proportion of (A) linguistic groups, (B) Catholic and Protestant (Mercator projection). Image: arXiv:1110.1409v1

(PhysOrg.com) -- History is filled with examples of ethnic violence, the type that erupts when people with differing cultures attempt to live side by side. The Middle East comes to mind, as does Northern Ireland or Yugoslavia. What’s not so common are studies done that show what sorts of things actually work to prevent problems when people of dissimilar backgrounds live next door to one another. Thus, a new study done by Yaneer Bar-Yam and his team at the New England Complex Systems Institute, appears to be particularly relevant. He and his colleagues, describe in their paper on the preprint server arXiv, how a study they’ve done of the ethnically diverse country of Switzerland, shows that political and geographical boundaries have served to keep the peace between the different groups.

Switzerland, the very modern symbol of a peaceful country, might have gone another direction the team finds, were it not for the way the differing groups (French, German and Italian) and religions (Catholic and Protestant) have been physical grouped within the borders of the small country.

Those of German descent make up the largest group, taking up most of the north, central and eastern parts of the country while those with Italian backgrounds live predominately in the south; those of French descent have settled mainly in the west. Not surprisingly, those of the Catholic faith live predominately in the southern and middle parts of the country, due to the influx of those of Italian descent, while those of the Protestant faith live mainly in the rest of the country.

To find out how all these differing groups found a way to get along, the team looked at the geography of the country (mainly mountains and lakes) and how its regions are subdivided. In , areas of the country are partitioned into what are known as cantons, which are similar to states in other countries except that each has much more autonomy than is usual. After careful study, the team found that the main reason the groups all manage to get along, is because they are separated from one another. Each canton is comprised of almost all the same types of people, essentially ruling themselves, thus, there is very little overlap. Other areas are separated by lakes or mountains. The end result is that people of differing very seldom run into one another (except in the larger cites of course) and thus friction is averted. The one exception appears to be a little area north of Bern, where violence did erupt in the 1970’s. That problem was apparently fixed by simply redistricting the cantons in that area.

One problem with the study of course is that it doesn’t take into account the history of the land itself. The problems with India and Pakistan, for example, or with Israel and the rest of the aren’t likely to be solved by building better borders. But, nonetheless, the study does shed a rather bright light on the idea that simple separation can sometimes lead to peace. Not unlike how a schoolteacher might solve a problem between two quarreling youngsters.

Explore further: WSU 'deadly force' lab finds racial disparities in shootings

More information: Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence, arXiv:1110.1409v1 [physics.soc-ph] arXiv:1110.1409v1 [physics.soc-ph]

Abstract
We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model's success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups. Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

Related Stories

Earth from space: Central Europe

Apr 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- This Envisat image features an almost cloud-free look at a large portion of Europe. The Alps, with its white peaks, stand out in contrast against the vast areas still covered in brownish winter ...

Economic inequality is linked to biased self-perception

Aug 23, 2011

(Medical Xpress) -- Pretty much everybody thinks they’re better than average. But in some cultures, people are more self-aggrandizing than in others. Until now, national differences in “self-enhancement” have ...

Recommended for you

Precarious work schedules common among younger workers

Aug 29, 2014

One wish many workers may have this Labor Day is for more control and predictability of their work schedules. A new report finds that unpredictability is widespread in many workers' schedules—one reason ...

Girls got game

Aug 29, 2014

Debi Taylor has worked in everything from construction development to IT, and is well and truly socialised into male-dominated workplaces. So when she found herself the only female in her game development ...

Computer games give a boost to English

Aug 28, 2014

If you want to make a mark in the world of computer games you had better have a good English vocabulary. It has now also been scientifically proven that someone who is good at computer games has a larger ...

User comments : 165

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jaeherys
4 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2011
Sort of addressing the symptom isn't it? Boundaries aren't the solution, getting rid of our "differences" are, ie. religion. People should live with people, not Catholic people with Muslim people.

Obviously that's pretty black and white as just not liking another nation would have an affect, like was mentioned. But in that case the cause was religion, so it still applies.

We need to get rid of this naming convention and stop segregating into differing religous/cultural groups. Am not a white/western/atheist human, I am just a human and so are the rest of us.
tadchem
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2011
People do not come to blows over their similarities, they fight over their differences. When people with insurmountable differences are forced to live together, strife ensues. The fiercest wars are between 'brothers': Semitic Muslims vs Semitic Jews, Irish Catholics vs Irish Protestants, Serbs vs Croats, North Koreans vs South Koreans, etc.
ShotmanMaslo
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2011
Good fences make good neighbours, and this is true on a national level, too. This is one of those results that just makes sense.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2011
Boundaries may reduce intercultural tensions but increase international tensions. Not really a good (long term) solution.

When people with insurmountable differences are forced to live together, strife ensues.

Are there really such things as 'insurmountable' differences? We're all humans. At heart we all want the same things.

The fiercest wars are between 'brothers': Semitic Muslims vs Semitic Jews, Irish Catholics vs Irish Protestants, Serbs vs Croats, North Koreans vs South Koreans,

It's only ever a very few boneheads that want to secure a powerbase and therefore foster the perception that these diferences are fundamental. They know full well that most people would be happy to live with each other in peace and that they couldn't care less about the language/culture/religion of their neighbors.

But that would reduce the number of needed governments and bureacracies to one (or maybe even none). So they will do anything to foster strife.
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2011
Intolerance is the problem. Not specifically religions, races or politics. We need to stay out of other people's business and if we aren't hurting anyone others need to stay out of ours. When intolerance is taught by leaders and teachers and condoned within a society that is when problems are created. When your religion or politics specifies that others are of lesser worth for whatever reason, then there is a problem. People as a whole need to push back and no longer accept intolerance and teachings that denigrate fellow human beings.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2011
When your religion or politics specifies that others are of lesser worth for whatever reason, then there is a problem.

Or when govt 'leaders' promote differences and refuse to prosecute crimes like black intimidation of white voters.
SteveL
not rated yet Oct 13, 2011
When your religion or politics specifies that others are of lesser worth for whatever reason, then there is a problem.

Or when govt 'leaders' promote differences and refuse to prosecute crimes like black intimidation of white voters.
This isn't a singular issue. Problems exist in every group. The sooner we realise that we, from the perspective of the different groups, are also part of the problem the sooner the underlying issues can be addressed and the sooner we can take a hard look at our own lives and how we treat the people around us.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2011
With intolerance of "other-ness" being the problem, the solution is societal involvement and "having a dog in the race" as it were. This means that people need to feel a sense of incluciveness in the evolution of their society. They need a feeling of positive self worth and a sense of hope for themselves and their children. People also need to stay on the lookout for and suppress intolerance whenever and wherever it raises its ugly head. Eventually everyone looses when intolerance runs rampant
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (57) Oct 13, 2011
Marjon, I'm assuming you are speaking about the new black panther party, whose entire existence is based on a few photographs taken outside of a polling place in Philadelphia in 2008.

1. The police were called.
2. They left.

What do you want done? Should the FBI come in an lynch these two guys? Looking at the strawman the right has built up, it seems like that's the only thing that could shut up this idiocy.

But anyway, besides those 2 or 3 pictures that were taken at the one incident where no one was hurt, the police were called, and it was taken care of, please provide ANY EVIDENCE for organized black intimidation of white voters. Thank you. You won't find any.

Now do you want to talk about official mailings from the republican party telling black people the wrong day to vote or that you have to take drug tests, submit to searches etc. at the polling place?

The only person you are fooling is yourself.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2011
Sort of addressing the symptom isn't it? Boundaries aren't the solution, getting rid of our "differences" are, ie. religion. People should live with people, not Catholic people with Muslim people.


If only that was possible. Differences (political, religous, ethnic, you name it) are not going to dissappear anytime soon, IMHO.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2011
"The episodewhich Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)

One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"

In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. "
http://online.wsj...430.html
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (56) Oct 13, 2011
Yep and I mentioned that for you. Do you have other evidence? Where is the systematic effort to intimidate whites?
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2011
If only that was possible.

Why is this desirable?
Socialism is all about trying to force everyone to BE the same. This is NOT possible and why should it even be desirable?
What's wrong with infinite diversity with infinite combination?
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2011
"When the Justice Department under Obama and Holder said, Ah, there is no such thing as black-on-white crime; were not gonna prosecute that, "
http://exposethem...victims/
And we have a 'Justice' department that sells weapons to Mexican criminals and forgets to inform the Mexican govt. Good fences/borders make good neighbors.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (55) Oct 13, 2011
They dropped it because the local authorities handled it. Maybe if the "new black panther party" were a real organization and not just two losers in Philadelphia, you could provide evidence of systematic black on white voter intimidation (which doesn't exist) to the FBI if you are so concerned.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2011
Why is this desirable? Socialism is all about trying to force everyone to BE the same. This is NOT possible and why should it even be desirable?
What's wrong with infinite diversity with infinite combination?


Diversity is a good thing only up to a point. Too much diversity creates inevitable conflicts. Infinite diversity would lead to constant warfare or conflicts.

Its all well explained in the article above.
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2011
Intolerance is the problem.


True tolerance includes an intolerance towards intolerance, tough.
SteveL
5 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2011
Intolerance is the problem.


True tolerance includes an intolerance towards intolerance, tough.
The point should be that it is OK to be different, provided that difference does not threaten, denigrate or tread upon the rights of others. As an example: I think the folks who go out to do the Burning Man event in the valley next to mine (my retirement property) in Nevada are a bunch of kooks. But as along as they aren't harming anyone I'll speak up to defend their right to be kooks. If you feel the need to kneel and pray five times a day I'll respect and defend your right to do so, as long as you respect my right to choose otherwise.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2011
The point should be that it is OK to be different, provided that difference does not threaten, denigrate or tread upon the rights of others.

Hear, hear!

But, this threatens the socialist who wants everyone to be the same.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2011
The socialist yes. But not social democrat.
FrankHerbert
0.7 / 5 (55) Oct 13, 2011
I want to know where you guys go to learn what _____ wants. Marjon seems to have an encyclopedia of group motivations with him at all times. Where can one find such an almanac? It'd be nice to be able to look this stuff up. Reading minds gets tiring after awhile.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2011
Most of the world's conflicts today are the result of the world powers trying to force various ethnic groups into a nation-state not of their choice:
Yugoslavia, Iraq, USSR (which recognized this and forcibly tried to integrate their population), Northern Ireland, ...
The Swiss succeed because of their strong federalism, which the USA once aspired to.
In the USA we see what happens when the planners try to force the issue by busing children to different schools and forcing banks to lend money to people who can't afford the loan.

social democrat.

That's oxymoronic is it not? 50% plus 1 can force the minority to do what the majority wants? How does that promote a civil society?
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2011
Yaneer Bar-Yam and his team

...are full of crap.

According to them peace would be brought on by separation. I guess we should have seperate schools for different races. Seperate schools for those of different religious beliefs. I guess America needs highschools strictly for black children, highschools strictly for white kids, highschools strictly for Christians and so forth. What a bunch of nonsense.

Yaneer Bar-Yam
is either an idiot or he is payed to put forth this bull***t.

Wake up people.
NameIsNotNick
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2011
Or when govt 'leaders' promote differences and refuse to prosecute crimes like black intimidation of white voters.


Ahh, another FOX News fan...
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2011
According to them peace would be brought on by separation.

The key is whether integration or segregation is forced by the state.
In the Swiss example, there was no force and the govt redrew boundary lines to reflect this.
This is what politicians do with Gerrymandering is it not? And they do so to genitally create ethnic majorities. Trouble is, it does not help the minorities much, only the politicians.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2011
The headline should read "...recognizing boundaries.." instead of "...creating boundaries..."
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2011
Or when govt 'leaders' promote differences and refuse to prosecute crimes like black intimidation of white voters.


Ahh, another FOX News fan...

If you get your 'news' from the regime propagandists you didn't hear about how the Obama administration sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels?
stanfrax
5 / 5 (1) Oct 13, 2011
its all down to nurture - its the jungle book senario - if born in a forest raised by wolfs you would be running around howling and think nothing of it - our planet has been structured educated and built on greed
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2011
its all down to nurture - its the jungle book senario - if born in a forest raised by wolfs you would be running around howling and think nothing of it - our planet has been structured educated and built on greed

Yep, raised by socialists, act like socialists. But you don't ever leave the jungle.
Self-interest in a capitalist, free market, rule of law, private property society creates liberty and prosperity and brings individuals out of the jungle.
I heard one of the '99%' say I, and everyone else, should give him food, shelter,education and whatever he wants and he shouldn't have to do anything for it.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2011
"For over a hundred years, F.A. Hayek wrote in 1961, we have been exhorted to embrace socialism because it would give us more goods. Since it has so lamentably failed to achieve this we are now urged to adopt it because more goods after all are not important.

Read more: http://dailycalle...ahtfOKkS
That's just what stan said, everyone is too greedy.
MRBlizzard
3 / 5 (4) Oct 13, 2011
Good fences do good neighbors make.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 14, 2011
If only that was possible. Differences (political, religous, ethnic, you name it) are not going to dissappear anytime soon

So? Is that a reason to perpetuate them by fencing them off from each other? How will that solve the issue?
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
It ensures the mutually damaging conflicts wont happen (as said in the study), and it also ensures the worse culture (usually having higher poverty thus tending to emigrate, and higher birth rate) wont colonize and outbreed the better culture.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Oct 14, 2011
It ensures the mutually damaging conflicts wont happen


While intermingled groups may evince a steady amount of low level conflict, separated groups will just spend the time entrenching or acquiring means of preemption (via an organized military apparatus). Eventually every military in history has been used because of one reason or another - though mostly not because of real threat but just because of internal problems which needed to be quelled by fostering PR about an external foe. Napolean did this, Hitler did this, and all US presidents since Eisenhower have done this.

Setting up borders and segragating people is just a huge waste of resources and makes the problem - when it comes - only much, much worse.

wont colonize and outbreed the better culture.

If you let cultures mingle then they won't outbreed each other (does any one group in the US outbreed another?)
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
While intermingled groups may evince a steady amount of low level conflict, separated groups will just spend the time entrenching or acquiring means of preemption (via an organized military apparatus). Eventually every military in history has been used because of one reason or another


Steady state of low level conflict will create hate that will do wonders to increase military spending or segregation.

Setting up borders and segragating people is just a huge waste of resources and makes the problem - when it comes - only much, much worse.


I disagree, and this research does, too.

Put two incompatible cultures together, they will fight and hate each other to death, fueling a "us or them" mentality. Put them next to each other separated by a fat fence, and they will slowly evolve to accomodate and even resemble each other through peaceful dialogue and exchange of ideas.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2011
Steady state of low level conflict will create hate that will do wonders to increase military spending or segregation.

A steady state of not having borders will mean that you can actually work at reducing the hate. Prime example is the Alsace/Lorraine region between France and Germany. As long as there were hard borders there were resentiments between the groups on both sides. This was augmented by several wars and the regions changing hands multiple times (with the attendant 'ethnic' cleansings). Today the resentiments have almost disapeared. there are no more sides. It's all just part of Europe with a french or german bent.

Put two incompatible cultures together

What is an 'incopatible culture'? Many muslims live nicely in the US. Many people of asian origin get along with those of italian or irish descent. Most blacks get along well with whits. It's only ever a few diehard nationalists/fundamentalists that stir up trouble.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 14, 2011
As long as there were hard borders there were resentiments between the groups on both sides.


As long as there were two sides living in one space, there was resentment and conflicts.

Today the resentiments have almost disapeared. there are no more sides. It's all just part of Europe with a french or german bent.


Today its all part of France since WW2 and dominated by french culture, which is why there is peace. Not to mention that all over Europe conflicts have disappeared, so it may be a biased comparison.

It's only ever a few diehard nationalists/fundamentalists that stir up trouble.


Yep, I mean the diehards. They are few only because the US is separated by half the globe from actual muslim countries, which are chock-full of diehards.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2011
Scandinavia is learning the hard way their tolerant culture and the Muslim culture do not mix.
I suspect there would be less resentment and fewer Muslim rapes and attacks on Scandinavian women if the law was enforced regardless of ethnicity or culuture.
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2011
In my opinion fences are a kind of cop out. They act as an admission of failure and inability to change and mature.

Hate speech should not be condoned in a society, whether the source is from the lecturn, the stump or the pulpet. It's up to individual citizens to speak up and declare some types of speech or print as innapropriate and harmful. Care should be taken though to allow for the free flow of opinions, but speech that denigrates or is abusive to others has no place in a civilized society. Those societies that allow such eventually reap what they sew with the blood of their children. As an example consider pre-WWII Japan and Germany where elitism was indoctrinated into their children. The cost in blood was incredible, not just for surrounding peoples but also for their own nation's children.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (56) Oct 14, 2011
Scandinavia is learning the hard way their tolerant culture and the Muslim culture do not mix.


Marjon, what exactly was "tolerant" about Anders Breivik's actions?

http://en.wikiped..._Breivik

"Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian right-wing extremist, confessed perpetrator of the Norway attacks on 22 July 2011: the bombing of government buildings in Oslo that resulted in eight deaths, and the mass shooting at a camp of the Workers' Youth League (AUF) of the Labour Party on the island of Utøya where he killed 69 people, mostly teenagers."

"[Breivik's manifesto] regards Islam and 'cultural Marxism' as the enemy, and argues for the violent annihilation of 'Eurabia' and multiculturalism, to preserve a Christian Europe."

I suspect there would be less resentment and fewer Muslim rapes and attacks on Scandinavian women if the law was enforced regardless of ethnicity or culuture.


Fascist propaganda.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2011
What will Norway do if Breivik is convicted? He will spend a few years in a nice country club prison.
How about all the Muslim rapes in Scandinavia and other Muslim attacks?
But of course you call it propaganda as that is all you know.
Is Sharia law propaganda?
'Liberalism' has to be a mental disorder as the tolerant 'liberals' tolerate Muslim law that allows women to be raped and homosexuals to be murdered. Or, are 'liberals' really NOT what they claim to be?
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (13) Oct 14, 2011
" Liberals also like to pretend they are tolerant and accepting of those who are different, but when it comes to anyone not ensconced in their progressive, elitist dogma - especially minorities - they mock and attack them, much as they did to Juan Williams when he was at NPR (and as they are now doing to Cain).

The strategy of Cain's detractors might be to intimidate and call him names, but the more they ridicule and insult him, the more they look desperate to play the race card in a country that desperately needs to move on from racial outdated tension.

Read more: http://www.nydail...amY7xFjI
"
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
Switzerland is spared ethnic strife and war because they are official guardians of the Vatican. Thus they are spared the subterfuge provoked worldwide by the Jesuit Black Pope and his army of 40,000 trained in dividing all peoples in the world, and banking the blood money profits largely in Switzerland courtesy of the Rothchilds Vatican bankers.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
New borns don't know whether they're
French, German [or] Italian.
New borns don't know whether they're
Catholic [or] Protestant.


It is the teachings of separatists (politicians, popes, etc.) that drives these wooden wedges into the ground. These are the fence posts.
-----
"Divide and Conquer." Ever hear this line? Do you know what it means?

We need to stop falling for the same old tricks. Wisen up to this. This same practice has been used since the beginning of history.

Enough division. It is time to unite. We are smarter than this people. Do not let them divide us.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2011
This same practice has been used since the beginning of history.

And why is this? Children do know what family they are from.
That is the motivation, biology,survival, to pass along our genes.
People voluntarily organize to support that self interest. When those organizations usurp that authority and believe their organization must survive at the expense of the individuals that created the orgainzation, then problems arise.
Sigh
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
Scandinavia is learning the hard way their tolerant culture and the Muslim culture do not mix.

Please do elaborate. Does "learning the hard way" refer to Anders Behring Breivik's attacks?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (64) Oct 15, 2011
We need to get rid of this naming convention and stop segregating into differing religous/cultural groups. Am not a white/western/atheist human, I am just a human and so are the rest of us.


Maybe in another thousands years humans will rid themselves of the superficial differences between us that causes "cultures" to exist, then final there may be peace,... but we are now not then.

Breivik was a evil monster pos. This does not render the fact that "multiculturalism" and "forced diversity", is just another liberal fraud and failed idealistic social experiment. Full cultural assimilation should be mandatory condition for immigration.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 15, 2011
Scandinavia is learning the hard way their tolerant culture and the Muslim culture do not mix.

Please do elaborate. Does "learning the hard way" refer to Anders Behring Breivik's attacks?

No.
It's local police fearing to enforce the law in Muslim neighborhoods.
"Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semitic hate crimes "
http://www.telegr...mes.html
"Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. " http://www.aftenp...0268.ece
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2011
"Patrick Åserud has had enough of pressure about salami-free food, blond-hate and horrible language skills.

I will not let my children grow up here. I do not dare to.

He has made up his mind. After spending his whole life in Groruddalen [a district of Oslo], the developments of the past year have frightened Patrick Åserud into leaving. In the coming summer he will move with his wife and kindergarten-age daughter from Furuset [in Groruddalen], and out of the city.

He is moving from a local area he thinks is on its way to falling apart due to the heavy weight of failed integration."
http://bigpeace.c...-school/
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (62) Oct 15, 2011
We need to get rid of this naming convention and stop segregating into differing religous/cultural groups. Am not a white/western/atheist human, I am just a human and so are the rest of us.


Maybe in another thousands years humans will rid themselves of the superficial differences between us that causes "cultures" to exist, then final there may be peace,... but we are now not then.

Breivik was a evil monster pos. This does not render the fact that "multiculturalism" and "forced diversity", is just another liberal fraud and failed idealistic social experiment. Full cultural assimilation should be mandatory condition for immigration.


Should be "does not render the fact false, that,..."
Turritopsis
3 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
Children learn to fear what their parents fear. Parents fear from what they see happening in the world. Politics and religion cause world turmoil. Politicians work to keep you afraid of your neighbors. Politicians create wars to make you believe your neighbors hate you. By keeping you afraid they keep you separate from one another. This is their plan. They want you afraid. When no wars are possible they will fund terrorists to attack you. Your own leaders will attack you to terrorize you and keep you afraid. Then they step in and save you from the very people they hire to terrorize you. This causes you to hate and fear your neighbors.

Fear the wolf in sheeps clothing.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2011
People will listen to you and follow you when they feel they can't trust anyone but you.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2011
Breivik was a evil monster pos. This does not render the fact that "multiculturalism" and "forced diversity", is just another liberal fraud and failed idealistic social experiment.
A monster, yes, and moreover one of your guys.
Politicians work to keep you afraid of your neighbors. Politicians create wars to make you believe your neighbors hate you.
Politicians deliver voters to their constituency, who in turn turn tricks and do favors for those who report to Nazi Pope and the Rothschilds Vatican bankers, who store much of their stolen wealth in Switzerland. That makes it a nice place with a safe haven currency, wonderful chocolate and koo-koo clocks.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2011
Scandinavia is learning the hard way their tolerant culture and the Muslim culture do not mix.

Please do elaborate. Does "learning the hard way" refer to Anders Behring Breivik's attacks?
ryggesogn2 doesn't elaborate. He trolls and reveals his badly hidden racism for anyone darker than himself, unless of course they are his handlers who compensate him for his Randoid astroturfing spam on this board. He reveres any ethnicity that will do that, even above his own.
Yaneer
not rated yet Oct 15, 2011
If different groups mix, the theory also says they will not be in conflict. Boundaries are only needed if they choose to separate.

Looking at the map of Switzerland (and the map of the former Yugoslavia) clarifies the question that is being asked by the paper. The boundaries enable peaceful coexistence under conditions where there are separate domains that result from where people choose to live.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2011
Different groups have mixed quite well in places like Singapore and Hong Kong thanks to the rule of law.
Sigh
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
I suspect there would be less resentment and fewer Muslim rapes and attacks on Scandinavian women if the law was enforced regardless of ethnicity or culuture.


Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study.

Where in the article you cited is the evidence that Muslims are not prosecuted? And did you notice that immigrant women are overrepresented among the victims? Doesn't look like a campaign directed against Scandinavian women.

If you search for an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on the same subject, you'll find limited support for your point. Unfortunately for you, it seems it is not Islam that is the primary risk factor, but extreme social conservatism.

Different groups have mixed quite well in places like Singapore and Hong Kong thanks to the rule of law.

You do have a point there. That Swedish mayor has a lot to learn.
Kafpauzo
4 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
If cultural differences made it impossible for humans to get along, then places like London and New York would have been scenes of perpetual war through centuries, as would almost all large cities.

Humans are not mindless slaves under some insurmountable instinct to fight whenever we encounter a cultural difference.

However, we do have instincts that make some of us react with very strong aggression when we feel discriminated, oppressed and slighted. We also have instincts that can make us mindlessly follow leaders who incite conflict and hate. And psychopathic leaders have instincts to do whatever it takes for personal profit, like inciting hate and war.

Those are the dangers.

In almost all large conflicts, the real enemy is not the culturally different people, it's the leaders, on both sides, helping each other incite hate for profit.

When we live together, with cultural differences, this helps us learn tolerance, so we have a better chance of resisting such leaders.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2011
Islam does seem to be a primary risk factor driving native Norwegians from their neighborhoods as the Muslims refuse to assimilate or even tolerate their neighbors.
But why should anyone expect Muslims to assimilate or tolerate. Islam means 'to submit', not adapt.
When we live together, with cultural differences, this helps us learn tolerance,

If the culture is prone to tolerance, maybe.
Why are do 'liberals' so readily accommodate Muslims but won't for Jews or Christians? Could it be they fear Muslim violence?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
Why are do 'liberals' so readily accommodate Muslims but won't for Jews or Christians? Could it be they fear Muslim violence?
Authoritarian-loving conservative counter-reformationist worms more precisely. Known as brownshirts in WWII.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2011
The brown-shirts were socialists, much like the labor union thugs of today.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
If cultural differences made it impossible for humans to get along, then places like London and New York would have been scenes of perpetual war through centuries, as would almost all large cities.


Places like London and New York are quite monocultural (we will see how the muslim minority gets along with other groups, tough). The last time when they were really multicultural was when native tribes were around.

Kafpauzo
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2011
You should get to know some ordinary Muslim families. They are regular people like you and me. They take the kids to the daycare, discuss football, get stressed at work and come home tired, simply regular people like you and me.

The difference is that they get to clean floors, while you and I get the flashy jobs. Imagine that you were perpetually locked out from the nice life, like they are. Imagine that you see your parents and relatives humiliated in this way. Wouldn't you feel some resentment?

And still they are just regular people.

Of course there are exceptions. Some radical youngsters let their resentment explode. Some psychopathic leaders exploit the youngsters' resentment. As I said, the psychopathic leaders are the problem, not the regular people.

Psychopathy is not a religion. Islam is not psychopathy. Psychopathy is a psychiatric condition that affects a certain percentage of people regardless of religion. Roughly the same percentage everywhere. They are the problem.
Kafpauzo
5 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2011
I'm more worried about the those who despise Muslims. Those who take every opportunity to spread hate and prejudice.

We can see them spreading their hate every day in comment fields in newspapers and blogs. Their constant flood of poison flows all the time. All the time.

Somehow these hate spreaders think that they themselves are better people than the Muslim regular families. Even though they spread hate, constantly poisoning the atmosphere. Even though they step on the downtrodden, to worsen their suffering and deepen their despair.

So these poison spreaders and oppressors are better people than regular families? Yeah, right.

And the danger to society is the regular families? The dangerous conflicts will be created by the regular families? The haters and oppressors will not cause any conflicts? The haters can spread any amount of hate and prejudice without causing any conflicts?

Sure.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (63) Oct 16, 2011
Why are do 'liberals' so readily accommodate Muslims but won't for Jews or Christians? Could it be they fear Muslim violence?
Authoritarian-loving conservative counter-reformationist worms more precisely. Known as brownshirts in WWII.


Modern conservatives desire LESS government while modern liberalism (especially far left socialists) desire MORE involved government,... so your phrase "Authoritarian-loving conservative" is meaningless non-sense, and further you don't have the historical sense to draw comparisons between "conservatives" of one era and that of another era.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2011
You should get to know some ordinary Muslim families. They are regular people like you and me.

Of course they are, but they too are intimidated and afraid of their 'fellow' Muslims they don't speak up and out.
If they are so ordinary, why are they driving out tolerant Norwegians from Oslo neighborhoods? Why should the Muslims demand Norwegians stop eating pork?
Before I went to Jeddah, I met a Muslim man in a Las Vegas park preparing his Ramadan dinner, waiting for sunset. He didn't insist that everyone around him refrain from eating, drinking..
In Jeddah, during Ramadan, we were prohibited from eating, drinking , etc in front of Muslims during the day. They modified their work schedules so they could sleep longer into the day.
Some Muslims in the west do not demand accommodation. Some do demand the govt force others to accommodate them which does not support a tolerance.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (64) Oct 16, 2011
The brown-shirts were socialists, much like the labor union thugs of today.


Absolutely, In fact the far leftest "Occupy Wall Street" mush-heads, whom are supported by unions, are also backed by the existing Nazi and Communist groups by their own official statements,...

http://www.thegat...ovement/
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
Modern conservatives desire LESS government while modern liberalism (especially far left socialists) desire MORE involved government,... so your phrase "Authoritarian-loving conservative" is meaningless non-sense, and further you don't have the historical sense to draw comparisons between "conservatives" of one era and that of another era.
Maybe in your head. However the huge budget deficits and government expansions have all happened under GOP presidents. Rather than making stuff up and destroying what credibility you had, you should have researched. Understand this is a science site and that's what scientists do.

Conservatisivm is simply a brand name, having nothing to do with the word itself. Likewise Nazis infiltrated German though the socialist party to grab power, and the ignorant actually think the name has something to do with their agenda and theology. In fact the socialists were in power in Germany, and by their insurrection Nazis grabbed the keys to power.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
Absolutely, In fact the far leftest "Occupy Wall Street" mush-heads, whom are supported by unions, are also backed by the existing Nazi and Communist groups by their own official statements,...http://www.thegat...ovement/
Had you actually READ you own link, you would have found that the Nazis have an interest in overpowering Jews because they claim Jews have occupied powerful positions to which the Nazis feel entitled. There is nothing liberal about their position. They simply want to oust a perceived competitor, likely by employing genocide. That is completely in keeping with right-wing conservatism. Remember that the conservatives were the traitors who aligned themselves with England in the American Revolutionary War.
ryggesogn2
3.6 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2011
K, if you still don't get it, the GOP is NOT the tea party. The GOP does NOT like tea parties and you see how the establishment Republicans are supporting big govt Republicans like Romney or Christie or Huntsman.
The ONLY group supporting limiting govt power are the conservatives.
In fact the socialists were in power in Germany, and by their insurrection Nazis grabbed the keys to power.

That is why it was so easy for the national socialists to seize power, the people were already socialists.
Power is what the statists of all parties lust for. They have this fantasy they will either create paradise on earth or they will then be able to take their share of the plunder and stomp down their opponents.
As Batiat described the only legitimate function of the govt is to protect property, not legalize plunder. End the ability to plunder and govt becomes a function demanding responsibility which few really want.
And K, NAZIs were and are socialists.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
The brown-shirts were socialists, much like the labor union thugs of today.
I've roundly defeated you in debate about Nazis and socialism. Far greater minds than yourself have researched this topic, and concluded the opposite. All you can do is continue to regurgitate you pathetic mantra, like some brainwashed cult member. You know what Albert Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? The result is that you have a credibility somewhat below a Nigerian spammer.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2011
There is nothing liberal about socialism.
FDR usurped the term for his socialist policies. Classical liberalism is what von Mises and Hayek supported, which is anti-socialism.
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2011
I've roundly defeated you in debate about Nazis and socialism.

In your dreams.
Mises and Hayek, who both experienced pre NAZI and post NAZI socialism agree, NAZIs were socialists.
Maybe that make you uncomfortable, too bad. NAZIs supported govt control of the economy and did not respect or protect private property, just like all other socialists.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2011
And K, NAZIs were and are socialists.
Adolf Hitler's membership card for the German Workers' Party. http://upload.wik...mber.png

Hitler wanted to create his own party, but was ordered by his superiors in the Reichswehr to infiltrate an existing one instead. http://en.wikiped...99_Party
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2011
"The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National Socialism is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to socialism of the chair and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.

One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too -as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment -have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement."
By Friedrich August von Hayek Spring 1933

Hoover Institution, F. A. Hayek Papers, Box/Folder 10
ryggesogn2
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2011
'Liberal' to Hayek meant limited govt, free markets and individual liberty.
It is now called classical liberalism.
"The famous 25 points drawn up by Herr Feder,[2] one of Hitlers early allies, repeatedly endorsed by Hitler and recognized by the by-laws of the National-Socialist party as the immutable basis of all its actions, which together with an extensive commentary is circulating throughout Germany in many hundreds of thousands of copies, is full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists. But the dominant feature is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic -individualistic profit seeking, large scale enterprise, banks, joint-stock companies, department stores, international finance and loan capital, the system of interest slavery in general; "
Hayek, 1933
kochevnik
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2011
...whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to socialism of the chair and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
That completely documents what I have said: Naziism and communism are right-wing movements. Thanks for proving my point, again!
One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners.
Exactly. Naziism is simply right-wing corporatism. Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, man.

"Classical liberalism" is a pseudonym for the Bankster buddy party.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (62) Oct 16, 2011
Modern conservatives desire LESS government while modern liberalism {..} desire MORE involved government,... so your phrase "Authoritarian-loving conservative" is meaningless non-sense, and further you don't have the historical sense to draw comparisons between "conservatives" of one era and that of another era.


Maybe in your head. However the huge budget deficits and government expansions have all happened under GOP presidents. Rather than making stuff up and destroying what credibility you had, you should have researched. {...}


The president doesn't have authority over spending, so your statement is typical "liberal-facts", aka non-nonsensical.

Only the congress has constitutional authority over government spending.

If you analyze based on Dem vrs Rep controlled congress, you would find that Dem held congress results in twice the debt responsibility.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2011
Regardless of what you think of 'left' or 'right' NAZIs were socialists.
Corporatism is socialism as well.
Legal plunder is socialism.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (62) Oct 16, 2011
The argument, who is more a Nazi, modern dems or modern Reps is meaningless non-sense, and historically out of context.

Facts: Despite Bush failing to live up to modern conservative principals and the Iraq war (spending approved by dems), conservatism proper, is for smaller, less involved government,... while liberalism (and obviously socialism) is for an expanding and more involved government.

It's obvious that kochevnik gets his "facts" from the Huffington Post.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2011
Regardless of what you think of 'left' or 'right' NAZIs were socialists.
Corporatism is socialism as well.
Legal plunder is socialism.
Because YOU and many with impoverished education say so. It's your little mantra. It's in all your SPAM. Right........
The president doesn't have authority over spending, so your statement is typical "liberal-facts", aka non-nonsensical.
I see you would likely fail a citizenship test. Do you even know what a veto is?
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2011
"Fannie and Freddie, Still the Socialites"
http://www.nytime...business
Another example of the US socialism, GSEs.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (63) Oct 16, 2011
The president doesn't have authority over spending, so your statement is typical "liberal-facts", aka non-nonsensical.


I see you would likely fail a citizenship test. Do you even know what a veto is?


So, now your argument is that it's the GOP's fault for not stopping democratic congress from spending,... 'Had the GOP stopped the democratically held congress from spending, then maybe the GOP would have been responsible for authorizing more spending?'!!!??? LOL

I don't have time to go through every piece of legislation to see what the circumstance were, nor can I. The notion of a veto is irrelevant as the issue is who is responsible for spending more,... ONLY CONGRESS CAN SPEND MONEY. Sometimes bills have to be passed as they include many things.

In anycase the rise of the Tea Party was due to DISSATISFACTION with the GOP wrt tax and spend.
Pirouette
2.2 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2011
Well, I haven't time to read everyone's comments from beginning to end b/c it's getting late and I'm tired. However, I want to say that I AM a proud American Conservative and the only candidates I would like to see get nominated for President and Vice-President are Herman Cain and either Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin for VP draftee. Marco Rubio would also be great, but he doesn't want to be VP at this time. Obama the Socialist/Marxist and head empty-suit will possibly attempt martial law if it seems that he is not going to be reelected. He already has his "army" of union goons, new black panthers, the American Communist Party, La Raza, other fringe groups and every kook and snotnosed college student he can muster. Oh, and don't forget the former hippie college professors. This is NOT a situation of "can't we just all get along" as in Switzerland.
Pirouette
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2011
There are too many factions in our country who want to bring down our Republic and make it into a horrible sewer of total dependence on government by the nonworkers, at the expense of those who are productive and hard working. We cannot afford to allow this monstrous future to happen to our beloved country and to our good people.
Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2011
Whatever it takes, we must do to preserve our nation and out U.S. Constitution. Other countries will have to work out their own problems and we will work out ours. But we must not allow that scourge from the U.S.S.R. to happen here. It is an abomination and must be stopped. Every true American who has pride in his/her country and its way of life must sacrifice along with the rest of us. Whatever it takes will be done.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (66) Oct 16, 2011
The truth is this site is rather infested with far leftists, and is not representative of main stream America. In 2012 there will be a repeat of 2010 wrt to conservatives taking seats, and the novelty president will be out. When this happens, and it will,... they better have security out in force because "the unpleasant and unsophisticated"* will be out in numbers creating havoc.

*by which I mean the democratic base, the young and ignorant, the government dependent entitlement groups, thug union members, and the victim groups, some of whom we see protesting Wall Street now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2011
I am appalled.
After careful study, the team found that the main reason the groups all manage to get along, is because they are separated from one another
-I glanced through all the comments here and it seems no one recognizes that GROWTH is the problem??

Conflict has always occurred when neighboring tribes grew and began to contend for resources. The advent of agriculture only made this worse because it allowed tribes to grow much faster. It became obvious that the only way to prevail in these conflicts was to outgrow the enemy, which made the problem worse again.

Religions were tailored to maximize growth. This is the major cause of conflict today. Even the Swiss, the epitome of western culture, is infused with the residue of obsolete religionism. Only the zero growth of westernism has kept them peaceful.

Borders cannot contain cultures designed to grow beyond their means. We see this in the Balkans, in Kashmir, gaza, kurdistan, and wherever there is trouble.
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2011
@Noumenon If you analyze based on Dem vrs Rep controlled congress, you would find that Dem held congress results in twice the debt responsibility.
It would appear that someone spiked your kool-aid: http://jimcgreevy...art.html
Shootist
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2011
the signal to noise ratio is very low.

the real problem isn't whether people can live together, peaceably, or not.

The problem is that some people believe they know what is best for the rest and are willing to use most any means to achieve their goal. These do-gooders are no different than any other despot (note: Neither Hitler nor Stalin were mentioned in the production of this paragraph).
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (63) Oct 17, 2011
@Noumenon If you analyze based on Dem vrs Rep controlled congress, you would find that Dem held congress results in twice the debt responsibility.
It would appear that someone spiked your kool-aid: http://jimcgreevy...art.html


Look Einstein, it's just complicated enough for each side to BS the other side. The bottom line is congress has authority over passing spending bills. I'm not wasting my time adding up bill by bill to determine who's full of shit.

It doesn't matter in any case, because by a simple analysis of principals as exposed by the left and right it is clear that conservatives want less spending and less government, while the left want the opposite. That Bush did not live up to conservative ideals and that Obama did not live up to liberal ideals (they're not happy with him) is merely circumstancial. We're speaking of principals.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2011
@Noumenon If you analyze based on Dem vrs Rep controlled congress, you would find that Dem held congress results in twice the debt responsibility.
It would appear that someone spiked your kool-aid: http://jimcgreevy...art.html


Look Einstein, it's just complicated enough for each side to BS the other side. The bottom line is congress has authority over passing spending bills. I'm not wasting my time adding up bill by bill to determine who's full of shit.

It doesn't matter in any case, because by a simple analysis of principals as exposed by the left and right it is clear that conservatives want less spending and less government, while the left want the opposite. That Bush did not live up to conservative ideals and that Obama did not live up to liberal ideals (they're not happy with him) is merely circumstancial. We're speaking of principals.
Yeah so why did debt sink to zero under clinton? More taxes and less war? What are your thoughts?
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (63) Oct 17, 2011
The republicans controlled congress after the first few years of Clinton. Clinton being a man of practicality rather than being purely idealogical, moved to the center; really he had little choice. Clinton begin the pressure of banks to give loans to under qualified home buyers.

"The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 led to a push for a balanced budget as part of the Republican Contract with America campaign, continuing deficit reductions by President Clinton consistent with his 1992 campaign promise. Despite political conflicts with President Clinton, the Congress and Clinton eliminated the deficit entirely and the nation enjoyed surpluses in the Federal budget for the first time since the 1960s." - Wiki
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2011
Yeah so why did debt sink to zero under clinton?

Debt did not sink to zero.
National debt, 1/20/1993: 4,188,092,107,183.60
National debt, 1/19/2001: 5,727,776,738,304.64
Debt increase during Clinton administration (8 years): $1,539,684,631,121.04
Bush (8years): $4,901,104,747,205.59
Obama (2.75 years): $4,247,168,619,378.27
projected Obama (4years): $6,177,699,810,004.75
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2011
then there was the computer technology bubble during the Clinton administration. Computers, software, all kinds of digital gadgets brought high amounts of revenue into the treasury and jobs were plentiful. But it wasn't to last. The bubble burst shortly after GWBush won the election and a lot of tech companies went under. Not because of the Republicans, but the digital good times was artificially supported and deflated after awhile. Unfortunately for Bush. When 9/11 happened, it was another bubble, only that time it was the military-industrial complex that benefited. Bush just happened to be at the right place at the wrong time
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2011
@ryggesogn2 which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to socialism of the chair and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.
Why do you dislike communists? Indeed your handlers the Koch brothers made their vast fortune to rant about libertarianism from none other than Josef Stalin. They receive enormous subsidies from the US taxpayer. Enough to constitute most of their profits. Your hero Ayn Rand lived on government handouts while penning her great thoughts. Your heroes are welfare queens of the greatest degree: a product of the very socialism they disparage.

Indeed I laugh at your Randoids because it proves the very power of the USSR model to remold your weak character. You are progeny of Bolshevism.
kochevnik
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
...the digital good times was artificially supported and deflated after awhile. Unfortunately for Bush. When 9/11 happened, it was another bubble, only that time it was the military-industrial complex that benefited. Bush just happened to be at the right place at the wrong time
If you had followed the US stock market at the new millennium, you would have seen that it took a dive immediately upon Bush's inauguration. The very same week. Smart money doesn't place it's hope on the chimp.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2011
Yeah so why did debt sink to zero under clinton?

Debt did not sink to zero.
National debt, 1/20/1993: 4,188,092,107,183.60
National debt, 1/19/2001: 5,727,776,738,304.64
Debt increase during Clinton administration (8 years): $1,539,684,631,121.04
Bush (8years): $4,901,104,747,205.59
Obama (2.75 years): $4,247,168,619,378.27
projected Obama (4years): $6,177,699,810,004.75
So explain The mcgreevy barchart that kochevnik posted. Where do those numbers come from?
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 18, 2011
Why do you dislike communists?

Becuase they have murdered milions of people and destroyed liberty and prosperity for millions more.
Communism brings everyone DOWN to a lowest common denomiator by crushing dreams, hope and opportunity instead of creating an environment that enables individuals to strive, prosper and have the opportunity to exceed all the goals they set for themselves.
Communism is the equal sharing of misery. Capitalism is the unequal blessings of prosperity.
Why do you like communists? Do you like the power rush? Or do you have so mush resentment and envy you must tear others down to build yourself up?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (63) Oct 18, 2011
I think their fundamental premise is that wealth is something to be distributed equally amongst people who are equal as subjects of the state. Individuals are less important than the state.

This is an unnatural and unscientific approach and has failed over and over. It is a natural and intrinsic instinct of man that he is more important than the state,.. so right off he is asked to ignore egoism, as if that was in his power to do so. Not all individual men are naturally equal, yet he is asked to live as if he is no better than anyone else, ...he is asked again to ignore observation. Wealth is something that is created if the motive force of personal liberty and profit exists,.., yet commies squander the very notion of wealth and let such powerful motive for it's creation sit idle. A crime.

Communism oppresses natural instincts of man while capitalism takes advantage of that natural force. It is clear even to a forth grader which system has increased the standard of living more.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2011
Communism oppresses natural instincts of man

Jesus tried to teach individuals to VOLUNTARILY suppress their baser instincts.
God said as much in 1 Samuel 8 when His people demanded a king. God warned us what govt will demand. Maybe this is why Lenin demanded all communist party members must be atheists. Communism replaced Christianity and Judaism.
I will defend any communists right to live in a commune if they so choose. There are many communes in the USA where people can choose to live.
Trouble starts when the communists can't compete and decide they have to force people to live and stay in the commune.

Back to the main topic of the article, borders work best when people are allowed to freely choose in which boundary to live. It creates competition for residents.
Joe_Shephard
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
For those of you in large cities, how did you pick a place to live? You definitely looked at ethnicity even though you may be hesitant to admit it. Nations have historically been composed of people united in language, religion and ethnicity. Multi-ethnic nations are empires with one group lording over less powerful ones. There is talk about reuniting Korea but never uniting Korea with Japan. Sounds silly, right? Apply the same principle to other nations.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2011
"In 2010, the tea party movement struck the first blow to the Establishment by working within the Republican Party to elect limited government, constitutional conservatives. Because their aim is to return power to individuals and localities, the tea party is the only organic, grass roots movement in this country that is by its very nature subversive to the political Establishment and therefore to the culture of The Bigs."
http://www.realcl...705.html
If one opposes tea parties, one must be for a more powerful central state, aka socialism.
People like k and other useful indiots are socialists fighting amongst other socialists who will be 'more equal'.
kaasinees
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Let the religious kill each other, its a good example to the world that religion doesn't work. Those who have a bit of common sense can stay out of it and do what we do.
I strongly believe that government should not acknowledge any religion, no laws that mentions any religion. If they want to build a church they should raise their own money.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2011
But socialism is a religion. It must be as one must have much faith in a system that continuously fails.
kaasinees
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
Socialism /solzm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. [1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs


how is socialism a religion doofus?
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
...the digital good times was artificially supported and deflated after awhile. Unfortunately for Bush. When 9/11 happened, it was another bubble, only that time it was the military-industrial complex that benefited. Bush just happened to be at the right place at the wrong time
If you had followed the US stock market at the new millennium, you would have seen that it took a dive immediately upon Bush's inauguration. The very same week.
Smart money doesn't place it's hope on the chimp.


So what you're saying is that it was all the fault of Bush's appearance, personality or politics that caused that dive? I think not. The stock market doesn't deal in personalities, it follows the amount of sales of products or services. The sales went down, shares went down. It had nothing to do with Bush being elected.
Also, WHO are you going to blame for the stock market's falling NOW, after 3 years of Obama. Are you STILL going to blame Bush. THAT is laughable.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 18, 2011
Socialism must be a religion. Its adherents must have much faith to keep believing in a system that fails.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
Socialism /solzm/ is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. [1] As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs


Actually, Socialism is not a religion because it can be reversed. However, COMMUNISM cannot be reversed except by the overthrow of the communist regime or by the communists themselves. The people just have to grin and bear the oppression. Therefor, it is communism that becomes its own religion and is enforced by those in power and their thugs.

how is socialism a religion doofus?

Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
oooops. . .that last sentence was not mine. I wrote my comment on the wrong line. sorry
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
Why do you dislike communists?


Are you asking seriously? Well, except obvious horrors around the world available in every history book, they harrassed my relatives for 40 years, stolen most of our possesions twice, killed tens of thousands of my fellow citizens and delayed socioeconomical progress by decades.

Social capitalism may work. Communism is a failed utopia.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
SOCIALISM is reversible. When enough citizens get fed up with that system, they can VOTE the Socialists out and vote in a more moderate or Conservative government. But, you must remember that what is considered as Liberal in Russia, goes by the different name of Conservative in the USA, and a Conservative in the U.S.S.R. was really a hardliner Communist.
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
However, in Socialist countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, Conservatives are nationalists and they prefer to keep out those whom they deem as non-productive foreigners such as Muslims and Africans, etc. But their respective governments have for years been allowing emigration from those countries, which result in much misunderstanding between the groups. The Muslims do tend to create havoc by raping the Scandinavian women due to their belief in Sharia law and because it insults them to see white women in a carefree and uninhibited behavior. The Muslim men think that the white women deserve to be raped or killed for their transgressions against Sharia. And the government officials tolerate their behavior even though they might convict the perps.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (12) Oct 18, 2011
Social capitalism

What is this? It's either redundant or oxymoronic.
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
You see, Scandinavians have been and are, Liberals in the true sense of the word. They practiced free love for centuries when other Europeans were very uptight, most due to religion. And they keep voting for Liberals also, but then tend to complain that their elected officials are TOO Liberal. People like Belvik (sp?) I suspect was really working for the ultra Liberal government, not the Conservatives. The Liberal elected officials were on the verge of getting voted out for their excesses in immigration. I think they HIRED Belvik to kill those kids and then declare himself as a Conservative. He will probably be treated well.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
A mix between some socialistic and capitalist policies, also called social democracy. For example Scandinavia.

Stop seeing in black and white.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2011
A mix between some socialistic and capitalist policies, also called social democracy. For example Scandinavia.

Stop seeing in black and white.

Funny how the Scandinavians have to inject capitalism to keep their socialism from sinking the state.
Black and white? I just want to make it clear that the under socialism, the govt controls private property. If the govt can control a little what limits the state from controlling more?
How many of you here would want your tax returns to be public record like they are in Norway?
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
If govt controls property its not a private property.

Its also funny how past capitalists had to inject some socialism to keep their workers from revolting and to increase average quality of life.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2011
Socialism and capitalism are just labels created by faulty humans to describe some obscure political concepts not grounded in reality. There is no reason why any of these extreme points on the spectrum should be ideal to run a society. They both have some merit and as with most of things, a mix will probably be the most optimal.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
I have to disagree on mixing socialism with capitalism. It simply doesn't work as we can easily see with the Ponzi scheme of Social Security that FDR forced on the United States. That pyramid was bound to fail after so many generations b/c while there were plenty of workers in the 1940s to support all of the retirees, eventually when there were many more people getting old and retiring, the younger population dwindled to some extent until the system became upside down and there were too many retirees and NOT ENOUGH workers paying in to the SS fund to support them. Add to that the fact that the Social Security fund, like the Post Office, was used as a cash cow and raided when Congress and/or the President needed more money. The fund box was FULL of I.O.U.s which has never been repaid.
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
The Unions and management worked hand-in-hand on nepotism and favoritism. I knew of one worker who was allowed to sleep most of the time ON THE JOB b/c he was painting the house of one of the supervisors and other members of management didn't dare complain. The Union would have defended the "worker" anyway. The Unions are protected b/c they pay millions of dollars to the Democrats to protect them and, in turn, they try to keep the Democrats in office. It's a corrupt system far more than Wall Street
Pirouette
1.1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
One of the obvious reasons for there not being enough workers to support the retirees on SS and Medicare was the ABORTION AMENDMENTS. Women started having legal abortions like it was going out of style, and all of those would-be-workers never saw the light of day. Except for the live births, of course, who were murdered as they entered the world.
Bush and Obama both aided and abetted the illegal immigration of foreigners from south of the borders in the southern United States. They were both unpatriotic.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Socialism is the reason why we now have people and the President screaming for 'SOCIAL JUSTICE" which is not the same as EQUAL JUSTICE. EQUAL justice provides for the same level of justice meted out to EVERYONE regardless of color, race, ethnicity, etc. etc. Whereas SOCIAL justice provides for the have-nots to steal from the haves. For instance. . .let's say I'm some poor slob who doesn't like to work and has NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of looking for a job. I go to the government and tell that I'm poor, can't find a job and I want them to give me money and maybe even a house so my butt stays out of the rain. Obama the Socialist feels my pain and wants my vote, mainly, so he turns to the rich people and says: Give me your money so that I can give this poor person a nice house to live in.and spending dough. That's what I call the "SLAVE MENTALITY". In other words, "the Massa gonna take care of mel I dont have to do no work". In Socialism, the Massa is the government.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
The rich get poorer and I get taken care of by the nanny state. THAT'S SOCIAL JUSTICE.
WHEREAS, in the ideal CAPITALISM, there are checks and balances in the free market system to prevent and punish corruption; products and services are cheaper because of fierce competition between companies, and the consumer is happy. Everyone is treated equally under the law and nobody gets away with murder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.3 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2011
they harrassed my relatives for 40 years, stolen most of our possesions twice, killed tens of thousands of my fellow citizens and delayed socioeconomical progress by decades.
Well, actually, communism in reality bears little resemblance to anything Marx described. It has instead been a brutal and effective form of martial law, good for suppressing the bourgeoisie who would destabilize it while destroying the obsolete religionist cultures within it's grasp.

This alone has enabled massive family planning programs to function, including over 800 MILLION ABORTIONS. As a result, large areas throughout Eurasia have seen enduring stability for the first time in HISTORY.

And communism seems to come and go at will, as with the khmer rouge or the odd dissolution of the USSR. This all leads me to believe it is yet another extreme demographic engineering Endeavor similar to the medieval catholicism or the French revolution.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 18, 2011
Socialism and capitalism are just labels

Socialism is legalized plunder, but it is just a label.
No, socialism has a well defined meaning, the govt has the authority to take your property. Many here don't seem to mind.
"First they came for the communists..."
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
Strange how the Russian Orthodox church came back as strong as ever after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. I remember that the churches in Russia, the Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and the rest of those countries that were oppressed by the tyranny of Communism, came back to their churches with tears in their eyes of happiness for their new found freedom from the slavery that the Communist hierarchy and bureaucrats burdened them with.
Pirouette
Oct 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Another thing that is amazing, is that after all the killings of the unborn and live birth abortions, Obama and Bush had the nerve to refuse deportation of illegal immigrants who entered the United States illegally and stayed undocumented. It's all about the illegals acquiring false documents in order to vote for Democrats and keep the corruption going on. First it will be Socialism under Obama if reelected, then comes Communism at the point of a gun and reeducation to force acceptance of the new party system.
Pirouette
Oct 18, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2011
Strange how the Russian Orthodox church came back as strong as ever after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.
Except that Russians now abort almost 50% of their pregnancies. 300 MILLION in the USSR. Obviously something very fundamental about the church has changed in a very big way.
http://www.johnst...dex.html

-I try to look at the most substantial result in order to figure out what is going on. Nearly 1/5 of the worlds population and their descendants were never born. This must have had a FAR greater effect on the state of the world than anything else that happened in the 20th century.

Because of this we can begin to assume that it was a primary Cause, and not an incidental effect, of the biggest events of that era. We might suspect that these events were Planned in order to produce this Result. And we can possibly get a better understanding of the institutions which made these events possible. Irregardless of what we were ever told about them.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
oh, and yes, the American Communist Party has been waiting for something like 80 - 90 years for the right moment to take over the United States. Their stupid newspaper bitching about the "BOSSES" made me laugh. They were handing out leaflets and their rag last year on 8/24 in Wash., DC. I was about to tell the lead Commie to hand over to me half of the money in his wallet because I'm poor and he has no right to that money by his own standards. But I didn't do it. He wouldn't have given it to me anyway. These Communists are all talk and no walk. LOL
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
Ghost. . .along with a repressive regime comes repression of some areas of human nature and spirit, and the fact that these churchgoers in Russia and East Europe had been suppressed for 70 years or more, first by the Czar and then by Lenin, Stalin and all them Commies, they were bound to take up what they regarded as the Western culture, or the Western way of life. Copycats, in other words. They broke out of and lost their innocence, you might say. . .like watching a gangster movie from America and thinking that most Americans were gangsters.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2011
Ghost. . .along with a repressive regime comes repression of some areas of human nature and spirit, and the fact that these churchgoers in Russia and East Europe had been suppressed for 70 years or more, first by the Czar and then by Lenin, Stalin and all them Commies, they were bound to take up what they regarded as the Western culture, or the Western way of life.
They are different people. The former inhabitants, the carriers of all the former obsolete religionist cultures throughout northern and central Eurasia, are dead, and their cultures along with them.

Communist martial law is very effective at this sort of thing, just as was its twin, the church, was in destroying the pagan cultures it supplanted and uniting the disparate tribes within it's influence. So it could set them against one another in safer, more controllable and more constructive ways.

Abortion and contraception now provide a better alternative. Of course it's horrible. Humanity is in DESPERATE straits.
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
My son married a girl from one of the Baltic States. She was born under the yoke of Communism, as was her parents and grandparents. When my son brought her to America and the first time he took her to an American supermarket, she almost fell through the floor at the sight of all the shelves of different kinds of food and so many different brands. She didn't have anything like that in the motherland and she was just too amazed at everything she saw everywhere. That was in 1990. So you see, what we take for granted, those people had NOTHINGGGG. We are blessed in so many ways and don't even appreciate what we've got until we lose it.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Yes, they are different people, those Eastern Europeans. But Communism didn't help them at all except to starve their intellects and prevent their self-improvement through repressive measures by their masters.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
Ghost. . .is that what you want for us here in the United States? To have a repressive and brutal government under a Communist system?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
There are now6 billion people in the world. Red China has, I think, 3 billion if I'm not mistaken. I hate to say it but sometimes a good cataclysm is a fine way to rid the Earth of some of its population. Or else wholesale starvation, famine, disease, all that's in the Bible will be visited on us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2011
Ghost. . .along with a repressive regime comes repression of some areas of human nature and spirit
The nature and spirit of the tropical human is to reproduce in the context of high attrition rates. We began to eliminate these natural elements of attrition a million years ago. The result has been an ever-escalating state of tribal warfare. We evolved in the context of it.

Conflict produces innovation and favors tribes with greater internal cohesion coupled with animosity toward enemies. The need to master more complex technologies, teamwork, communication, planning and strategy in order to win battles gave us these oversized, unstable, energy-hungry, damage- and defect-prone brains.

There is nothing about the human condition which this does not explain. It means that the human animal requires a LOT of restraining of it's nature and spirit. This has always been the case, and nevermoreso than at present.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2011
There are now6 billion people in the world. Red China has, I think, 3 billion if I'm not mistaken. I hate to say it but sometimes a good cataclysm is a fine way to rid the Earth of some of its population. Or else wholesale starvation, famine, disease, all that's in the Bible will be visited on us.
What, you don't think that ONE BILLION ABORTIONS in the last century is not a cataclysm?? This is a statistic right out of revelations. The only thing worse than this tragedy would have been to let it happen by itself, in the traditional tooth and nail manner, with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the mix.

The Choice was either/or. There was no other Option. Despite what godlovers might have recommended. And insisted upon, had not their backs been broken by the combined Efforts of both east and west.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Possibly restraint of nature, but certainly NOT of spirit. Without spirit we will never go out to the stars and will always sit here on Earth with no further ambition that to see how we can acquire the next loaf of bread.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
One billion abortions is tragic, but it was a result of laws passed that made it legal in the USA, the former USSR and other places in the world also allowed abortions and the church was remiss in discouraging it. How could they discourage it? They were muzzled in those days.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2011
Possibly restraint of nature, but certainly NOT of spirit. Without spirit we will never go out to the stars and will always sit here on Earth with no further ambition that to see how we can acquire the next loaf of bread.
Guided, Channeled, Applied appropriately. This is what Shepherds are for. Without them there would be no sheep. No Domesticated animals at all. Arf.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
While I feel sad for generations of the unborn and their descendants, I feel even more sadness for those who are alive and suffering starvation and disease. They too, will go the way of what once was. We can send them food and medicine, but they will only grow up to have their own children and the cycle of poverty runs full circle again and again..
Pirouette
1 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2011
LOL, , . now you're being silly, Ghost. . . .arf back atcha
Yah. . . .the discussion is getting too morbid.
I don't need a shephard. . . .after what I've seen, and you have read what that was. . . I am not too worried about the future.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 18, 2011
One billion abortions is tragic, but it was a result of laws passed that made it legal in the USA, the former USSR and other places in the world also allowed abortions
Abortion is Population Control. The only real freedom it gives women is the freedom from having to stand in breadlines or sending their children off to war.

Without family planning Eurasia would again look like the middle east and Africa does now. But it never would've gotten that far. The same conditions in the 1930s led directly to the extremism which made world war inevitable. Only a generation before all the millions of soldiers who died in ww1, were replaced and ready to go at it again. This is how fast populations grow in today's world. And without family planning there would have absolutely been a nuclear war very soon after.

The REASON for abortion is population control because without it overpopulation would have ENDED us by now. And it STILL threatens to do so, inspired by existing religionist cultures.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 18, 2011
by the way, all those shepherds throughout history is what got us into the fine mess we're in now. Those who think they know what's good for us, what's best for us, and don't even know us. We can do without them. I can, anyway.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (63) Oct 18, 2011
Deficit spending,...

http://www.foundr...get1.jpg

Bush was bad enough, but Obama will quadruple the debt and will bankrupt this country.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2011
LOL, , . now you're being silly, Ghost. . . .arf back atcha
Yah. . . .the discussion is getting too morbid.
I don't need a shephard. . . .after what I've seen, and you have read what that was. . . I am not too worried about the future.
Sorry piro but morbid does not mean it isn't so. Maybe your aliens are the Shepherds?

I like to think that people - Leaders - were smart enough to have reached these Conclusions a long time ago, and decided to take action.

And I believe this is all described in the book of Enoch... as well as in the officially accepted canon. Those Guys weren't dumb.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2011
Abortion is also a point of convenience. She wants the sex but doesn't want the feel of latex, and murder is better? I agree that population control is better, but these women who keep getting pregnant and aborting. . .it would be best for them to get spayed, since they're bitches anyway.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
glad to see you're a fan of Enoch, Ghost. . .I don't know if my E.T. is God as described in Enoch, but I doubt that he's the same God as in the Bible.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 18, 2011
Noumenon. . .it's a given that Obama's agenda is to break the back of the USA. many of us have expected that ol' Socialist to follow the Socialist agenda to the letter with the backing of Jew-hating Jews like Soros.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
I like Enoch. . .he's righteous, and he's willing to learn and not be afraid
Pirouette
1 / 5 (6) Oct 18, 2011
Personally , I think that what I saw is here to monitor us so that we don't blow each other up and destroy the Earth. THAT is the kind of shepherd I want. . .to save me from myself, but in a subtle way so that I can maintain my independene
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (12) Oct 18, 2011
Its also funny how past capitalists had to inject some socialism to keep their workers from revolting and to increase average quality of life.

What are you talking about?
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 19, 2011
Red China has, I think, 3 billion if I'm not mistaken.


China has 1.34 billion, and with only 1.54 children per woman, their population is destined to reduce.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Oct 22, 2011
"Socialism is all about trying to force everyone to BE the same." - RyggTard

Odd. The definition of socialism is as follows...

any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

The definition says nothing about trying to make everyone the same.

There you go... Caught in another Lie.

I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Mabus
1 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2011
I have never encountered a Libertarian who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

And you'll probably never will. Just like the promises made by the politicians: they're awesome, it'll solve our problems and when it comes to apply them...
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
China has a government far more advanced than any governmental system in practice today. They should be revered and emulated by the rest of the world. They produce and manufacture most of the worlds products.

Their medicine is well ahead of the rest of the world. Their regenerative medicinal practices are unmatched by the rest of the world.

China is so far from the rest of the herd that jealousy can readily be seen. With all of the advanced practices, China is being painted in a negative light by the rest of the world. That is illogical. They are so far ahead with everything and yet they are being labeled as lagging behind the modern world. They are the modern world. We are the ones lagging.

I am a social libertarian. I am for the people. I am also for personal freedom and individuality. The socialist world and the libertarian world do go together. We can be free and care for each other
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
China is not a utopian society. They have their faults, however, their faults are but a few when compared to the rest.

We can make this world into a great place. We have today all the technology necessary to govern this world with 100% inclusivity. What I mean by this is that we don't need to appoint representatives (presidents, judges etc.) to make decisions on our behalf. The Internet can replace representatives. Every issue needs to be brought up online and decided upon by all individuals. No leaders.

By the people for the people.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
Today: 100% of the population get together and appoint 1% of the population as the leaders, decision makers. This leaves 99% out of the rest of the decision making practices. - this is not optimal.

Tomorrow: 100% decide on everything together. - this is optimal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2011
Today: 100% of the population get together and appoint 1% of the population as the leaders, decision makers. This leaves 99% out of the rest of the decision making practices. - this is not optimal.

Tomorrow: 100% decide on everything together. - this is optimal.
You are naive. 99% dont know near enough about most issues to have intelligent opinions on them. 99% only care about issues that affect them and will never vote for what is right and proper if it will require them to sacrifice.

The majority can never be allowed to make decisions about critical issues. Luckily for us they are not able to. It is important however to make them think that they do.

With your Leaderless system the entire world would soon have the problems that greece has now. And soon a Leader would come along promising to fix it all if he were given sufficient power to do so.

This is what aristotle meant when he said that democracy is one step above despotism.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2011
The majority can never be allowed to make decisions about critical issues.


Which critical issues would that be? Healthcare? Crime/disaster response (eg. police, fire dept)? Laws? Judgement?...

Not to be rude but you're getting into specifics without specification.

Please elaborate. Which social issues should the general public be left out of and why?
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2011
Actually Vendicar, your explanation of Socialism is not fully accurate. It does not describe the true flavor of Socialism, but it DOES describe Communism in the Collective sense. The quote, ""any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods"" only explains the role of government in the government's ownership, administration and DISTRIBUTION of goods TO THE POPULACE. THAT explains COMMUNISM.
In Socialism, the government CONTROLS a certain portion of production, manufacturing and distribution of goods to the populace through too many enforced rules and regulations, taxes and tariffs, and laws passed by Congress that transfers wealth from individuals or corporations through heavy taxes TO social programs AND subsidizing of so-called "green" and favored industries.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2011
The keyword in your quote, supposedly on Socialism is" OWNERSHIP". In SOCIALISM, individuals and corporations are allowed to OWN their businesses, but are both very heavily taxes for the main purpose of keeping everyone equal. In this case, equally poor. In spite of very high salaries, under a Socialism system, people are not allowed to KEEP the greater portion of their own earned money, but are forced to give it up by the government through the IRS and the full weight of law enforcement.. Sure, they can drive a car, own a house, etc., but they cannot acquire much wealth because of those extreme taxes, as in Europe.
In the Collective realm of Communism, the state (government) controls and OWNS ALL production, manufacturing, and eventual distribution of goods to the people. . . .who are kept poor, usually by circumstance.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2011
The government OWNS the farms and dictates to farmers what to grow and when to grow it and pays the farmer only a small stipend for his living wages. The same with the factory worker. He is given a quota and is required to fill that quota within a certain amount of time and he also gets a small stipend for wages.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2011
Another thing that Socialist inspired people don't seem to comprehend is that the great majority of people are all individualistic, love their freedom to live the way they wish, and DON'T LIKE CORRUPTION or force. Socialists and Communists prefer to force the square peg into the round hole by attempting to remove all vestiges of character from people and make them resigned to their fate like cattle in the slaughterhouse..But even a steer will kick and buck before he goes down, while Socialists wish for the people to sit down and shut up and be grateful for the cup of soup they get from their masters in the government
A limited government is essential. . .that's a fact. We need certain elements, such as our military to protect us from our enemies and a Congress to pass good and beneficial laws FOR THE SAKE AND SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE.