Anarcho-capitalism is a vile philosophy, it sickens me in a visceral way.

I don't recall any economics graphs with an axis labeled "aggregate human suffering."

Perhaps such an addition would clarify things a little bit. 

Are you aware of Lunaran's latest Q4 release ?

http://www.lunaran.com/page.php?id=165

I saw it on PlanetQuake, and it looks so cool that it is a shame I don't have Q4 on my Pc to test it.... 

please, I beg you on hands and knees, stop using the term 'oversimplification' as a rhetorical device. You know me by now, I'm as multiplex as the human condition gets within one particular nodal point.

This condition implied in this statement is not exactly accurate though you raise a good question During the first two years of the war, the US exports increased four-fold as neutrality allowed them to trade with both sides. Why was it important to America to concede this position; one that was having a fairly beneficial effect on the US economy and that would have almost certainly continued after the war had ended?

Here from historian Thomas Fleming in The Illusion of Victory: America in World War I "Wilson talked � and talked and talked � about neutrality and apparently convinced himself that he was neutral. But the United States he was supposedly running was not neutral, in thought, word or deed, thanks to Wellington House (the engine of British government propaganda) � and the international banking firm of J. P. Morgan in New York."

American corporate interest favored the British well before the Lusitania --

The war began for corporate America long before it started for the common man. Within two months of the conflict�s August 1914 beginning, Charles Schwab, president of Bethlehem Steel, one of the world�s largest arms merchants, took a profitable trip to London. There, he secured orders from the British government for millions of artillery shells, as well as ten 500-ton submarines. Though the construction of such foreign vessels broke the law, Bethlehem proceeded with it and the Wilson administration did not stop them. The company earned $61 million in 1916, more than its combined gross revenues for the previous eight years. -- from a summary article -- I don't have my copy at hand.

As Fleming puts it: "The Bethlehem story is a pithy summary of the evolution of the United States into a branch of the British armament industry during the thirty-two months of its neutrality,"

As for Also, what would have been wrong from the US standpoint if the parties had of reached an "equitable truce"? what would have been right is 1000,000 fewer American dead which is the thrust of my argument that Harding was a better president than Wilson.

I'm a bit tired from lacking sleep. Note, I'm not anti-British by any means. Half of my ancestory is merry old England (the other half being Spaniards and a few Frenchy creoles), and I think our siding with you in WW2 was the right thing to do given the circumstances. 

Basically I know shit about this Harding fellow, but I looked at his Wikipedia entry to see how he may have been worse than Bush, and aside from having a corrupt administration and possibly sleeping around a bit it doesn't seem like he was that bad...

I mean come on, worse than Bush? 

I don't recall any economics graphs with an axis labeled "aggregate human suffering."

There is nothing in anarcho-capitalism that says you cannot devote your time and resources to charity work, but don't call it 'philanthropy' when you insist your will be done with someone else's money taken at the point of a gun.

What is sick is how many people still believe the redistributionist model is an effective means of human orginization when it is the prime contributer to the increase of crime, dependency and the breakdown of the family.

What is sick is how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to create urban blight and political cronyism, all in the name of 'doing good.'

What is sick is the mentality of dependence that tells you to wait around for your mayor to tell you what to do instead of getting out of the way of a fucking hurricane (in case you are wondering about the creole remark in an earlier post -- yes it is personal). 

? 

I promise not to use the word 'oversimplification' if you promise not to... (I haven't got a clue as to what your second sentence is supposed to convey)

The problem was that what was looking quite an interesting set of posts ended with a statement that had no explanation attached to it. Clearly you knew what you meant but as I pointed out, the statemnent could apply to anyone who goes to war. I am interested to know what you meant by this statement that specifically relates to Wilson, hence my questions.

So, are you saying that it was not economically viable for the US to stay neutral and that is why the official line changed?

I am not understanding the point about "1000,000 fewer American dead". Surely that would apply if America did not go to war and remained neutral: "without our presence the parties involved would have been forced to reach a far more equitable truce".

I wasn't interested in the comparison between Presidents, only your comments relating to Wilson.

I'm still interested. 

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

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

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

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

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

Here you'll find it a more comprehensive form.

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

The second review is a pretty good summary. 

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

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

 

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

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

so you think private property is good? 

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

thanks for taking my question seriously... 

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

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

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

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

The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

</asshole>

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

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

</dumbass> 

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

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

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

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