How do you raise a child to be a Good Communist?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yeah, whatever. You'd be a C- student at best. Why don't you stick to delivering phone books or whatever you do and leave serious matters to serious people.

Commies are serious people? They are laughing stocks.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So we do have our notions of equality and do agree that is is a mandate it is our perceptions of what equality is tho' that differs.

In as much as we ascribe to this view, anything that prevents indivudal opportunities or removes the individual from his freedom to make those decisions is in our minds the largest infringment on equality of choices as those who have the potential to do more are prevented from doing so in the name of equality for the whole.

Oh, do you have to lay it on so think with the right wing garble. You value individual freedom from restraint more than equality, and you will choose individual freedom from restraint most of the time within reasonable limits, right? Don't give us a much of mumbo jumbo about we both believe in equality. Equality is equality, not what you say it is in your hog wash.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

It was thick but I was driving my point home.

Yes Individual freedom from restraint within reasonable limits is what I value. Further I would say equal opportuity is the meaning of equality. The rest is up to the individual.


Not equal approtioning of wealth.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ramo


That's because a lot of economists still hold onto the the fantasy that macro is more than a bunch of half-assed generalizations about massively nonlinear systems. Micro is really the only valid facet of econ, and as long as the scope is reasonable, mathematical modelling can be effective.

The good economists believe that macro is more than generalizations. It's the bad ones that generalize too much.

I think mathematical modelling in macro is helpfull, but causes error much of the time. The problem is that economists tend to ignore the errors and look for data that they want to see. Even when the data is telling them that a policy doesn't work they will continue with the policy anyway. Then after awhile when deep inside they know that they were wrong in the first place they will tweak their policy and claim that their original policy worked.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


It was thick but I was driving my point home.

Yes Individual freedom from restraint within reasonable limits is what I value. Further I would say equal opportuity is the meaning of equality. The rest is up to the individual.


Not equal approtioning of wealth.

I'm not going to get into equality of opportunity, but it is impossible. Anyway suffice to say that capitalist support a system that they know good and well will have economic inequality, and they are fine with that.

[PeteH]

The more appropriate near day records tho' are of native americans. In those, the Indians were nomadic and did indeed have to endure elements and famine until such time as game could be found. If and when game was not to be found it was hard times immediately. Feast or famine as it were. Hence the reason agriculture become envogue. Granary anyone?

Again, this is just not right. Some indians were semi nomadic, in that they followed certain herd animals, many weren't. Famine is a consequence of agriculture, not a cause. Even during a drought, results were not catastrophic. Many tribes occupied an area continuously for thousands of years, with plenty of neighboring tribes, and did not wipe each other out or otherwise engage in modern exterminatory warfare.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not so.

Population growth for hunter gatherers dropped in times of low availability of game animals, hence the herd followers that became the Native americans.

Population growth for agri area became obscenely high and during low crop grwoth resulted in famines.

As for tribes co-mingleing successfully. You define exterminatary warfare. True that was a more modern approach wherein weaponry allowed exterminatry warfare. It was more theft, raiding and pillaging variety. Which ultimately grew in ferocity as the tools of war allowed.

[Kidlicious]

Granaries didn't prevent famine though. They allowed a higher food supply during good times, and they delayed food shortages a bit. The famines were probably worse when they did occur though. Agriculture promoted much faster population growth than hunting and gathering, and relatively speaking there were less periods of shortages in the hunter gatherer societies. Thus less starvation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

To the extent that agriculaturist were at the whim of the climate yes. Any bad 2 year period was devastating.

This coupled with a higher population base to support than the hunter gatherers was a problem and as a consequence was a prime reason for the raiding I spoke to earlier.

[PeteH]

True that was a more modern approach wherein weaponry allowed exterminatry warfare. It was more theft, raiding and pillaging variety. Which ultimately grew in ferocity as the tools of war allowed.

the point is the "theft, raiding, and pillaging' is fundamentally different then all out war. To look back, it would probably seem like many tribes are in a constant state of low level fighting with their neighbors. But this fighting does not have the extermination of the opther party, or their way of life, as its goal. If a fight occured and someone was killed, often the victims family would organize a raid to capture a replacement. This proisoner was not killed, or punished in any other way. It just became his job to replace the person that was killed. With peace restored, a celebration could be had, at which a replacement for the 'prisoner' would go to his tribe, and people would intermarry. It was a survival technique, because when times were bad in one area, you might need to hunt in areas you werent familiar with, and getting killed on site while trying to feed yourself would not do a lot for your group.

Also, if a tribe did fail, or break apart for some reason, those remaining were not abandoned, they were absorbed. They even extended this tradition to the settlers at first, as there is evidence that the 'lost colony' did not die out, but became part of the local indian tribes, as later settlers spoke of a strange group of indians who had children with hair and eye colors otherwise unknown among Indians, and a strange accent that sounded like they were from England, but speaking the native language

I guess what I am geting at is, just as these non-civilized groups did not see the world as a collection of resources to be exploited, they did not see people outside their group as things to be killed any more than they would go out and wipe out bears or wolves or anything else. Those people were as much a part of their environment as the rest of the world, as opposed to a 'civilized' view that anyone not living like us needs to be pushed out of the way in the name of (progress, god, economics, evolutionary destiny)

[Kidlicious]

Not all Native American tribes were the same. Some of the tribes in California would kill any outsider wandering around. But then as PeteH says they rarely killed in battle, if you want to call it battle.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yeah, whatever. You'd be a C- student at best. Why don't you stick to delivering phone books or whatever you do and leave serious matters to serious people.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Touched a nerve, didn't I?

And what exactly is so "serious" about being a dead-thought teacher in the University of Nowhere on an island on the ass of the planet?

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Thanks for the ammo!