The Militarization of American Law Enforcement

[Ramo]

Survivor?

I think that would be considered an act of war (and a war crime) against the !kung.

[David Floyd]

I bet they'd see the guys with the cameras and run off screaming witchcraft!

[Ted Striker]

dp

[Ramo]

Hunter gatherers didn't really imprisoned enemies but rather hit their head with a rock, eat them and wear their bones as a jewel.

You were referring to political persection, which the hunter-gatherers do not committ, not war.

And hunter-gatherers warred very rarely relative to civilized peoples, and these wars were far more tame (until they're introduced to civilized methods, of course).

Dino's point was that evolvement has lead civilizations to develop elites.

It was? Perhaps Dino can clear us up on that. That ain't what he told me.

To refute his point you need to bring an example of a civilization that has evolved and at the same time did not to this day develop an elite. To my knowledge there aren't any such civilizations.

Catalonia (and other areas of Spain, such as parts of Aragon) during the war.

That developement can't come when there's no evolvement.
If you don't evolve your develpement comes to a halt.

What's the distinction between societal evolution and development?

Yes. And him as well.

By: "And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else. That many scholars defend the status quo is nothing new."

Joe is questioning the validity of social "science." I don't see how your statement refutes his.

This due to the dark ages brought by Christianity and several other reasons.

Bull. The epidemics assaulting Europe and China (small pox, measles, and the bubonic plague) at the time were far more disastrous to the quality of life than the breakdown of central authority (quality of life began decreasing for Europe by the end of the second century AD). And these epidemics are products of civilized life. Hell, the "Dark Ages" brought various agricultural improvements, and quality of life for Europe began increasing again by the 8th century.

I've no doubt life in the Classical Roman and Greek era was far far better.

That isn't true at all. Quality of life was improving over time, overall, barring the initial step to agriculture.

What was the social system of catalonia before the Civil War?

A lot of the feudalism in Spain ended a century earlier.

But Catalonia was the most industrialized province in Spain, and Barcelona was the industrial capitol of Spain.

Yet the syndicates of Catalonia outperformed their predecessors.

And it would be fair to say that a "capitalist" system was in effect there, if you consider, for example, the US economy capitalistic. Was there free-market capitalism here? No? Has it existed in non-egalitarian societies? No.

Sure, Anarchy may be better than say feudalism, but a socially aware capitalist democratic society is way better.

Why?

If you don't believe me, look at the govt. stats in Civ, Civ 2 and Civ III

I need to make a mod changing that.

[Ramo]

Regarding the disputed point, Dino sez:

"No, the point was that every society for it to truely be called a society has elites."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Civilization is highly over-rated.

You must be one of those crazy anarchists Ramo told me about.

Your assertion is a non-sequitor and a bare assertion. Just because you claim something is true doesn't mean it is true.

My assertion is based on historical facts and peer reviewed sociological research. Now if you can provide me even one credible, non-primitivist study regarding the non-inevitability of elities in a society, I will happily consider the possibility of error.

The !kung are a society who have not developed a ruling elite and have been around for thousands of years. Therefore, the development of ruling elites is not inevitable.

*Snicker* I think that this works as a point in my favor if you consider the kind of life this "society" actually leads. But, one statistical anomoly does not a trend make.

And a hundred years ago you could have cited many sources to "prove" that white people are inherently superior to everyone else.

And this has to do with the validity of my sources (which you haven't said if you wanted or not) in what way?

I'm not sure what your'e asking in this question.

I'm trying to find out why you find this normative statement, "Every people is governed by an elite, by a chosen element of the population," is the result of any special problem in society?

Edit: Sorry, Siro. I should have told you to edit that out when I had the chance.

[Shi Huangdi]

I hardly think it's fair to use Catalonia as an example, seeing as how society did not last-long term, in fact it died out quickly enough.

One of the more common compliants heard about anarchy is that without a government, who will protect us from brutal thugs? Lo and behold, they lost their government, and they got subjected to a brutal thug.

[Ted Striker]

.

[yin26]

I just want to get something off of my chest right here and now:

"Ted Striker" is just one of the most badass names I have ever heard. It's like a Top-Gun call sign only I assume it's your real name. If you haven't already, buy your folks some beers for giving you a headstart in life.

--Yin

[Berzerker]

Ted -

That tells me all I need to know about you Hypzerker. Talk about generalizing. That isn't proof! That's bigotry! Where is your proof for the above? Numbers? Studies?

You need proof that people on welfare know they are on welfare or that people know it exists? And why does my comment constitute "bigotry"? I didn't mention race, or did you just jump to that convenient conclusion? I've seen plenty of people cashing in food stamps who were obese. I've also known people on welfare so I do know something about the lifestyles of some of them. And I didn't say ALL welfare recipients were obese, etc... Get a grip!

There are abusers of every system.

Is that a bigoted statement? It's no different than what I just said.

So because some people abuse the system, that automatically makes everyone who is getting government money lazy, obese, and can't take care of themselves?

I never said this. Is this why you don't use quotes when attributing your BS to me? You're a dishonest person.

Tell me exactly how the government did this.

No they weren't! They government kept their hands off until the late 1880s! Tell me how they "gave" them monopolies.

By giving the RR's lots of land (and other goodies I'm sure) to build the RRs along with exclusive "rights" to operate the lines they built. That shut out competitors who weren't given these assets.

Oh it's so simple! Just uproot your entire family and relocate! No big deal there!!!

They undoubtedly moved there in the first place BECAUSE of the RR and were probably there to work for the RR or provide other services for those who were RR employees. Did you miss my comment about mining "towns"?

There are no economic and social costs and risks associated with uprooting your entire existence! Of course not!

These risks always exist, but these weren't people who went out and settled land on their own.

Though there was one senator in the ENTIRE Federal government back then that agreed with you.

Umm...I know this may be inconvenient for you, but didn't these politicians vote to end the RR monopolies created by prevous governments? I already said they should have ended these government created monopolies, doh.

It was an analysis of government information, headed by a former cabinet member, based on CENSUS BUREAU statistics.

I already know and said they were government statistics, but the "analysis" was from a liberal think tank. Oh, yeah, former cabinet people never fudge statistics. You did not respond to my argument about how the "analysis" may be flawed. It seems you spend more time debating your own strawmen than what I say.

Here's a link on out of wed-lock birthrate.

It starts in 1970, in which the rate was 10.7% for ALL RACES, and as of 1998 is 32.8%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pu...00/00hus009.pdf

I know you're one dense liberal, but just how does this link help your argument?
When did LBJ's "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" begin? In the ~mid-60's? And what do these statistics show? It shows that out of wedlock birthrates have skyrocketed since welfare programs were created to combat poverty!

Out of wedlock births:

For whites > 5.5 to 26.3

For blacks > 37.5 to 69.1

And Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino rising slightly to moderately with others jumping in similar fashion to whites and blacks. All in all, a MASSIVE increase in out-of-wedlock birthrates!!!

Over the ensuing 25 years, however, there have been huge increases in the number of single-parent families headed by unmarried mothers.

Yup.

The usual economic explanations welfare benefits and the declining availability of good jobs explain only a small fraction of the change.

And their proof?

In our view, it was the technology shock itself that, by eroding the age-old custom of shotgun marriage, paradoxically raised out-of-wedlock birth rates instead of lowering them.

Umm...these people aren't too smart either, no wonder you're quoting them. "Eroding the age-old custom of shotgun marriage paradoxically raised out-of-wedlock birth rates instead of lowering them"?

Read very slowly, Ted. Shotgun marriages helped reduce out-of-wedlock births because many people were required to get married if they conceived a child out-of-wedlock so that they would be married when the child was born. Eliminating a practice that reduced out-of-wedlock birth rates would not "paradoxically" raise out-of-wedlock birth rates! Sheesh!

If so

Wow! THAT'S IT? That's their evidence?That a "technology shock" eroding shotgun weddings caused the rise in out-of-wedlock birthrates? Did you read this before pasting it here?

[Dis]

paranoia?

[Ted Striker]

.

[yin26]

LOL! Thought I remembered that somewhere in the back of my head. Yes, Ted Striker.

"...and quit calling me Shirley."

[Ted Striker]

.

[Roland]

Mr Drinking Problem:

"The middle class did well and yes most of it was on credit, but most of the power was overwhelmingly in the power of the rich."

Apart from that we were talking about the economic situation, not the political standing of the middle class: This is different from today... how ?

"Home ownership, as one example, isn't even close back then as it is today."

Don't know the rates from back then, but it is at a high today. And home equity as a percentage of value is at a record low. Bummer.

"A super stable banking system is also intact that didn't exist back then. (Thanks once again to smart government regulation)."

Which means the speculation is using other means, underwritten by the Fed and operating in regulatory blackholes, see Enron, LTCM. And the banks... we haven't seen the credit crunch yet, so it's a bit premature.

"The US will look like Japan until around 2005..." - "Speculation."

A reasonable forecast based on scepticism about trend growth and econ imbalances. If trend growth is 2.5 %, and we take the 1996-2005 period, you have about 0.5 % left for each of the following years. It's also in line with the hangover seen from say the german reunification bust. Your solid-recovery forecast is new economy based, and that is speculative indeed.

"Uhh, hello, there are entire industries that didn't exist back then."

And entire industries that no longer exist. "Diversification" - identify quality (what is "diverse" ?) and quantity of the sectors you see as "diverse". 75 % of GDP today is services - on that level, the US economy is less diversified than in 1929.

"there are other markets left to buffer the loss."

Typical Greenspan errors:
a) Pure demand side economics.
b) Demand is manageable by government.

Doesn't work that way.

"Where is the run on banks?"

That's so 1929. Why run for dollars when they can be primted at will ? In 1929, cash was still on the gold standard.

"The continual slide of the stock market? It has stabalized."

Odd. I call that a bear market rally.

"And you will also notice credit was tightened in the investment section."

What does this mean ?

"Come on, during the Depression, the Eurocom economies were completely obliterated"

Germany had a contraction similar to that of the US (and it implemented similarly stupid policies, btw). In France and the UK the depression was milder.

"I already said I agreed with you there. Yet the process itself has worked more than it has not."

The process is the Fed trying to deal with their own screw-ups. If you're lucky, it "works". I prefer a central bank that is a) independent, b) committed to free markets, and c) committed to stability. Hardly surprising I despise easy Al so much.