[split] Ignorance about anarchism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2014, 11:02 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No True Scotsman Fallacy - Only the Libertarians that follow your specific definition are True Libertarians.
Absurd. I use the definition that's in the dictionary: “Libertarian: a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct. Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.” In other words, let people exercise free will. Sure, some, like Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann hijack the word. Remember, we used to simply call ourselves “liberal”, until you guys hijacked that word to mean the exact opposite of what it originally did. Today some libertarians prefer “classic liberal” since that term hasn't been hijacked yet.

By that definition (a person who advocates liberty), I'm a Libertarian, you do know that right?


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "But it all reduces to this: I want to be left alone, and I want things my own way." -Steve Shives
So Steve nailed it right on the head.
This shows close-minded backwardness. If you want to know what libertarian reduces to, go to a libertarian, or to wikipedia. Instead, when you want a summary of libertarianism you go to some guy who makes libertarian-bashing videos. Typical of the liberal mindset.

Except that you didn't say how he was wrong, other than to say 'NO U'. Also, he did qualify that he was poking fun of Libertarians as found in American politics (you know, the same ones you just distanced yourself from above); but acknowledging that qualifier wouldn't help your argument, now would it? Very convincing, to be sure...


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  "But the thing is a Constitutional democratically empowered government.... Unfortunately most politicians with Libertarians leanings seem like they would rather sabotage the government." -Steve Shives

So, Steve hit the nail on the head again.
Wow, your devotion to him is so unflappable that you can't see the oxymoron in his statement. He acknowledges that the constitution IS what defines the government. Now google “Defender of the constitution”. Who do you find? Only libertarians.

Yes, because Google searches and the amount of hits a website get now determine the state of the truth.


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Who was the leader author of the constitution? Oh yeah, the father of US libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson.

I thought John Locke was the father? Is he an uncle then? Who is the son of Libertarianism?

You need to get your family tree in order.


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  In a republic, the government IS the constitution. It's the liberals like Shives who are trying to sabotage the government by burning the constitution. What you guys still don't seem to get is BOTH of us are pro-government.

Yes, you're so pro-government in fact that you left the country...


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  We just have 180 degree opposite views of what government actually is. To us, government's job is to defend liberty block the initiation of force and coercion so everyone can exercise free will.

To an extent. What you and your naive ideology continuously fail to realize is that not everyone is all that ethical (real shocker I'm sure), and that not everyone values everyone else's freedom as much as you do.

So how do you make sure other's free-will is not being violated? Well, you'll need rules and laws that establish 'freedom' as the number-one primary concern. These laws will mean nothing if they're not enforced, so even you will need someone to enforce the law. Now enforcing the law with threats of hugs and hot coco probably won't work, so even they will at times need to back up their enforcement of the liberty-centric laws with the threat or use of force. This police force should protect everyone equally to make sure that everyone's free-will is safe guarded, so ideally everyone should pay for their upkeep (taxes) because they benefit everyone. How do you make sure the next generation grows up valuing the same ideals of liberty? Well, they'll need a good education/indoctrination to instill in them the value of Liberty above all else. Of course, if they don't like it, they can move right? Not petition the government, or allowing for the evolving social and moral zeitgeist, or for the valuation of anything else above freedom-at-all-costs.

Of course you could always skip the law enforcement bit if you just indoctrinated everyone so that they all shared your same value system. But that would be a bit hypocritical, would it not?


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  To you, government's job is to deny liberty, initiate force and coercion to deprive people of free will.

It's job is to protect and serve it's citizens, and protect and guard their best interests. If that means limiting the free-will of people from marketing tobacco products to children because the public sees it in their best interest to curtain the sale of addictive and deadly habits to people generally too young to make informed decisions, then sad day for the tobacco sellers.


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But you're so convinced that your form of government is the only possible one, so oblivious to the alternative that libertarians proposed, that whenever we attack YOUR FORM of government, you assume we are attacking government in general.

Well, you do keep attacking all regulation with the examples of only the bad ones, ignoring the ones that do work, then scream victoriously "See!? What we really need now is NO REGULATION!"

Our government can be improved, but it won't get any better adopting your policies. They might have worked hypothetically at one time, but now they are just a failed, useless, naive ideology.


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, if you want to learn about the differences in our beliefs start listening to libertarians rather than simply following one guy who already shares your belief system. Nobody learns anything new that way.

Project much?


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  'There are more people living in poverty than private charities alone can afford to help? Gee, that's too bad.'
Like I mentioned, what opened my eyes was living in a libertarian country that has no government welfare and leaves everything to local charity, and realizing this system actually eliminated poverty. And Switzerland is recognized as one of the only places with no inter-generational dependence on welfare/charity. Whether your parents were or were not dependent on the local welfare/charity has little statistical effect on your likelihood. Unlike the system you favor where countless generations are trapped into poverty and dependence with no hope of their children being able to escape.

At this point, I am convinced you do not actually live in Switzerland, but instead like using it for your fever-dream induced imaginary arguments.

"There is a system of social insurance in place in Switzerland to which everyone working in Switzerland must contribute. This social security system covers sickness and accident, maternity pay, the state pension for the elderly and for dependent survivors, invalidity benefit, and unemployment benefit. There are also family allowances. Different government offices have responsibility for different aspects of the system. The Federal Office of Public Health (G: Bundesamt für Gesundheit BAG, F: Office fédéral de la santé publique OFSP) oversees issues related to sickness, accidents, occupational diseases, and maternity. Pensions are the responsibility of the Federal Social Insurance Office (G: Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung BSV, F: Office fédéral des asssurances sociales OFAS). They also administer family allowances in conjunction with canton authorities. The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (G: Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft SECO, F: Secrétariat d'Etat à l'économie SECO) has overall responsibility for unemployment payments.

"For employees, deductions are made each month from your salary for accident and occupational disease insurance (variable rate), old age and survivors pension (4.2% of salary), invalidity insurance (0.7% of salary), income compensation for maternity or during national service (0.25% of salary), the compulsory occupational pension, and unemployment insurance (1.1% of salary where under CHF 10,500 per month, lower rate applies for additional income above that limit). With the exception of accident insurance, these contributions are matched by the employer. The employer will either match or exceed the contribution made by the employee to the occupational pension, with a minimum of 3.5%. The employer has responsibility for contributing to family allowances. Administration of these schemes will be taken care of by the employer. You will be issued with insurance cards and certificates which you then take to a new employer when changing jobs."

"People not in employment are also expected to make means-assessed contributions to old age and invalidity pensions, and to the income compensation scheme. Self-employed deductions differ, please see the self-employment section for further information. Social insurance cover is per person."

http://www.expatfocus.com/expatriate-swi...l-security

As for the United States systemic problems stem from our history, one of socioeconomic and educational inequality. We have a choice, to either try to improve the lives of our citizens to help them get out of poverty through trying to break and overcome the gaps in education and wealth disparity. Or we can throw up our hands and say 'Fuck it, fuck the system, and fuck them' and just cut all programs intended to help them (a favorite tactics of Libertarian politicians). Fuck education, fuck a minimum living wage, fuck safety standards. Cut he government, and let corporation walk all over the people; because that will solve the problem.

Maximum freedom, for those you can afford it. Indeed.


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But why are you not responding to all of the video? You know it's called '5 Stupid Things about Libertarianism', not 4, right? … 5 - It's naive.
Because it's moronic to attack a position based on some subjective, knee-jerk emotion. The fact is that if you rank the countries of the world on how closely they adhere to the libertarian ideal, the more libertarian a country is the more people live long, healthy, happy, free and prosperous lives. The fact is that after thousands of years of ignorance and darkness the moment libertarians took over, almost instantly innovation and knowledge exploded, standards of living shot up, a middle class grew, life expectancy doubled.

Except that the countries you posit as torch-bearers of Libertarianism have government regulations and publicly funded social safety nets. They often have more restrictive regulations to limit the ownership of firearms, and are much more concerned with protecting the environment and promoting education (also through taxation of all citizens). They are actually more heavily regulated than the United States, where in the last few decades our deregulation has allowed banks and corporation to run roughshod over the American people.

But why let reality stop you from lying for your beliefs?


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 09:02 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Robber Barons - Historical Proof that Libertarianism is Full of Shit.
This epitomizes the differences between us. I'm commenting on and analyzing the youtube videos that support your position. If you had an open mind you'd google 'libertarian position on robber barons' and find the video below which utterly decimates that myth.

Yes, because you need the 'Libertarian version' of the truth, not actual history, to safely spin it into something you find more palpable.


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But, of course, you're not looking for knowledge, just self-affirmation, so you're not willing to listen to the other side. Here's one little factoid for you: While US public education is very poorly rated, google the international ranking of universities of higher education. The US dominates having the lion's share. Now look at the history of all those universities? Who founded them? Oh yeah, in every case, it was your much maligned robber barons.

Philanthropy does not negate how they amassed their wealth, or how they used it to stomp out competition and unions. Are you now arguing that the 'ends justify the means'? That monopolies, and union busting, and buying the government is okay, so long as those billionaires throw us a few token libraries and universities?

Also...

1 - Harvard - Establish in 1636 by the Massachusetts legislature.

2 - Stanford - The university was founded in 1885 by Leland Stanford, former governor of and U.S. senator from California and leading railroad tycoon.

3 - University of California, Berkeley - In 1866, the land comprising the current Berkeley campus was purchased by the private College of California.

4 - Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - A proposal by William Barton Rogers (geologist, physicist and educator) led to a charter for the incorporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, signed by the governor of Massachusetts on April 10, 1861.

5 - University of Cambridge - Originally founded in 1209, it is the second-oldest university in the English-speaking world, and the world's third-oldest surviving university. Located in Cambridge, England, United Kingdom.

http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2013.html

So out of the top 5, only 4 are American. Of those 4 only one (Stanford) bears the name of, and was founded by, a business tycoon. Thanks for lying again dumbass.


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  In fact, look at US News's rating of US universities. Every one of the top 46 was founded by private entrepeneurs—the robber barons. You have to go all the way down to #47 before you find the first one that was NOT created by robber barons. Look at all the other great charities in the US, and trace their roots. Again, the robber barons.

For starters, here is the link you failed to provide.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...iversities

US News lists Harvard at number 2, and that alone proves your claims fallacious.

"Harvard was formed in 1636 by vote of the Great and General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It was initially called "New College" or "the college at New Towne". In 1638, the college became home for North America's first known printing press, carried by the ship John of London. In 1639, the college was renamed Harvard College after deceased clergyman John Harvard, who was an alumnus of the University of Cambridge. He had left the school £779 pounds sterling and his library of some 400 books. The charter creating the Harvard Corporation was granted in 1650."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard


(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  


His argument amounts to "they had charities, therefore it is myth". Okay...

Then he acknowledge that we still have Robber Barons, it's just that he thinks we're all better off when the Barons fought each other rather than helped each other. And that might have work, back in the pre-Information age. But once again, times change, technologies change, the reality changes; and your ideology is still stuck in the past longing for a simpler time.

But a quick Wiki of this guy shows why you're such a fan.

"Friedman was an economic adviser to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention. He once stated that his role in eliminating U.S. conscription was his proudest accomplishment, and his support for school choice led him to found The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax, and education vouchers. His ideas concerning monetary policy, taxation, privatization and deregulation influenced government policies, especially during the 1980s. His monetary theory influenced the Federal Reserve's response to the global financial crisis of 2007–08. In the field of statistics, Friedman developed the sequential sampling method of analysis."


One has to wonder how much more deregulation we need before the billionaires all start fighting each other for our benefit... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-05-2014, 04:57 AM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(19-05-2014 08:50 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Libertarianism =/= The Enlightenment

To show you that they are, I just made this post for you. You can see I don't make any claims or state my opinion, I just ask liberals questions to challenge their beliefs. The reply is just vitriol, calling me a fucking cunt, when I said nothing disrespectful. You have to scroll through 6 pages of vitriol before post #51 when someone finally even attempted to answer the questions. See my response in #54. Was the reply in #51 based on logic and reason?

And look how after 6 pages of posts proving that the IRS taxes all bartering whether commercial or not, Chas still insists that bartering "is not reportable income if it is not commercial." See his post #57, and compare that to the IRS links here and here. See my post #58. If he's willing to twist something that is so simple and obvious and irrelevant trivia that doesn't even affect our positions, imagine what it would take to get him to admit he's wrong on something that REALLY matters. And, no matter how times I challenge liberals to come up with ANY question that a libertarian will similarly run from, you can't. Try. Throw out your toughest question and see if, like the liberals, I scream profanities and refuse to answer it.

Now read how the Age of Enlightenment was a "cultural movement of intellectuals... emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange."

See, challenging ideas like I did in that thread is a defining characteristic of the AoE, and libertarianism.

As much as I disagree with conservatives, I find them easier to get along with because at least they admit their beliefs are what they are: based on faith. Many will even readily admit there is no scientific proof for the talking snake and all their other traditions. And that's perfectly valid. The world would be a miserable place if everybody focused only on logic and reason. The world is much better having artists and creative types and a wide range of people with all different talents. The ONLY time conservatives get under my skin is when they pretend to be something their not, claiming the can prove Noah survived the flood using logic and reason and facts. To me, THAT gets really annoying. Same thing with liberals. If you want to come out and say "I believe in this system, I like it, I want to live in it" I would totally respect it. No criticism, no sarcasm. BUT, since liberals want to force their beliefs on others they all too often try to pretend like it's rooted in logic and reason so they have some justification to have those who disagree thrown in jail.

Give it up. You have been proven wrong.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  By that definition (a person who advocates liberty), I'm a Libertarian, you do know that right?

Huh? You know dictionaries are free these days: Liberty: “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or rightof doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. “

The ONLY thing you've said that I've ever pushed back is when you deny people freedom of choice. And every time I say, give people liberty, let them exercise free will, you reply that anybody who won't do what you and the voting majority want are selfish pricks who can fuck themselves. You are as anti-liberty as one could possibly be.

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Who was the leader author of the constitution? Oh yeah, the father of US libertarianism, Thomas Jefferson.

I thought John Locke was the father? Is he an uncle then? Who is the son of Libertarianism?

You need to get your family tree in order.

No, you need to learn to read. It originated in the UK with John Locke, and, just as I wrote, Thomas Jefferson is regarded as the chief advocate that brought it to the US. Note, I said he was the father of “US libertarianism”. You get an 'F' in reading comprehension.

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 10:24 AM)frankksj Wrote:  In a republic, the government IS the constitution. It's the liberals like Shives who are trying to sabotage the government by burning the constitution. What you guys still don't seem to get is BOTH of us are pro-government.

Yes, you're so pro-government in fact that you left the country...

I didn't leave ALL countries and governments. I just left the one that, for the past 50 hundreds, has constantly invaded and attacked peaceful democracies, overturning them, and propping up puppet dictators who exploit the people and send all the wealth back to the US. You may be proud of what the US did in Iran, Grenada, Chile, Panama, Iraq, Brazil, Greece, etc., etc., and all the millions of innocent people they slaughtered, but, no I was not, and much more identify with a peaceful nation that for many centuries has never attacked anybody else. If that makes me an evil traitor, that's just your opinion. I think it makes you a barbarian to keep supporting and defending the system. Pick up Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival if you want a historic rundown of all the things this system you defend in recent years.



(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What you and your naive ideology continuously fail to realize is that not everyone is all that ethical (real shocker I'm sure), and that not everyone values everyone else's freedom as much as you do.

I keep rebutting this, but it never hits home. Why is it that all of you say OTHER people are unethical and we need my laws to keep THEM in line? Who are these OTHER people since all of you say this, and nobody says “I'm unethical, we need laws to keep ME in place.” And who decides what laws everybody has to follow? Just your ethical self? No, those unethical people you deride have just as much say as you do! As Jefferson said, if you can't trust people to make decisions for themselves, how can you trust them to make decisions for others?

An open-minded intellectual would stop and reflect upon those thoughtful words. But you just keep saying 'we need these laws because other people are unethical.'

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's job is to protect and serve it's citizens, and protect and guard their best interests.

Government's job is protect citizens interests because the citizens are unable to do so themselves. Government exists to save people from their own stupidity, got it. I'll ask again, “Who decides the laws that government enforces? Is it not the same stupid people you say need saving from themselves?”

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  At this point, I am convinced you do not actually live in Switzerland, but instead like using it for your fever-dream induced imaginary arguments.

"There is a system of social insurance in place in Switzerland to which everyone working in Switzerland must contribute.

Read what I wrote. I never said there wasn't a social security or pension program. I said there was no welfare program at the federal or canton level. Welfare is NOT where working people set their own money aside in a fund they can draw from later. Welfare is when the government takes money through taxation from one group and gives it to another group. Really lame straman.

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As for the United States systemic problems stem from our history, one of socioeconomic and educational inequality. We have a choice, to either try to improve the lives of our citizens to help them get out of poverty through trying to break and overcome the gaps in education and wealth disparity. Or we can throw up our hands and say 'Fuck it, fuck the system, and fuck them'

OR, we can say what caused the situation? Who warned that the change in policy in 1970 would cause this inequality? Who predicted it would happen this way? Until you are willing to answer those OBVIOUS questions it is painfully obvious you don't actually give a fuck about inequality or poor people, so get off your high horse.

[Image: GiniLong2004.jpg]

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that the countries you posit as torch-bearers of Libertarianism have government regulations and

That's ridiculous. You want it both ways. When I mention Hong Kong and Switzerland liberal's first reaction is to bash them for being so backwards and not having enough government involvement. Then when I show statistics proving how well they work, you respond “Oh yeah, it's because of the government”.


(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  only one (Stanford) bears the name of, and was founded by, a business tycoon. Thanks for lying again dumbass.

Who is lying? You obviously didn't click the links. Who is Harvard named after? John Harvard. Who funded Harvard, making it the school it is today? Oh yeah, it was the Harvard family fortune. Sure, the Massachusetts legislature allocated the huge sum of £400. The rest came from Harvard. So who do you credit for making it the university it is today? Of course, the government.

Berkeley: Your own quote confirms it was a private college, bought the College of California, founded by Dr. Samuel H. Willey.

MIT: Again, just read your own quotes. All Rogers got initially from the government was a charter to use the land. Rogers was a private citizen, not a government employee, and was on his own to raise the money. Again, you give the credit to the government, when it was your much-maligned entrepreneurs (or “Robber Barons”) that built and funded the schools. What is the highest ranking US university you can find that was built, funded and run by the state?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 02:38 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 03:26 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  By that definition (a person who advocates liberty), I'm a Libertarian, you do know that right?
Huh? You know dictionaries are free these days: Liberty: “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or rightof doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice. “

The ONLY thing you've said that I've ever pushed back is when you deny people freedom of choice. And every time I say, give people liberty, let them exercise free will, you reply that anybody who won't do what you and the voting majority want are selfish pricks who can fuck themselves. You are as anti-liberty as one could possibly be.

Except that there is always restriction on what we, as a society, will allow. Even you place an arbitrary limit that as soon as someone's free-will interferes with another's, that's bad (so even your free-will is not absolute, and you support restrictions and limitations). I'm just not naive enough to think that everyone will respect your Libertarian ideals if left to their own devices; because if we could, we would have already. I do support liberty, I just have a much more realistic view on its limitations within modern context.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I thought John Locke was the father? Is he an uncle then? Who is the son of Libertarianism?

You need to get your family tree in order.
No, you need to learn to read. It originated in the UK with John Locke, and, just as I wrote, Thomas Jefferson is regarded as the chief advocate that brought it to the US. Note, I said he was the father of “US libertarianism”. You get an 'F' in reading comprehension.

Sorry, I sometime get lost in all of your celebratory masturbation.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, you're so pro-government in fact that you left the country...
I didn't leave ALL countries and governments. I just left the one that, for the past 50 hundreds, has constantly invaded and attacked peaceful democracies, overturning them, and propping up puppet dictators who exploit the people and send all the wealth back to the US. You may be proud of what the US did in Iran, Grenada, Chile, Panama, Iraq, Brazil, Greece, etc., etc., and all the millions of innocent people they slaughtered, but, no I was not, and much more identify with a peaceful nation that for many centuries has never attacked anybody else. If that makes me an evil traitor, that's just your opinion. I think it makes you a barbarian to keep supporting and defending the system. Pick up Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival if you want a historic rundown of all the things this system you defend in recent years.

Once again, you misrepresent me by equating my support of improving and fixing the system with blanket approval of all past deeds. How can you not see how blatantly fucked up that is? Either you're too stupid to notice, our you're too craven to care. Go fuck yourself either way.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What you and your naive ideology continuously fail to realize is that not everyone is all that ethical (real shocker I'm sure), and that not everyone values everyone else's freedom as much as you do.
I keep rebutting this, but it never hits home. Why is it that all of you say OTHER people are unethical and we need my laws to keep THEM in line? Who are these OTHER people since all of you say this, and nobody says “I'm unethical, we need laws to keep ME in place.” And who decides what laws everybody has to follow?

The majority. If the minority don't like it, they can always move, right?


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Just your ethical self? No, those unethical people you deride have just as much say as you do! As Jefferson said, if you can't trust people to make decisions for themselves, how can you trust them to make decisions for others?

So the idea of compromise, the realization that a group of people will never 100% completely agree about everything at all times, is entirely lost upon you?

Somebody here is being paranoid about the imposition of the will of the 'other' on themselves, and it's not me, because I'm not the Libertarian.

Also, what is your point of bring up the Jefferson quote again? You don't want anybody making decisions for anyone else, because you think that all opinions are of equal value regardless of how well informed or misinformed they may be. It's denialist thinking like that that sees support for 'teach the controversy', under the false pretense that there is an equal debate between Creationism and Evolution. Only someone entirely ignorant of the facts of the matter can support that position. No wonder you seem so keen on the idea...


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  An open-minded intellectual would stop and reflect upon those thoughtful words. But you just keep saying 'we need these laws because other people are unethical.'

What is and is not 'unethical' changes from society to society, and can change over time within a society. There have always been people who have acted contrary to, and to the detriment of, the social contract and their fellow citizens. I recognize that different societies will have different valuations, different taboos, and different prohibitions.

Even your Libertarian fantasy still requires there be someone around to enforce the respect of each other's personal freedom, not even you can escape that. Because without rules and enforcement, what is there to prevent someone from imposing themselves on you and taking away your freedom? Are you so naive to think that given no oversight, nobody will try to take advantage of another? Because if so, you're dumber than I initially gave you credit for.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's job is to protect and serve it's citizens, and protect and guard their best interests.
Government's job is protect citizens interests because the citizens are unable to do so themselves. Government exists to save people from their own stupidity, got it. I'll ask again, “Who decides the laws that government enforces? Is it not the same stupid people you say need saving from themselves?”

In a democratically elected Republic (like the United States or Switzerland), it's the majority. People are voted into office by majority, legislation is passed by majority or supermajority depending. However our Constitution does have a number of protections for right of individuals and minorities designed to stop abuse by the majority.

Did you fail Civics, or are you trying to be rhetorical?


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  At this point, I am convinced you do not actually live in Switzerland, but instead like using it for your fever-dream induced imaginary arguments.

"There is a system of social insurance in place in Switzerland to which everyone working in Switzerland must contribute.
Read what I wrote. I never said there wasn't a social security or pension program. I said there was no welfare program at the federal or canton level. Welfare is NOT where working people set their own money aside in a fund they can draw from later. Welfare is when the government takes money through taxation from one group and gives it to another group. Really lame straman.

I did read it, and you said...

"Like I mentioned, what opened my eyes was living in a libertarian country that has no government welfare and leaves everything to local charity, and realizing this system actually eliminated poverty."

Unemployment insurance and universal healthcare are considered welfare.

"You will have arranged private health insurance as a condition of residence in Switzerland (further details on this are available in the Insurance and Health Service sections) and will deal with your insurance company directly. The rules governing your health insurance plan will be detailed in their policy documentation. If you are unemployed or on a low income and struggling to meet health insurance costs you will need to apply for financial assistance with the compensation office of the social insurance institution for your canton (G: Ausgleichskasse AHV, F: Caisse de compensation AVS, I: Casse di compensazione AVS). They will assess your income and, if eligible, will pay you a subsidy to reduce your health insurance premium."

I wonder if their system would be improved with a laissez-faire policy that allowed insurance companies to discriminate (exercise their free-will) to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions?


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As for the United States systemic problems stem from our history, one of socioeconomic and educational inequality. We have a choice, to either try to improve the lives of our citizens to help them get out of poverty through trying to break and overcome the gaps in education and wealth disparity. Or we can throw up our hands and say 'Fuck it, fuck the system, and fuck them'
OR, we can say what caused the situation? Who warned that the change in policy in 1970 would cause this inequality?

The socioeconomic inequality can be traced back to colonial times, some of them are older than the country itself.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Who predicted it would happen this way? Until you are willing to answer those OBVIOUS questions it is painfully obvious you don't actually give a fuck about inequality or poor people, so get off your high horse.

Coming from the guy advocating for less restriction for corporations to walk all over us, that is rich.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except that the countries you posit as torch-bearers of Libertarianism have government regulations and
That's ridiculous. You want it both ways. When I mention Hong Kong and Switzerland liberal's first reaction is to bash them for being so backwards and not having enough government involvement. Then when I show statistics proving how well they work, you respond “Oh yeah, it's because of the government”.

I've always admired the liberal democracies of northern Europe, because they work so well because of their smart regulation. Where have I ever said otherwise? You won't find it because you're a lying piece of shit, that's why.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  only one (Stanford) bears the name of, and was founded by, a business tycoon. Thanks for lying again dumbass.
Who is lying? You obviously didn't click the links.

You didn't provide any dumbass.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Who is Harvard named after? John Harvard. Who funded Harvard, making it the school it is today? Oh yeah, it was the Harvard family fortune. Sure, the Massachusetts legislature allocated the huge sum of £400. The rest came from Harvard. So who do you credit for making it the university it is today? Of course, the government.

That's the problem with your absolutism. You claimed "Every one of the top 46 was founded by private entrepeneurs[sic]". Was Harvard founded by an entrepeneur? No, fuck you; use less hyperbole in the future jackass.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Berkeley: Your own quote confirms it was a private college, bought the College of California, founded by Dr. Samuel H. Willey.

He fails to meet the definition of Robber Baron, rather he was just a doctor and a philanthropist. He didn't personally finance the University from his own funds, he had to go about raising money for the project.

"Every one of the top 46 was founded by private entrepeneurs—the robber barons. You have to go all the way down to #47 before you find the first one that was NOT created by robber barons."

Berkeley was not created by Robber Barons.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  MIT: Again, just read your own quotes. All Rogers got initially from the government was a charter to use the land. Rogers was a private citizen, not a government employee, and was on his own to raise the money.

Once again, not a Robber Baron. Likewise not all entrepreneurs were Robber Barons. For the upteenth time you have commited the Fallacy of Equivocation.


(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, you give the credit to the government, when it was your much-maligned entrepreneurs (or “Robber Barons”) that built and funded the schools. What is the highest ranking US university you can find that was built, funded and run by the state?

Governments certainly help. Who is the biggest supplier of student loans to pay for higher education in the United States? Who is the biggest employer of college professors? Who authorized the GI Bill to help veterans get a higher education?

Government is not the solution in all times and all places, but neither is it the anathema you constantly portray it to be.

Regardless, given the US News list, the top public schools are the University of California in Los Angeles and the University of Virginia at 23'rd place (which is less than half of the hyperbolic 47 you initially claimed). Not that it means much. Private colleges, much like other private schools, come at a premium (UCLA tuition is a quarter of the private Carnegie Mellon University, also ranked at 23). Considering how much more it costs per credit hour to attend Harvard over your local community college, it had better be ranked in the top 5.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-05-2014, 05:43 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I keep rebutting this, but it never hits home. Why is it that all of you say OTHER people are unethical and we need my laws to keep THEM in line? Who are these OTHER people since all of you say this, and nobody says “I'm unethical, we need laws to keep ME in place.” And who decides what laws everybody has to follow?

The majority. If the minority don't like it, they can always move, right?

And who is the majority? You? Or all the other morons you insist can't make decisions for themselves? You don't see the irony?

(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  However our Constitution does have a number of protections for right of individuals and minorities designed to stop abuse by the majority.

YES!!! And the #1 protection was in the enumerated powers section which states that requires that any laws which initiate force to coerce people into doing things against their will has to be done at the state level and people must be allowed to leave if it becomes too oppressive! That is the #1 thing I'm calling for! So how can you possibly quote the constitutional protection of minorities, and then throw them in the trash?

(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unemployment insurance and universal healthcare are considered welfare.

Absurd. You're just making up your own definitions. If I say "John is on welfare" you are NEVER going to interpret that to mean that he has unemployment or health insurance. The meaning is VERY, VERY clear. Welfare is when government gives taxpayer money to individuals.

This is a waste of time. When I make a good point and you're eating crow, you just pretend like you don't understand what words mean.

(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:15 PM)frankksj Wrote:  OR, we can say what caused the situation? Who warned that the change in policy in 1970 would cause this inequality?

The socioeconomic inequality can be traced back to colonial times, some of them are older than the country itself.

Fine. So you don't dispute that inequality got better when the US had a libertarian monetary system and has gotten worse every since the US switched to your favored monetary system. Now you just want to look back to colonial times?? WTF?! You obviously don't give a fuck about inequality or else you'd be willing to open your eyes and see what's causing it.

(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I've always admired the liberal democracies of northern Europe, because they work so well because of their smart regulation. Where have I ever said otherwise? You won't find it because you're a lying piece of shit, that's why.

Holy shit. A stunning example of Americans' total ignorance about geography. After moving to Switzerland 50% or so of Americans thought it was in Northern Europe and the people spoke Swedish. No, dummy. It's next to Italy. When you were praising Switzerland for it's "smart regulation" you were obviously confusing it with Sweden. Switzerland is the freest, most unregulated economy in the euro zone. Neighbors like Germany and France are always blasting Switzerland for weak government policies, lack of regulation, not having minimum wage, or welfare, encouraging bank secrecy, not taxing capital gains, letting some residents negotiate to pay a fixed tax without reporting any of their income, etc., etc., etc. THAT is Switzerland dumb ass. So when you're off praising it for it's strong regulation you're just showing the world what's wrong with the American education system. I think statistically something like 1/3 of American 6th graders couldn't even find the US on a world map!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Holy shit. A stunning example of Americans' total ignorance about geography.

Funny you should say that.

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  After moving to Switzerland 50% or so of Americans thought it was in Northern Europe and the people spoke Swedish. No, dummy. It's next to Italy. When you were praising Switzerland for it's "smart regulation" you were obviously confusing it with Sweden.

I cannot parse this nonsense. It is in literally no way a coherent response to anything EK just said.

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Switzerland is the freest, most unregulated economy in the euro zone.

Fail. Switzerland is not a eurozone member. Switzerland is not an EU member.

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Neighbors like Germany and France are always blasting Switzerland for weak government policies, lack of regulation, not having minimum wage, or welfare, encouraging bank secrecy, not taxing capital gains, letting some residents negotiate to pay a fixed tax without reporting any of their income, etc., etc., etc.

Notwithstanding the welfare systems they do have, just like any developed country.

(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  THAT is Switzerland dumb ass. So when you're off praising it for it's strong regulation you're just showing the world what's wrong with the American education system. I think statistically something like 1/3 of American 6th graders couldn't even find the US on a world map!

You've amply demonstrated that you know nothing about educational statistics either. Suffice to say that's not true.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
20-05-2014, 06:57 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I've always admired the liberal democracies of northern Europe, because they work so well because of their smart regulation. Where have I ever said otherwise? You won't find it because you're a lying piece of shit, that's why.

Holy shit. A stunning example of Americans' total ignorance about geography. After moving to Switzerland 50% or so of Americans thought it was in Northern Europe and the people spoke Swedish. No, dummy. It's next to Italy. When you were praising Switzerland for it's "smart regulation" you were obviously confusing it with Sweden.

He is talking about the 'liberal democracies of northern Europe'. That's what he said - he's not talking about Switzerland.

This is a crystal clear example of your insanity. Just shut the fuck up and go away.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 09:49 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 06:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I cannot parse this nonsense. It is in literally no way a coherent response to anything EK just said.

Yes, he was referring to Switzerland as a Northern European country with strong regulation. He was obviously confusing it with Sweden.

(20-05-2014 06:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Notwithstanding the welfare systems they do have, just like any developed country.

Total fail, utterly and completely wrong. I will admit I flubbed when I wrote euro zone. I started to write Schengen since Switzerland isn't part of the EU, but figured he wouldn't know what Schengen meant so I tried to be more generic referring to the european area. But you're right. Euro zone means a specific thing, and not western europe in general. Now, will you likewise admit that you're wrong when I present you the evidence? We'll see:

Source: "So what happens if you are, say, a young mother in Switzerland with a little baby but no husband or similar on the scene and nowhere to live? There is no countrywide answer to this question because it is not dealt with on a national basis. It is not even dealt with by one of the 26 cantons. It is dealt with by your local commune. There are 2,900 of these and their population can be anything from 30 to 10,000 or more."

Another study: "SWITZERLAND is not often thought of when we discuss the welfare state. In many respects it is not a welfare state... But in one critical respect it has achieved what the United States and European nations traditionally defined as welfare states have not: It has all but eliminated “welfare dependency,” or intergenerational poverty, and it has done this in a strikingly different manner than other developed societies."

See, even the experts in the field readily admit Switzerland's answer to welfare is most definitely NOT like any developed country. Now, take a minute and go fact check. Try to find just ONE source to backup your claim that Switzerland has a national, or even a state, welfare system "just like any developed country." When you fail, and find that every source validates what I said, will you man up and admit that you misspoke?

(20-05-2014 06:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I think statistically something like 1/3 of American 6th graders couldn't even find the US on a world map!
You've amply demonstrated that you know nothing about educational statistics either. Suffice to say that's not true.

Again, will you admit you're wrong once the evidence is inescapable? Let's see.

Huffington Post: "Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on Map of America"

Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 10:37 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 09:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Again, will you admit you're wrong once the evidence is inescapable? Let's see.

Huffington Post: "Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on Map of America"

Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
37% of Americans ≠ 33% of all American 6th graders

So there's that. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
20-05-2014, 10:49 PM
RE: [split] Ignorance about anarchism
(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The majority. If the minority don't like it, they can always move, right?
And who is the majority? You? Or all the other morons you insist can't make decisions for themselves? You don't see the irony?

Am I in the majority? Yes and no. I agree with the majority in wanting to get money out of politics, I am in the rather recent majority that favors marriage equality and the decriminalization of marijuana. I however am in the minority on other topics, such as sectarian prayer before government meetings.

Ideally people have a debate, and those with the best ideas convince the most people to adopt their ideas and we move forward. At the top of my list is a push for a Constitutional Amendment to restore free elections and get money out of politics, so that we can have those policy debates free of the influence of corporate and private donors.


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  However our Constitution does have a number of protections for right of individuals and minorities designed to stop abuse by the majority.
YES!!! And the #1 protection was in the enumerated powers section which states that requires that any laws which initiate force to coerce people into doing things against their will has to be done at the state level and people must be allowed to leave if it becomes too oppressive! That is the #1 thing I'm calling for! So how can you possibly quote the constitutional protection of minorities, and then throw them in the trash?

You're a fucking idiot, who can not comprehend that someone might disagree with you while not having the exact reason you imagine for doing so.

Enumerated powers?

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Provide for the general welfare, like firefighters, police, public education; and to provide such service with taxes levied against the public. Can you quote the exact section of Article 1 Section 8 that you're trying to cite for your specific Libertarian ends?


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Unemployment insurance and universal healthcare are considered welfare.
Absurd. You're just making up your own definitions. If I say "John is on welfare" you are NEVER going to interpret that to mean that he has unemployment or health insurance. The meaning is VERY, VERY clear. Welfare is when government gives taxpayer money to individuals.

Then education grants are welfare. Every student who gets taxpayer money from the government to help pay for their education is on welfare by that definition.

"Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid. In most developed countries welfare is largely provided by the government, and to a lesser extent, charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations.

The welfare state expands on this concept to include services such as universal healthcare and unemployment insurance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is a waste of time. When I make a good point and you're eating crow, you just pretend like you don't understand what words mean.

You're right, it is a waste of time; because you throw out more Fallacies of Equivocation than anyone can possibly keep up with. You also lie and misrepresent the position of your opponents and facts about history.


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The socioeconomic inequality can be traced back to colonial times, some of them are older than the country itself.
Fine. So you don't dispute that inequality got better when the US had a libertarian monetary system and has gotten worse every[sic] since the US switched to your favored monetary system.

Once again, I've highlighted the bullshit you have imagined on your own.


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Now you just want to look back to colonial times?? WTF?! You obviously don't give a fuck about inequality or else you'd be willing to open your eyes and see what's causing it.

Systemic wealth disparity, the rich get rich and the poor (with access to less resources, education, and opportunity) get poorer. These are often ingrained along regional and racial lines.(i.e. inner city Detroit lacks the educated well-payed tax base to fund better education to help break the cycle).


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 02:38 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I've always admired the liberal democracies of northern Europe, because they work so well because of their smart regulation. Where have I ever said otherwise? You won't find it because you're a lying piece of shit, that's why.
Holy shit. A stunning example of Americans' total ignorance about geography. After moving to Switzerland 50% or so of Americans thought it was in Northern Europe and the people spoke Swedish. No, dummy. It's next to Italy.

Yeah, no shit. Notice I didn't cite Switzerland this time dumbass.


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  When you were praising Switzerland for it's "smart regulation" you were obviously confusing it with Sweden. Switzerland is the freest, most unregulated economy in the euro zone.

Switzerland isn't part of the EU, doesn't use the Euro, and thus is not part of the Euro-Zone.

Also, there is this, and even this is just the financial market.

"Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) is the Swiss government body responsible for financial regulation. This includes the supervision of banks, insurance companies, stock exchanges and securities dealers as well as other financial intermediaries in Switzerland."

"FINMA is an independent institution with its own legal personality based in Bern. It is institutionally, functionally and financially independent from the central federal administration and the Federal Department of Finance and reports directly to the Swiss parliament."

"As a state regulatory body, FINMA is endowed with supreme authority over banks, insurance companies, stock exchanges, securities dealers and collective investment schemes. It is responsible for combating money laundering and, where necessary, conducts financial restructuring and bankruptcy proceedings. In addition, it has supervisory powers with respect to the disclosure of participations and is the complaints body for decisions of the Takeover Board in the area of public takeover bids for listed companies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Finan..._Authority


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Neighbors like Germany and France are always blasting Switzerland for weak government policies, lack of regulation...

Well, they have been an international tax haven for decades.


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...not having minimum wage...

True, they tackled the issue by ensuring collective bargaining by almost all of their workers, so that the employees have far more power to negotiate for higher wages than we have here in the united states. It's still a policy enacted, encouraged, and enforced with the backing of the state for the benefit of the people; which is what I've been advocating for and which you seem to find anathema (except for when you forget to mention it).


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...or welfare...

Sure, depending on how you define 'welfare'. If you exclude employment insurance and universal healthcare, then sure, they don't have 'welfare'. Well, unless they give education grants to their students that is. Oh wait, what about school vouchers? Doesn't that fit your definition of the government 'giving' taxpayer money to an individual?


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ...encouraging bank secrecy, not taxing capital gains, letting some residents negotiate to pay a fixed tax without reporting any of their income, etc., etc., etc.

Not every system is perfect, even Switzerland could use some more transparency in some places.


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  THAT is Switzerland dumb ass.

The same Switzerland that supplies your internet out of Southern California?


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So when you're off praising it for it's strong regulation you're just showing the world what's wrong with the American education system.

Yes, an education system you'd rather destroy and leave up to the free-markets. That'll make things better I'm sure.

Switzerland provides compulsory education to all children funded by the state, much like the United States. Not only that, but they also provide vocational training and free admission to their universities to their students. Once again, all funded through the government with tax payer money.


(20-05-2014 05:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I think statistically something like 1/3 of American 6th graders couldn't even find the US on a world map!

Yeah, you'd think that. This is the closest I could find to anything relevant.

Quote:In 2006, the National Geographic Society interviewed 510 young Americans -- people aged 18 to 24 -- about geography. Interviewers handed people a blank map of the world and asked them to identify various countries. "Nearly all (94 percent) young Americans can find the United States on the world map, and Canada (92 percent) and Mexico (88 percent) are nearly as familiar," the survey found.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: