[Phil] The Hundred Year Rule

I am exploring the idea a simple 100 year rule regarding claims to land. The world is full of ancient cultures, and in many places you can have as many as 10-20 different groups claiming the same territory, some with a claim that goes back centuries or even millennia. But most of these people took the land from someone else, and in some cases go to ridiculous lengths to doctor or obscure science by stating otherwise. There is *NO* group of humanity that has some noble peace like spirit that has not engaged in war of one kind or another, either within their group or with outside groups. It might not be war as we recognize it, but be assured, they've taken up arms and they've killed to maintain their tribal area.

The problem with our species is that our greatest gift, language and symbolic recognition, is also our greatest curse. Magic, mythology and stories are, to me, the best part about being human. But our history should work for us, not the other way around. In law, there is a reason for a statute of limitations. People can change, and also there is a finite amount of willpower to enforce things, so why go after a crime that no one cares about anymore? Or at least has no logical reason to care about?

But of course things are more complicated than that. To begin with, following the metaphor, there are certain crimes which are never forgiven or forgotten; like murder or bank robbery, both due to their seriousness, as well as the fact that if there was a statute of limitations for crimes such as these, people would be more likely to commit them and simply play the long game to wait them out. Conversely, genocide is a crime that should never be forgotten, nor should forced migrations.

Moreover, are we going to forget important dates of the past? One culture's holiday and independence can be another's bitter defeat about lost territory. So long as 'the founder of the nation' is honored for their heroic deeds, the baggage of their actions in the past are going to cause problems. People are not going to forget their history easily, and indeed in some cases, their entire culture is defined by events in ancient times.

I am not proposing that we forget history, only that we forgive most of it with regards to territory. But I think the real key to this is self-determination by the people on the land, who are actually living there. This doesn't solve all problems, but it eliminates a lot of gray areas. For example, the real reason I've been considering this is the absolutely ridiculous claims by Argentina against the Falkland islands. Argentina hasn't had anyone from their nation living on these islands in nearly 150+ years but they're making a big political deal about them, and because of international politics, south America is rallying around them. Well then why isn't Argentina returning the land they occupy to its indigenous populations and moving back to Spain? You could make the same claim against the indigenous populations and the bearing straight, but they didn't keep written records. Argentina's claim of 'imperialism' is silly. Its not because the UK wasn't an imperial power...it's because Argentina itself was created as part of the imperial legacy of Spain. Yes, they fought for independence...but if the Falkland islands had fought against Spain and the UK would they claim the land still? Is self-determination only valid if they want independence?

This gets even more complicated, but I believe is still applicable in places like Scotland or Quebec. The concept of the nation state requires coherence, but if a part of a territory wants independence, and seeks it for more than a century, it is foolish not to grant it to them. Let the American South have a vote, once and for all, if they truly want independence, and if they do, let them go. If not then let them stay in the country for another hundred years. Let the reservations in the United States be TRUE independent nations instead of museums for First Nation cultures that are EVEN NOW still exploited by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and corrupt western state governments.

Of course, the counter balance to this is...theft of land once this rule is implemented, against the will of the people that live there is verboten. It means that the Israeli settlements stop. It means that the ones that are there are either frozen or dealt with. Ancient claims of the holy land are based on a religion, and religion should not affect governmental policy. Now, realistically is it possible to keep it out? Of course not. Islam is on the rise in countries which are majority members of that faith, and they seem in the mood to make Theocracies or Theocracy Lite. Well, I consider the idea foolish, but it certainly isn't worth sending an army to stop them. However, the majority of the world's secular governments have no reason to recognize claims that are more than a hundred years old.

It’s a fairly simply policy, but it can work both ways. Let the people living on the ground determine what nation they belong to. Let the people using force to move people around stop it. Make it unrewarded. After that, another vote takes place in another 100 years.

What about current claims? What about Yugoslavia and Kirkuk and have a dozen knots around the world? You solve them like you solve any knot...one link at a time. It means that anywhere there is peace and stability now, all people there get a plebiscite, a vote...Scotland, Quebec, the American South...they get a vote and a chance to form their own nation, and the world recognizes that. And all of the places still under stress have a choice...either renounce their claims or keep fighting their own wars, but be ignored by the world without recognition or trade until the parties involved can settle it in a way that they all agree to. It means that all the parties in Kirkuk or Israel have to BOTH agree to a peace or NONE of them get it and none of them get trade.

Do I expect this to happen? No. But I find it a better solution than what we currently have. I'm certainly open to better suggestions, but until we have one world government, the nation state should be determined by people that WANT to live in it, rather than order imposed by one group over another. Technology and sociological advances now allow both large and small states to be possible. And in cases where an accommodation cannot be found, let paid migration take place. Let there be a place for all in a place they can accept, or at least the closest they can.

Utopian, I know. But worth consideration...

Especially since it would finally shut Argentina up about the Falklands. I'm sorry, 'Las Malvinas'.

[Rant] Are Conservatives Demons?

[Fixed some spelling errors, otherwise kept as is.]

Are Conservatives Demons?

The question seems both insulting and pointless, but it is merited of consideration for two points:

a) A counter argument against the ludicrous conservative idea that separation of church and state is not in the constitution.

b) A highlight about the absolute pointless of inserting religious arguments into policies of secular conservations.

Point a is merited because the arguments for separation are sound. First, the word, 'God' or 'Divine' appear in no way in the constitution, but 'congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is inherently plain. How could you fail to understand 'if it has to do wish establishing religion, congress shall not do it?' It is a hell of a lot clearer than 'a well-regulated militia.' Thus, congress shall take no action by law that promotes one religion over another. Therefore all actions MUST have a secular basis in argument else they are unconstitutional. To argue anything else requires convoluted logic in the extreme. To show an example of this convoluted logic, I am thus positing that all conservatives are demons.

Point b is served by my argument below.

Now, first, let us establish some definitions, shall we?

By conservative I mean American conservatives who self-identify themselves as such, but more specifically the socially and fiscally conservative who are also religious of the monotheistic variety. If you are merely socially conservative or fiscally conservative or religious but not of a monotheistic religion, this need not apply to you.

Now let us establish the word, "demon."

Dictionary.com establishes demons as:

1. an evil spirit; devil or fiend.

**In monotheistic religions, humans have spirit. Therefore if that spirit is evil, the body is inhabited by a demon.

2. an evil passion or influence.

**Conservatives are very passionate. Their passions tend toward evil. That makes them demons.

3. a person considered extremely wicked, evil, or cruel.

**It is rational to consider conservatives extremely wicked, evil or cruel people, and therefore demons.

4. a person with great energy, drive, etc.: He's a demon for work.

**Relevant in theory but I shall not persue this definition.

5. a person, especially a child, who is very mischievous: His younger son is a real little demon.

**See comment on #4.

Now, are not demons the servants of Satan? Especially if we follow the modern post christianist interpretation of the afterlife in which those who are righteous who go to heaven become angels in the servants of God. If angels are servants of God, and demons are the servants of the devil, or fallen angels, it stands therefore that those who are bound to hell are demons and thus servants of the devil.

Following this logic, it only needs serve that we define conservatives (as defined above) as evil.

Evil has many definitions, but theologically, the most relevant definition is 'failure to obey the word of God.'

Now, man is imperfect, and theologically speaking it is not our place to judge, but from a philosophical perspective and also for reasons of this exercise in thought, we must consider the broad parameters of what makes a person evil, even if it is not (theologically) our place to say any specific person is evil. It is still reasonable to call a particular belief or set of beliefs evil, else, how are we to have discernment from right or wrong? We must be able to judge evil actions from good, because we are, theologically, judged based on our sin, and how unjust would it be to condemn us for sin without the capacity to discern right from wrong? Is this not the basis of most mainstream monotheist thought?

Let us then consider, it is logical to understand that there are sins of a hierarchical nature, that is, some sins are greater than others. Therefore sin should be judged according to the severity of the law transgressed.

What are then the commandments?

Well, they vary by religion, but let us examine them from a Christian filter.

1) Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might mind and strength.

2) Love thy neighboor.

So, shall we then determine whether conservatives love God and their neighbor?

I propose that a word for word comparison with conservative politicians will indicate that they talk more on the house floor about fiscal matters than matters of the heart.

Who is mammon? Why the devil.

Who advocates that money is speech? Conservatives.

Who therefore says that human lives are commodities to be bartered back and forth? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who values the sacred market, the sacred property rights and the sacred contract more than compassion for the weak? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who mocks empathy (love) in judicial appointments? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who fails even the most basic test of government much less basic humanity in the form of disaster relief? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who urges torture of their enemies? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who wants to condemn women to virtual slavery in their own bodies despite cures given by God Given Truth and Science that will prevent them from needing to have abortions? Conservatives. Servants of the Devil.

Who argues against Science, the discovery of truth and God's creation? Conservatives. Servants of the Devil.

Who lies with impunity and condemns not falsehood? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

Who believes that one man is above another and seeks not to emulate God, who is not a respecter of persons but view all men with equal love? Conservatives. Servants of the Devil. [Conservatives favor the electoral college which gives people in red states more votes than people in blue states.]

Who places more value in soulless, devil [mammon] created automatons (Corporations) than they do in actual people? Conservatives. Servants of the devil.

I could go on like this all day. Some of the arguments here are convoluted at best, but that was the point of this exercise, to show how Conservatives take even the most basic test of religion; compassion for the weak, and twist their own religions in knots trying to justify their behavior. They accept their own interpretations of the constitution that bend over backwards to make them work but ignore plain readings that clearly favor liberal causes and ideas. Their faith in their God and therefore their religion is so weak, that they feel the need for the validation of the State, despite repeated advocation to avoid mixing the two in the old testament, with the prohibitions against Kings and in the new testament where what is Caesar’s is to be Rendered unto Caesar.

Conservatism, especially American Conservatism is a lie and a hypocritical farce at best.

[Phil] Self Evident Truth

Self interest is a requirement for an enduring change to take place. History shows that humanity will adopt radically different ideas, but in my examination thereof, I have yet to find one that does not include some kind of self evident benefit to the Sline population, at least a benefit that is perceived by the Sline, as compared to an actual benefit. I think a few of these might include mass education, opposition to slavery and agriculture. Surely, that seems like a wide range but I choose such for a reason.

Slavery, or the ownership of human beings, had been acceptable for the VAST majority of the human experience. While the most moral among us opposed this, the Sline population tended to either accept or reject the concept based on their personal experience with slavery or the policy selected by their society's elite. The struggle was long and bitter, but it was eventually overcome. That is not to say that slavery no longer exists, but rather, the predominant view point is now such that the majority of the world's population regards a human being as something more than a commodity that can be bought and traded. With that acknowledgement must come an implicit acknowledgement that all human beings have a certain level of dignity and the right to liberty. This might seem obvious, but the double think of confederate plantationists at the phrase, "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are equally endowed by their creator with certain rights." Ignoring the religious overtones, this phrase seemed self evident. At a certain level, there is an inherent worth in all human beings. But I argue that this would not have taken root among the Sline population if the average joe could not think to himself, "Would I want to be a slave?" And if the answer is a resounding 'no!' then it becomes much easier to reject the idea and concept all together.

Many utopian or modern philosophies have died at birth, or failed to get out of the gate because of the ability to appeal to the Sline population. Some gain a slow steady increase, but are indeed self evident. Case in point, Democracy. Democracy has slowly increased, rather than the opposite. Governments have to take greater and greater steps to oppress their people, because the average Sline can ask, "Why does my leader know better than I how to govern?" As the internet, the printing press, and other forms of mass communication enlighten the populace and inform us of the very human flaws of our leaders, this basic question is asked. Democracy is not a 'western' idea, it is a fundamentally basic one....that anyone of a certain minimally basic function should have a say in how things are done in the affairs of state, and to say otherwise demands extraordinary proof.

Education is also an easy idea to spread. Knowledge is power, and as that power becomes easier for all to obtain, they can see how it opens doors for them. Enlightenment and self enlightenment become more and more important. It is an idea that is appealing to all, because the average Sline can think to himself, "I don't want to be an ignorant slob." Of course, of late, this once self evident principal has come under attack. Slines think, "I don't want to question my religion..." or "My political philosophy is more important to me than the truth." But even such poor deluded souls still see the importance of literacy to understand their own self told lies as justified by the wise of the world. One can, after all, delude one's self better, when you can twist science or philosophy to say what it never intended. How much more then, of those who actually desire enlightenment and truth, is the value of knowledge self evident. Knowledge is still valued, even if truth no longer is....if it ever really was.

Agriculture might have been the first very radical change our society made. But its value to our lives is evident. Can you imagine our planet supporting 8 billion people if we were all hunter/gatherers?

Thus, any change, any idea or political philosophy, must appeal to even the most basic of our number. Communism, in its infant state, appealed to the masses because they saw the injustices of an elite few who took the bounty of the earth with a disproportionate and unnecessary reward. The arguement to its counter took the ruination of half the world under corruption and stagnation opposed by the flowering in a 20th century technological utopia (comparitively speaking.) Yet even now, in the shadows of the sky rises of our mighty fortresses of lucre, those at the bottom of the ziggaraut grow uneasy. Even the most basic of us, save those enthralled to lies they tell to ensure their racial superiority or self deceptive belief they shall enter the elite, even those most base among us can see that the system as designed benefits the few, rather than the many. But credible alternatives are...lacking...something.

The Democrats seem to believe only half of the things they say, so ready are they to compromise their own beliefs at the drop of a hat. They are changing, adapting to the parade of comforting lies, slowly, but reluctantly, the elder of their number being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern day. The old argument that Joe Sline might ask, "Why should I vote for you?" Is not as evident as it once was. Past victories are taken for granted. They ask, "What have you done for me lately?"

And the counter argument, the ability to spin lies is also not appealing to the masses. Republicans retain grip on a segment of power by reinventing the truth every six minutes, but it is as vapid and hollow as ever. People who do not have a reason to believe a lie, seldom embrace it for long. The Republican party is less popular than it has been in generations, because Joe Sline looks at the Republicans and says, "Why should only the rich benefit from our system?" Arguements about soviet russia and socialism and communism begin to ring hollow in the echo of their reaganesque 'victory' against the corrupt and fallen leviantan. Again the question comes, "What have you done for me lately?"

Libertarianism is on the rise, but is becoming more and more difficult to see a difference with Republicanism. Every philosophy has its lies and falsehoods, but in their desperation for an identity, the Republicans, through the Tea Party have trumped up the Austrian school of economics, ignoring empiracle data entirely. The base arguement of 'we're going broke' and 'don't tax me' sound wonderful until they meet the practical reality of starving children and crashing economies. Moreover, the basic idea of humans as commodities is simply unacceptable. People are ceasing to believe the European idea of "dignity" is a lie. They see this because it is self evident, but the importance of the individual experience is paramount in American culture.

How then, does one find a structure that addresses the individual but also dignity?

Some of these answers I have sought, and some I have found. But I will tell you that it will not be found in comforting lies, and it will never be found in making individual worth less than zero by consigning all philosophies one does not agree with to the 'other' as 'the state'....

A third axiom is needed....commodity vs dignity. A libertarianism that acknowledges dignity and the right of the majority to form a state is needed...but not readily accepted. The time is ripe for a chance of direction, the question is who will lead and who will follow. Interesting times indeed.

[Mock] Republicans and the Village Media Are Idiots

I have promised that politically I'll save my sarcasm for non facebook posts.

No problem.

Whose a special special special special special super SMART party? Yes, its the smaaaaaaaaaaart Republicans.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Smart.

Such smart questions from the village media. Which asks the same questions 14 times. Because they are stupid.

Maybe 15 will make them get it?

[Phil] A Fallow Commonwealth

Puerto Rico recently voted for statehood. Of course, with the do nothing, know nothing congress we currently have (especially in the house of representatives) this means nothing. Government can't do much of anything right now, especially something new, never mind the fact that Puerto Rico might actually add a Democratic state to the union, so God Forbid we actually add another state to the Disunited States of America. Nonsense, all of it.

However, since I do want to avoid a second civil war, and I just don't think most people have the stomach for Excision , I think that the Puerto Rico situation might offer another middle ground. After Obama won, Secession petitions were filed in every state of the union, but the former confederate states got some of the highest amounts. So, the problem with secession is that it allows local areas to have control over the central government, which is the primary reason Lincoln was opposed to it. But the truth of the matter is, that this country has a long and storied tradition of holding territory that is not fully incorporated into the United States of America.

There are reservations (which are in theory soveriegn nations but in practice are abused by both federal and state governments, which is particularly ironic since if they are separate nations states shouldn't be able to touch them. At all. And yet states still have some influence in Indian territory). We have administered areas which are essentially colonies (like Guam or the Virgin Islands) and then we have a unique situation with Puerto Rico which is a common wealth, whose citizens get the protection of the US military and some basic benefits like Social Security and Medicare, without the ability to vote. They do not, however, pay federal income taxes.

Given how anti tax Red States are at the moment, I'm moderately certain that they would leap at the chance to stop paying Federal Income tax in exchange for their representation in Presidential Election and the Congress. Granted, social conservatives have a need to control a woman's body at all costs, but fiscal conversatives and Ron Paul Republicans seem to care about the size and influence of government more than they do about imposing their values on the rest of the nation. They still LIKE imposing their version of crony capitalism on the nation but taxes seem more important. So why not amend the constitution to give states the ability to go Commonwealth like Puerto Rico for several years at a time before they get another referrendum?

It's a win win proposition. The Red States pay less taxes, and the Blue States get to pass government reforms without the Red States interfering in everything that they do. Moreover, it is not as permanent as excision, because some red states are slowly becoming blue states due to demographics changes.

Hell, I think an even better slution is to allow the Red States to set just how much federal service their going to get. They want anything but basic defense from the military? They have to pay taxes. They will, of course, have to generate enough income to pay for their share of the national debt. That doesn't go away, especially given how our interest has increased due to their playing games with our credit rating, but they could still save a lot of money this way. Let them do what they've always dreamed...pay full price for medicare and medicaide with state generated revenue. Bear in mind that most of these states are a net loss anyway, and a simple condition that the states must allow federal taxation to be provided at par for ANY federal services (ie the states can raise the money any way they like, but they must be revenue neutral for any federal services provided) and I think they'd leap at the chance. Plus it would be a very education experience for the people in these states. There a few net revenue positive red states, but not many. It also fulfills the concern of strategic military necessity (ie, Fly Over country pretty much unites the more populated blue states and is necessary as a logistics pathway for defense of the country).

I know this sounds harsh, but

a) It would work. I sincerely believe that most red states would happily trade their vote in the congress and for the president rather than pay federal taxes.

b) It makes them prove that their theory of small governments will actually work.

c) It still allows freedom of movement for citizens, such that people stuck in a Red State can still leave for government services.

d) It helps make Red States more revenue neutral instead of being financial drains because corporations will set up shop their to take advantage of people that like to let themselves be exploited, thus boosting their income, thus improving their tax base, thus making them less of a drain on the rest of the country once (if ever) they decide to become a voting state again.

e) It does reinforce the idea that states have SOME level of sovereignty.

f) It actually encourages neofederalism because red states would LOVE to allow blue cities trapped in their borders to still state in the US in exchange for being able to stop paying income taxes. This could permanently free many imprisoned cities from Red influence like New York, Atlanta and Chicago.

g) It is a better alternative than civil war, which is what I see as a likely occurance if these desperate reality challenged people continue to lose influence and retain any power with increasing delusion and increasingly desperate measures like voter suppression and gerrymandered districts.

[Rant] Clever Play Vs Dick Moves and Markets

I like to play board games, and not the regular "Monopoly" version either, but hard core multi piece multi rule, on rare occasion multi day board games. Indeed, before my friend went feral, I used to go play board games every other monday night with a crowd of very intelligent, very talented individuals. Bear in mind that while I was raised on card games and board games as a familial 'rite of passage' I was often considered a 'dabbler' by some in this crowd because they took it rather seriously.

Thus, you can be assured that this is a crowd that takes things like rules seriously. Now in my observation of the culture of the games as played, there was a serious amount of respect paid when someone successfully navigated the rules in creative and innovative ways. Specifically, finding combinations of things whilst keep track of a seeming infinite number of moving variables made game play better for everyone because it made things seem more challenging but it also forced you to do better. This seemed (to me) particularly true with games that used heavy amounts of strategy with just a tiny bit of randomization.

Conversely, certain styles of moves were basically regarded as 'broken' beyond measure. If a rule was so good that it made the game basically unfun for anyone who didn't make it and was obviously either not playtested or just, well, stupid, it was generally tossed in the rubbish bin where it belonged. It is difficult to say exactly what the litmus test for this was; after all I'd seen some games where the qualification might be ignored because it was well enjoyed, whereas another seemingly innocuous rule was widely reviled and hated by all, but I think by and large it required a combination of loathing from all the participants as well the basic perception that it was not only blatantly unfair but also made the game 'unfun.'

Markets are powerful tools. We should reward people who play the game well because it helps make the entire system more vibrant. Having said that, at some point, certain features of a market are quite arguably called 'dick moves' that serve no one but people abusing the system. And lets be honest here, that's what it is...abusing the system. Markets for profit might not be 'fun' but a society is not, contrary to the claims of libertarians, only about the individual. After all, to quote the movie "Cloud Atlas"..."An ocean is composed of a sea of drops." There is no 'collective' that does not also consist of individuals, and a 'dick move' in a market is an unconcionable slander on those who participate in it.

The real question is, how is such a move enforced?

Well therein are certain problems. In a highly stratified society, the golden rule applies. Those with the gold, make the rules. This is the nature of humanity and virutally all civilizations in the history of man; the question is HOW MUCH power you allow the upper levels of society to have....but if the upper levels of society get to make the rules, of course they are going to make rules only for them.

Imagine if you will, at my friend's house, if all the games we played were tilted to his advantage (far from the case in actual reality since he was an excellent host who routinely stepped out of the way for someone else who wanted to play) and if someone did manage to find a clever combination to benefit themselves, that he tilted the field to make things better for himself...People would get fed up rather quickly and stop coming.

Now, in a system based on our own rather flawed constitution, with winner take all elections and the presumption on the power of the states, with tiny legislatures that are easily bought by ALEC and billionares, why then should we assume that markets function properly when they only benefit a few? Some argue that "Rule of Law" means we just have to obey this...others argue about how we need to protect the minority, whilst in the same breath arguing about the flaws of Affirmitive Action.

Are you in favor of allowing unjust protections for a minority or not? Or is it that you only want economic benefits that only serve you or your tribe? The great irony of our times is, of course, that there are many who argue for the justice of markets that benefit none but a tiny majority, not because of economic self interest, but because of a subconcious affiliation to regional politics and the tribalism that this entails. Think I'm wrong?

Well, I don't, but that's another subject for another time. Let's just say that I'm not the only one that thinks that and tribal motivations are strong.

But common sense does indeed demand that in a normal situation, if you wanted to have fun, you wouldn't keep showing up at the house of someone who rigged the rules only for their benefit, but if, in the interests of 'privitization' 401K's replace pensions, and social security is privatized and sacrificed on the alter of wall street, then you play at one house...or die.

Because really that's what libertarians are advocating about the so called Constitution of the United States, that I didn't vote for, nor did anyone living. The document is so difficult to amend that we will continue with rigged rules and either must leave the country (which is very difficult to do) or simply sit, trapped by their manufactured arguments crafted by billionares without any interest in mind.

They (Republicans and many sympathetic libertarians) say 'wealth redistrubtion' is highway robbery, and yet tactically feel that their only way to win is to have Citizen's United, which allows them to spend unlimited money in markets. They speak of rights in that only the government shall be restricted, but never the individual, as if only a government can imprison someone in poverty.

The idea that rights are only restricted to natural rights is ludicrous. The argument that only the government can imprision or take your life is also false since if medical necesity or wage stagnation forces you into a job you do not want, you are just as imprisoned by the so called 'free' market as if you were in an actual prison.

Snarky, clever libertians would argue, "Well be stuck in prison for a while and see how different you feel?"

To which I counter, be stuck in a minimum wage job working at Wal Mart at age 55 and we'll see.

Societies and cultures are formed by rituals and by rites...in ancient times in some cultures this was a walk about or a time of solitary contemplation. What rite can we enact to ensure the arrogance of willful deniers of reality must recognize their sins against their fellow man?

The irony in all this is that some of these people are indeed incredibly generous to charity. I speak not of the laughable illusion that donations to their favorite religion are charity, but a genuine effort on their part to give back to society, and to such individuals I laud and approve their efforts but they do seem to be in the genuine minority in the cause of their fellow liberatarians. We as a society must choose whether we want to reward someone who rigs the game to their favor (the exact opposite of a free market) or the individuals who actually contribute to society.

[Rant] Repost of a Video by FIRE

I don't hold Rush Limbaugh in the same category as anyone else mentioned in the list 3/4's of the way through this. Rush is a professional liar and a man who makes his living yelling fire in theater and then selling exit tickets as people try to get out. I also am questioning the "value added" of unlimited free speech in society. After all, I'm sorry, but lies don't seem to add value to society and fostering lies doesn't add much either...having said that, I think that the video and FIRE in general seems to make an excellent point, which is that universities exist as a sharing point of ideas, and even lies should be permitted there because the whole point of broadening the educational experience is exposure to the new. More over, Universities are often draconian in their enforcement of speech codes and the like. Tolerance achieved through denial of reality is no better than descration of the value of science by denial of reality. You MUST hear what it is you don't want to hear, or you will end up harming both yourself and those around you.