[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Actually our longest and most successful social organization was tribal for about 3 million years(depending on you success metrics). This was universal before we developed agriculture and the concept of owning the earth, which popped up about 8-10,000 years ago. Most likely, weather pattern changes which produced the need for agriculture. Most tribes were egalitarian and everybody had equal access to resources. If anything, that is what we are psychologically hardwired for just by looking time scales. Marx understood this. During this time we did not need “isms”, to be scared of or to revere. Actually, post-agriculture humans became less healthy, shorter and worked 2-3 times more, except for the ones divined by god to rule, up until science.

All our “isms” are of relatively new design and came into play when we realized we were getting jacked over by assholes who said they ruled by divine right. Which started during the earliest forms civilization in the middle east, personified by the god king in egypt and followed all the way up to the monarchs in europe, up to a few hundred years ago.

The US was a leap away from the divine right concept. Of course, we had slaves(which we justified with divine right), wide open land brimming with untapped natural resources, a few new cool technologies and included the mass dispossession and genocide of a people(which we justified with divine right).[/quote]

Yeah uhhh no.
Most tribes of hunter-gatherers had/have fairly elaborate (though seldom obvious) hierarchies.

The San tribes of the eastern Kalihari (best known for “The Gods Must Be Crazy”) have whole journals written about social hierarchy and how it is hidden from outsiders (partly to avoid social tension).

As if you needed more evidence that I am a geek.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Arraya]Actually our longest and most successful social organization was tribal for about 3 million years(depending on you success metrics). This was universal before we developed agriculture and the concept of owning the earth, which popped up about 8-10,000 years ago. Most likely, weather pattern changes which produced the need for agriculture. Most tribes were egalitarian and everybody had equal access to resources. If anything, that is what we are psychologically hardwired for just by looking time scales. Marx understood this. During this time we did not need “isms”, to be scared of or to revere. Actually, post-agriculture humans became less healthy, shorter and worked 2-3 times more, except for the ones divined by god to rule, up until science.

All our “isms” are of relatively new design and came into play when we realized we were getting jacked over by assholes who said they ruled by divine right. Which started during the earliest forms civilization in the middle east, personified by the god king in egypt and followed all the way up to the monarchs in europe, up to a few hundred years ago.

The US was a leap away from the divine right concept. Of course, we had slaves(which we justified with divine right), wide open land brimming with untapped natural resources, a few new cool technologies and included the mass dispossession and genocide of a people(which we justified with divine right).[/quote]

Yeah uhhh no.
Most tribes of hunter-gatherers had/have fairly elaborate (though seldom obvious) hierarchies.

The San tribes of the eastern Kalihari (best known for “The Gods Must Be Crazy”) have whole journals written about social hierarchy and how it is hidden from outsiders (partly to avoid social tension).

As if you needed more evidence that I am a geek.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CONCHO]In the United States from about 1777 until either 1890 (Sherman Anti-trust Act) or 1913 (Federal Reserve Act), depending on your point of view. For white men only, of course.

That last qualification renders your point moot. No system based on slavery and racism can be called libertarian. The very word is based on “liberty” and slaves didn’t get to enjoy any of it. Neither did the native peoples that we kicked off the land and exterminated. Anyway, not to say the US is all bad (it isn’t) or that everything we’ve done is wrong (it hasn’t been) but our country has never been libertarian.[/quote]

The concept of true libertarianism (a government strong enough to protect all liberty and safety but totally invisible in matters of economy or personal wealth—because that’s not part of safety or liberty???!!!!) is as retarded and naively utopian as the concept of true Marxism (government so strong in wealth distribution that they establish and inculcate a set of best practices that make the government unnecessary and the government melts away—seriously????!!!).

Its like decided between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

Neither has ever been tried.
Neither ever should.
They are both the very epitome of systemic contradiction founded upon blind idealism and lack of practical experience.

These conversations remind me of the pot-choked discussions I used to have at the Che Cafe when I was 20. The irony that they were able to have these anti-wealth idealist conversations based upon their parents substantial incomes. Similarly, I recently commented to my libertarian friend that the only reason his wife can stay at home is that the US government overpays engineers. The only difference is the subtype of anarchism being subscribed to.

So put on your wool caps and bust out the hacky-sack and lets read some Ayn Rand. I’ll bring the chronic and an ORB cd.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CONCHO]In the United States from about 1777 until either 1890 (Sherman Anti-trust Act) or 1913 (Federal Reserve Act), depending on your point of view. For white men only, of course.

That last qualification renders your point moot. No system based on slavery and racism can be called libertarian. The very word is based on “liberty” and slaves didn’t get to enjoy any of it. Neither did the native peoples that we kicked off the land and exterminated. Anyway, not to say the US is all bad (it isn’t) or that everything we’ve done is wrong (it hasn’t been) but our country has never been libertarian.[/quote]

The concept of true libertarianism (a government strong enough to protect all liberty and safety but totally invisible in matters of economy or personal wealth—because that’s not part of safety or liberty???!!!!) is as retarded and naively utopian as the concept of true Marxism (government so strong in wealth distribution that they establish and inculcate a set of best practices that make the government unnecessary and the government melts away—seriously????!!!).

Its like decided between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

Neither has ever been tried.
Neither ever should.
They are both the very epitome of systemic contradiction founded upon blind idealism and lack of practical experience.

These conversations remind me of the pot-choked discussions I used to have at the Che Cafe when I was 20. The irony that they were able to have these anti-wealth idealist conversations based upon their parents substantial incomes. Similarly, I recently commented to my libertarian friend that the only reason his wife can stay at home is that the US government overpays engineers. The only difference is the subtype of anarchism being subscribed to.

So put on your wool caps and bust out the hacky-sack and lets read some Ayn Rand. I’ll bring the chronic and an ORB cd.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CONCHO]In the United States from about 1777 until either 1890 (Sherman Anti-trust Act) or 1913 (Federal Reserve Act), depending on your point of view. For white men only, of course.

That last qualification renders your point moot. No system based on slavery and racism can be called libertarian. The very word is based on “liberty” and slaves didn’t get to enjoy any of it. Neither did the native peoples that we kicked off the land and exterminated. Anyway, not to say the US is all bad (it isn’t) or that everything we’ve done is wrong (it hasn’t been) but our country has never been libertarian.[/quote]

The concept of true libertarianism (a government strong enough to protect all liberty and safety but totally invisible in matters of economy or personal wealth—because that’s not part of safety or liberty???!!!!) is as retarded and naively utopian as the concept of true Marxism (government so strong in wealth distribution that they establish and inculcate a set of best practices that make the government unnecessary and the government melts away—seriously????!!!).

Its like decided between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

Neither has ever been tried.
Neither ever should.
They are both the very epitome of systemic contradiction founded upon blind idealism and lack of practical experience.

These conversations remind me of the pot-choked discussions I used to have at the Che Cafe when I was 20. The irony that they were able to have these anti-wealth idealist conversations based upon their parents substantial incomes. Similarly, I recently commented to my libertarian friend that the only reason his wife can stay at home is that the US government overpays engineers. The only difference is the subtype of anarchism being subscribed to.

So put on your wool caps and bust out the hacky-sack and lets read some Ayn Rand. I’ll bring the chronic and an ORB cd.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CONCHO]In the United States from about 1777 until either 1890 (Sherman Anti-trust Act) or 1913 (Federal Reserve Act), depending on your point of view. For white men only, of course.

That last qualification renders your point moot. No system based on slavery and racism can be called libertarian. The very word is based on “liberty” and slaves didn’t get to enjoy any of it. Neither did the native peoples that we kicked off the land and exterminated. Anyway, not to say the US is all bad (it isn’t) or that everything we’ve done is wrong (it hasn’t been) but our country has never been libertarian.[/quote]

The concept of true libertarianism (a government strong enough to protect all liberty and safety but totally invisible in matters of economy or personal wealth—because that’s not part of safety or liberty???!!!!) is as retarded and naively utopian as the concept of true Marxism (government so strong in wealth distribution that they establish and inculcate a set of best practices that make the government unnecessary and the government melts away—seriously????!!!).

Its like decided between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

Neither has ever been tried.
Neither ever should.
They are both the very epitome of systemic contradiction founded upon blind idealism and lack of practical experience.

These conversations remind me of the pot-choked discussions I used to have at the Che Cafe when I was 20. The irony that they were able to have these anti-wealth idealist conversations based upon their parents substantial incomes. Similarly, I recently commented to my libertarian friend that the only reason his wife can stay at home is that the US government overpays engineers. The only difference is the subtype of anarchism being subscribed to.

So put on your wool caps and bust out the hacky-sack and lets read some Ayn Rand. I’ll bring the chronic and an ORB cd.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CONCHO]In the United States from about 1777 until either 1890 (Sherman Anti-trust Act) or 1913 (Federal Reserve Act), depending on your point of view. For white men only, of course.

That last qualification renders your point moot. No system based on slavery and racism can be called libertarian. The very word is based on “liberty” and slaves didn’t get to enjoy any of it. Neither did the native peoples that we kicked off the land and exterminated. Anyway, not to say the US is all bad (it isn’t) or that everything we’ve done is wrong (it hasn’t been) but our country has never been libertarian.[/quote]

The concept of true libertarianism (a government strong enough to protect all liberty and safety but totally invisible in matters of economy or personal wealth—because that’s not part of safety or liberty???!!!!) is as retarded and naively utopian as the concept of true Marxism (government so strong in wealth distribution that they establish and inculcate a set of best practices that make the government unnecessary and the government melts away—seriously????!!!).

Its like decided between a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

Neither has ever been tried.
Neither ever should.
They are both the very epitome of systemic contradiction founded upon blind idealism and lack of practical experience.

These conversations remind me of the pot-choked discussions I used to have at the Che Cafe when I was 20. The irony that they were able to have these anti-wealth idealist conversations based upon their parents substantial incomes. Similarly, I recently commented to my libertarian friend that the only reason his wife can stay at home is that the US government overpays engineers. The only difference is the subtype of anarchism being subscribed to.

So put on your wool caps and bust out the hacky-sack and lets read some Ayn Rand. I’ll bring the chronic and an ORB cd.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]

Is that the best you can do? Please try again.[/quote]

Yup. That’s the best I can do. Nope, not trying again. I’m curious to see what the best is that YOU can do… (although, frankly, I’m not exactly sure what we’re actually “doing” here).[/quote]

John,
He said some things and made good points.

Grab some sack and step up if you want to engage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]

Is that the best you can do? Please try again.[/quote]

Yup. That’s the best I can do. Nope, not trying again. I’m curious to see what the best is that YOU can do… (although, frankly, I’m not exactly sure what we’re actually “doing” here).[/quote]

John,
He said some things and made good points.

Grab some sack and step up if you want to engage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]

Is that the best you can do? Please try again.[/quote]

Yup. That’s the best I can do. Nope, not trying again. I’m curious to see what the best is that YOU can do… (although, frankly, I’m not exactly sure what we’re actually “doing” here).[/quote]

John,
He said some things and made good points.

Grab some sack and step up if you want to engage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]

Is that the best you can do? Please try again.[/quote]

Yup. That’s the best I can do. Nope, not trying again. I’m curious to see what the best is that YOU can do… (although, frankly, I’m not exactly sure what we’re actually “doing” here).[/quote]

John,
He said some things and made good points.

Grab some sack and step up if you want to engage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=jficquette]

Is that the best you can do? Please try again.[/quote]

Yup. That’s the best I can do. Nope, not trying again. I’m curious to see what the best is that YOU can do… (although, frankly, I’m not exactly sure what we’re actually “doing” here).[/quote]

John,
He said some things and made good points.

Grab some sack and step up if you want to engage.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I can confirm that sold out jr liens (i.e. completely underwater 2nds that have nothing to gain via foreclosure) are settling for 10 to 20 cents on the dollar and often less. They are de facto principal reductions. I’ve been blogging about it for a couple months but Rt 66 wanted to discount it. Its real.[/quote]

Do you really believe what rt 66 sez?

Dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I can confirm that sold out jr liens (i.e. completely underwater 2nds that have nothing to gain via foreclosure) are settling for 10 to 20 cents on the dollar and often less. They are de facto principal reductions. I’ve been blogging about it for a couple months but Rt 66 wanted to discount it. Its real.[/quote]

Do you really believe what rt 66 sez?

Dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]I can confirm that sold out jr liens (i.e. completely underwater 2nds that have nothing to gain via foreclosure) are settling for 10 to 20 cents on the dollar and often less. They are de facto principal reductions. I’ve been blogging about it for a couple months but Rt 66 wanted to discount it. Its real.[/quote]

Do you really believe what rt 66 sez?

Dude.

[Author]

Posts