who has the duty to take care of them?

[Truman]

BTW, I’m still waiting on that link to the Constitutional Amendment that clearly provides for oldcare entitlement….

It's not in an Amendment you fucking tard, it's in the body.

Is that right.

[mvscal]lProve it, Fuck[/mvscal]

Oh, and as for the degree of difficulty ferreting out my challenge to BSmack: Only thing hard on you was failing the Bar exam four times.

Sorry "Shorty", but a blind link to Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution fails to support your hapless platitudes.

Don't you have an ambulance to chase, Loser?

[BSmack]

Sorry "Shorty", but a blind link to Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution fails to support your hapless platitudes.

Actually, it does support his argument. But feel free to continue ignoring 200+ years of jurisprudence that says you're batshit crazy.

[Dr_Phibes]

Sorry Tru, if you're looking for a strict constructionist answer, you're barking up the wrong tree. Maybe you, Lab Rat and Ron Paul can get together and found your own republic. I suggest you name it Fantasyland.

Spot on, B. Best keep it simple for the plebs though.

I will start with a simple point: A libertarian society, because of many factors, will end up in corporatism.

Libertarians (hence LTNs.) generally want a minimalistic state, with a free market and a minimal tax rate to support the state apparatus. An individual must take his or her own responsibility to be able to support oneself (fuck old people, the infirm, etc.). So far so good - in theory it sounds very VERY good.

In order to have a libertarian society, you have to convert an existing society into one, or start from scratch. To keep things ordered, lets start with a LTN state created from scratch.

A meteorite strikes earth and the survivors in a region get together to make the best of it on a post-apocalyptic earth. They agree to construct a state according to the theories of LTNs, powdered wigs and whatnot.. The people produce the goods and services and bring it to the market and trade it according to the laws of supply and demand.

But because of the fact that ideas and resources are not equally spread on this earth, there will automatically be someone in that society that has the upper hand (= the richest). Also, because of the fact that the market economy is driven by profits, and the hunt for ever greater profits is the single most important factor, this richest class will keep getting richer by consolidating, mergering and overtaking. If you, in combination to above, have a minimalistic non interventionist state, you will accelerate the progress of capital accumulation. In the end, you will become a tycoon in your particular business sector.

(In simple terms, if you started with a society with 100 refineries, you will inevitably end up with a couple of big players after a certain amount of time. Find some info about the history of the Standard and Oil company and Rockefeller.)

Now, it may be acceptable to some of you that this is a superior route, but we all know how corporations think and behave when the state chooses not to intervene, or is outright under the heavy influence of corporations. Especially if the minarchic state has less combined financial resources than the corporations.

In other words, A libertarian society will sooner or later end up in corporatism, =/= square one.

[Truman]

Sorry Tru, if you're looking for a strict constructionist answer, you're barking up the wrong tree.

No, I'm simply looking for a coherent one.

I'm not about to chase your lame-ass, cat-herder strawman arguments up-and-down this thread.

Either post the link or shut your piehole.

Gawd, you suck these days, B...

[Truman]

Sweet, Christ, Pheebs, thanks for proving that North Korean pictograms don't easily translate well into English.

Don't you have a Revolution to foment somewhere?!

Now, go away Canucklehead...

[Truman]

Sorry "Shorty", but a blind link to Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution fails to support your hapless platitudes.

Actually, it does support his argument. But feel free to continue ignoring 200+ years of jurisprudence that says you're batshit crazy.

How so?

You have ALL of Page 5 to convince me...

[Moving Sale]

[mvscal]lProve it, Fuck[/mvscal]

It's in English. Read it for yourself you spastic tard.

Only thing hard on you was failing the Bar exam four times.

Lie much?

[Moving Sale]

Sorry "Shorty", but a blind link to Article 3, Section 4 of the Constitution fails to support your hapless platitudes.

Actually, it does support his argument. But feel free to continue ignoring 200+ years of jurisprudence that says you're batshit crazy.

How so?

STFU you obtuse dolt.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

But because of the fact that ideas and resources are not equally spread on this earth, there will automatically be someone in that society that has the upper hand (= the richest). Also, because of the fact that the market economy is driven by profits, and the hunt for ever greater profits is the single most important factor, this richest class will keep getting richer by consolidating, mergering and overtaking.

Nice fairy tale, full of deliberate misrepresentations.

You've assumed that all of the "unequal resources" will be hoarded by one or a few entities. The fact is that the resources could be held by several entities who then barter/trade/use currency to set market values for their respective resources. No reason to assume that "there will automatically be someone in society that has the upper hand"...except of course that it helps YOUR argument.

Secondly, you've deliberately misrepresented the libertarian position when you state that "the hunt for greater profits is the single most important factor." You've conflated the market economy with libertarianism, making the former the end-all-and-be-all of the latter. Nope. The libertarian POV is that the single most important factor is individual freedom - of religion, expression, individual property ownership (i.e., the "pursuit of freedom"), business, and limiting government to protecting the nation from foreign invaders, protecting the citizens from infringing on each other's right, as well as those things that are outside the scope of individuals and municipalities (treaties, interstate commerce, etc.). Free markets are important to libertarians, but no more so than freedom of expression.

If you, in combination to above, have a minimalistic non interventionist state, you will accelerate the progress of capital accumulation. In the end, you will become a tycoon in your particular business sector.

You say that as though tycoons are evil, just because they are rich.

They aren't.

Free markets are good.

Personal property is good.

Free speech is good.

Freedom of religion is good.

Having an allegedly benevolent "central planning committee" control the means of production, prices, distribution, property ownership...is bad. Very bad. It's no coincidence that countries that indulge in that "delightful" scam on their citizenry also limit other freedoms, like speech and religion.

What "economic redistributionists" (socialists, communists, politically-charged flower children) don't seem to get is that life will always have winners and losers. The fact holds from one-celled critters up through humans. Deal with it. No matter how you try to force $$ or property from citizen A to give to citizen B in the name of alleged "fairness," the fact is that it's morally wrong to do so (it is theft, even if done in the name of government)...and it doesn't work. It punishes success and rewards failure. It stifles ambition.

Alleged "equality of opportunity" will never guarantee equality of outcome. No matter how you try to fudge the ledger, some folks will win, and some folks will lose.

[BSmack]

Sorry Tru, if you're looking for a strict constructionist answer, you're barking up the wrong tree.

No, I'm simply looking for a coherent one.

Yea, I know, you're looking for something that specifically says that Congress shall create a social welfare system. Well, you won't find it and you don't NEED to find it. Rave all you want, but no matter how long you squeal, just remember I've got 200+ years of precedent on my side.

[Truman]

[mvscal]lProve it, Fuck[/mvscal]

It's in English. Read it for yourself you spastic tard.

Translation: Got me there, Truman. I haven't the time to find a link to prove my arcane argument...

Only thing hard on you was failing the Bar exam four times.

Lie much?

Based upon what you've posted? Not so much...


indeed.

[Dr_Phibes]

[
You've assumed that all of the "unequal resources" will be hoarded by one or a few entities. The fact is that the resources could be held by several entities who then barter/trade/use currency to set market values for their respective resources. No reason to assume that "there will automatically be someone in society that has the upper hand"...except of course that it helps YOUR argument.

They could, no doubt. But the US was more or less a libertarian society when it - so to say - started up (by the time she got her independence from the Crown).

Thomas Jefferson was warning the populace about giving the corporations too much power, but that didn't help anyway. The big companies wanted more power, and through dedicated and targeted work, got what they wanted. This means that libertarianism will transform into corporatism, and it's pretty much inevitable. Simply because of the nature of market economy itself. The process can only be SLOWED by government and a vigilant population.

Let us look at the following example:

We have 10 persons, crudely representing the population of a country, with different amounts of money, some more (= the rich) some less (poor). The money they possess is analog to how much material goods and/or businesses they own, and in end effect, how much power they wield.

P1=10$
P2=12$
P3 =11$
P4=14$
P5=15$
P6=12$
P7=11$
P8=8$
P9=8$
P10=10$

A snapshot. We do not have any super-rich, and no-one is superpoor, because everyone has got their own business and taking care of oneself. In short, the perfect libertarian society.

But already in this situation, it is clear that P5 will generate money faster than say P10 (why? the more money you have, the bigger is the chance that you will put it to work and generate even more money and at a higher rate). By the time P10 has reached 20$, P5 will most likely be at 30 $. If he now merges with P4 which is his cousin, he can then slowly start buying up the other players. And this is pretty much inevitable. Either you do it, or your neighbour P1 and P2 will do it! Market economy is the survival of the fittest.

Now what can one as a government or people do about this?Tax P5? Through government regulations hinder him? Force him? Imprison him?

[Truman]

Sorry Tru, if you're looking for a strict constructionist answer, you're barking up the wrong tree.

No, I'm simply looking for a coherent one.

Yea, I know, you're looking for something that specifically says that Congress shall create a social welfare system. Well, you won't find it and you don't NEED to find it. Rave all you want, but no matter how long you squeal, just remember I've got 200+ years of precedent on my side.

Well, now there's a load off. Good to know that I can sleep nights well knowing that there are studied folks like BSmack out there to tell me what the Constitution truly means...

That said, I see that we're still struggling to come up with a link to refute Washington, errr, Jefferson, errr, Madison....

Seriously, B, don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

[BSmack]

Yea, I know, you're looking for something that specifically says that Congress shall create a social welfare system. Well, you won't find it and you don't NEED to find it. Rave all you want, but no matter how long you squeal, just remember I've got 200+ years of precedent on my side.

Well, now there's a load off. Good to know that I can sleep nights well knowing that there are studied folks like BSmack out there to tell me what the Constitution truly means...

That said, I see that we're still struggling to come up with a link to refute Washington, errr, Jefferson, errr, Madison....

Seriously, B, don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?

Ah yes, the old move the goalposts and then declare bode strategy.

Sorry, that doesn't play outside the 816.

BTW: The original Madison quote you offered was refuted by his fellow Founders and President George Washington upon passage of the bill he so strongly opposed. I already mentioned that, but I see you're bound and determined to play the tard tonight, so I thought I'd mention it again.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Thomas Jefferson was warning the populace about giving the corporations too much power, but that didn't help anyway.

Jefferson's beliefs at that time were based on his naive (and he later admitted, prejudiced) beliefs in the spiritual superiority of agrarian-based economies and people. He eventually realized that his initial arguments were based on little in the way of empirical data and admitted that industry was not evil and was inevitably the way that the U.S. would go.

Dumas Malone's bio does a nice job of showing TJ's switch in attitude.

The big companies wanted more power, and through dedicated and targeted work, got what they wanted. This means that libertarianism will transform into corporatism, and it's pretty much inevitable.

Unsupported statements do not a proof make. When the nation was, according to you, "most libertarian," what corporations loomed over the U.S and ran the nation, "getting what they wanted?"

Your story is based on myths and unfounded suppositions.

Simply because of the nature of market economy itself. The process can only be SLOWED by government and a vigilant population.

Bullshit. Competition also helps reign in some folks while prodding all on to make better products and necessarily lower prices.

Let us look at the following example:

We have 10 persons, crudely representing the population of a country, with different amounts of money, some more (= the rich) some less (poor). The money they possess is analog to how much material goods and/or businesses they own, and in end effect, how much power they wield.

P1=10$
P2=12$
P3 =11$
P4=14$
P5=15$
P6=12$
P7=11$
P8=8$
P9=8$
P10=10$

A snapshot. We do not have any super-rich, and no-one is superpoor, because everyone has got their own business and taking care of oneself. In short, the perfect libertarian society.

But already in this situation, it is clear that P5 will generate money faster than say P10 (why? the more money you have, the bigger is the chance that you will put it to work and generate even more money and at a higher rate).

You seem to leave out tiny things like...innovation, fortuitous/unfortunate events, poor planning by management down the road, etc. Your example, once again, is flawed to the core. It assumes that the amounts you start with MUST control your destiny down the road, regardless of any other factors. Even a cursory study of business history disproves your assumptions.

Market economy is the survival of the fittest.

And, as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day. Luck plays a HUGE role. Dinosaurs were the fittest for millions of years. An ecological catastrophe later, and the age of mammals hit. Kodak was the Colossus of photography, banking on film. It became a bloated beast that adapted poorly to the rapid advent of digital photography.

Your example doesn't work because it is in no way, shape, or form, an accurate representation of real-world economics. Your example would still have Kodak controlling photography and being a financial powerhouse...instead, it is a shadow of itself.

[Moving Sale]

Translation: Got me there, Truman. I haven't the time to find a link to prove my arcane argument...

Go fuck yourself you obtuse tard.

Based upon what you've posted?

Fucking Dolt.

[Moving Sale]

Market economy is the survival of the fittest.

And, as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day.

Nice try, but it was Spencer who coined it in "Principles of Biology."

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Market economy is the survival of the fittest.

And, as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day.

Nice try, but it was Spencer who coined it in "Principles of Biology."

Nice try back atcha...

Darwin helped coin the CONCEPT (which is exactly what I stated), calling it natural selection. He was fully aware of Spencer's coming up with the specific phrase originally and gave him credit for it in a later edition of "Origin."

And actually "Principles of Biology" was published in 1864....five years AFTER "Origin of Species." The concept of natural selection as presented by Darwin predated Spencer's use of the phrase "survival of the fittest."

In fact, Spencer came up with the phrase AFTER READING DARWIN (who then used the phrase in a later edition of "Origin," crediting Spencer).

[Truman]

Ah yes, the old move the goalposts and then declare bode strategy.

Naw, B, it's pretty much the ol' "passively watch BSmack mindlessly spin himself into a corner, and THEN declare bode strategy" strategy at work here.

The best smack writes itself, B. I couldn't possibly replicate your idiocy...

Sorry, that doesn't play outside the 816.

[neener]Apparently, it doesn't play well within the 585 either.[/neener]

BTW: The original Madison quote you offered was refuted by his fellow Founders and President George Washington upon passage of the bill he so strongly opposed. I already mentioned that, but I see you're bound and determined to play the tard tonight, so I thought I'd mention it again.

So noted, B. Clearly, a Constitutional Amendment was written specifically to chastain the dastardly, slave-holding Madison. Now, if you will kindly refer me to said Amendment, I will decease from dragging your silly ass up and down this thread...

[Truman]

Translation: Got me there, Truman. I haven't the time to find a link to prove my arcane argument...

Go fuck yourself you obtuse tard.

Based upon what you've posted?

Fucking Dolt.

Melt much, Munchkin?

Most states post judicial precedings online. Care to post a link to a case you might have actually won?

Hey Judge! Go fuck yourself, you obtuse tard!

Objection your Honor! The prosecutor is a fucking dolt!

LMFAO

We're not laughing with you, Shorty...

[Tiny]

In an attempt to try to herd this back to the original thread topic, let me offer some perspective. If you read any at all, or even watch decent TV, (the history channel recently had a good series about the American Revolution, that they put on commemorating the 4th of July) then you know that this topic isn't as cut and dry as some here are making it out to be.

When the founding fathers set this all up, and when they first wrote the constitution, they had several factors which greatly influenced them:

1)They had just disposed the British military, who was originally sent in to quell a small rebellion in the American colony. They were on the clock, and had to get this thing done ASAP, so that they would still have a “sovereign nation” to run before it imploded around them while they sat there arguing about what would be the best way to set up it up in the first place.
2)This government was kind of a novel concept. The whole republic they created, wasn't something they modeled after someplace else; they made the shit up as they went along. This was all uncharted territory at the time. Mistakes were made; compromises had to be made.
3)Much of what they did when they set this country up was based on what they DIDN'T want to happen here. They didn't want another Monarch ruling the country as one man, one interest, one viewpoint. The whole freaking idea of the “United States of America” was to try to give the people who settled here something different than the crap they bailed out of England for in the first place. Freedom from an oppressive regime.
4)Once the revolutionary war ended, this place was melting down around them. The individual states all had their own ideas about what was best for them, they were all doing something different, and none of it was working. There was no central currency (what they did have, as far as state currencies, had devalued to the point of obscurity during the war), there was no real infrastructure, and there wasn't much in the way of laws to govern how things should go. Yes, there were laws, but again, this was all new territory for the young “America” and they weren't handling it very well, being out on their own for the first time. The state governments need taxes to keep themselves operating, but nobody had been paid (or paid what they were owed) for the time they spent in the continental army. There was no federal government to collect taxes, so there was no help coming there either. The states tried collecting taxes, but since nobody was paid for their military time, then they didn't have any money to pay the taxes. It was a catch 22.
5)Slavery wasn't something that everyone wanted to continue, but it was intentionally left out of the new constitution, because nobody could come up with a better solution at the country's inception. The slaves were too valuable as a workforce, so if they just freed them all to leave and do whatever they wanted, a great portion of the economy would fall flat on it's face. (No production, no farming, nothing to sell...etc.....) Call it the lesser of two evils.
6)Things were different then than they are now. There weren't corporations or companies to go to work for, if your crop failed, and farming wasn't feeding your family. The war fucked up a lot of things, and farming & hunting/trapping were no exception. It was greatly affected by the destruction caused during the battles, and it takes time to repair what a battle might destroy in a an afternoon. People were freaking hungry, and they couldn't wait for a bunch of politicians to sit around for months arguing about what was going to work best for the new nation. The time was now. They had to get the ball rolling.
7)The constitutional congress was aware that what they were doing wasn't the best job they could do (of the writing of the constitution), but it's the best they could agree upon, in the time frame they had. Again, it's easy to forget how new and fragile this country was, at the time. Hell, they even argued about mundane stuff, like what to call the new commander in chief. They didn't know what to call him, let alone know who it was going to be (as the obvious choice; George Washington just spent 6-7 years leading the rebellion, and wanted to go home, and retire from serving the nation). They almost argued too long about how to set the new government up, as it was. Right before the constitutional convention in 1787, there were rebellions (like Shay's rebellion in Springfield, MA) which put the pressure on the congress to get it done, before the new country erupted into civil unrest, or ever civil war.
8)Nobody thought it was going to work in the first place. Some countries thought: “Screw them, let them fail miserably as this new nation, and then we'll go in later, and claim the territory as one of our colonies. After starving for so long, they'll beg us to come save them from themselves...”
9)Other factors figured in too. Like the millions France spent helping finance the revolution (England was their enemy too). Appeasing foreign interests, to get them to recognize the new nation. Ben Franklin spent years in France during and after the war, securing aid to fund the revolution, and helping bargain for recognition of the United States from other European nations.
10)Some of the provisions outlined in the Constitution were ratified, even though they knew it wasn't the best solution. They figured they could go back and argue it out later, but time was of the essence. Some of it was intentionally left with room for interpretation. Again, this was all new ground they were covering for the first time. They didn't necessarily know what to expect in the future.

Again, this is just my 2¢.....but there is much more to the story than just the piece of paper. They had to get the government set up, before they could even address the issue of if they were going to support the old, the infirm, or the lazy.

[BSmack]

BTW: The original Madison quote you offered was refuted by his fellow Founders and President George Washington upon passage of the bill he so strongly opposed. I already mentioned that, but I see you're bound and determined to play the tard tonight, so I thought I'd mention it again.

So noted, B. Clearly, a Constitutional Amendment was written specifically to chastain the dastardly, slave-holding Madison. Now, if you will kindly refer me to said Amendment, I will decease from dragging your silly ass up and down this thread...

No you retard. The majority of the 3rd Congress listened to what Madison said and voted his ass down. You see, here in the reality based world, people can read and interpret the Constitution. Which is what the members of the 3rd Congress did when they determined that they indeed had the power to budget money for what was a public welfare program. That power was affirmed by President Washington and has been upheld by the courts more times than one can possibly cite. But hey, here's a bunch of decisions I found on Find Law. Feel free to continue to ignore the point on the top of your head.

[Truman]

No you retard. The majority of the 3rd Congress listened to what Madison said and voted his ass down.

..And then passed a Constitutional Amendment outlining public entitlements. Article and Section, B, and you're golden....

You see, here in the reality based world, people can read and interpret the Constitution.

Thanks for your take on literacy, Marcus. And here I thought that the Document was written in plain English. BTW: Only liberals feel bound to interpret the Constitution.

Which is what the members of the 3rd Congress did when they determined that they indeed had the power to budget money for what was a public welfare program. That power was affirmed by President Washington and has been upheld by the courts more times than one can possibly cite. But hey, here's a bunch of decisions I found on Find Law. Feel free to continue to ignore the point on the top of your head.

Cool. A whole passel of decisions rendered by an unelected Judiciary.

...All supportive, I suppose, of the Constitutional Amendment specifying entitlements to the disenfranchised you have still failed to cite.

Links to Fifth Amendment rulings are compelling, B, but face facts: Madison was right and you're still a dumbass. Just sayin'.

[BSmack]

No you retard. The majority of the 3rd Congress listened to what Madison said and voted his ass down.

..And then passed a Constitutional Amendment outlining public entitlements. Article and Section, B, and you're golden....

Asked and answered idiot. Moveon.org will ya.

So what's your fucking point? That the last 200+ years of government has been unconstitutional?

Fine, if that's what you want to believe, then have at it. Last I checked 70% of the American public, 200+ years of legal precedent and countless examples of Public Law are on my side. On your side you have a Hepatitis infected carpenter, Ron Paul and an assortment of other well meaning crazies.

[Moving Sale]

He was fully aware of Spencer's coming up with the specific phrase originally and gave him credit for it in a later edition of "Origin."

I beg to differ that NS and SotF are even the same concept. Very close sure, but the difference is important.

Anyways, I rather pick a better fight than nit pick Darwin v Spencer.

Carry on.

Hey Judge! Go fuck yourself, you obtuse tard!

Objection your Honor! The prosecutor is a fucking dolt!

Why not just post a pic of a white flag ya stupid simple fuck?

[Dan Vogel]

This is simple if you have basic compassion and common sense. We can all give up one golf game a year or something like that in order to lend help to people who are down on their luck. Think if it was you. So yes the government needs to help the helpless unfortunate ones. When Tony gets older I am going to have him do volunteer work on some Saturdays at a homeless shelter. My dad did that with me and it helped shape my character. Walk the talk.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Most states post judicial precedings online.

That only applies to appellate decisions. Most trial court decisions remain unpublished.

Care to post a link to a case you might have actually won?

So now we're comparing attorneys to sports teams?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

He was fully aware of Spencer's coming up with the specific phrase originally and gave him credit for it in a later edition of "Origin."

I beg to differ that NS and SotF are even the same concept. Very close sure, but the difference is important.

I disagree completely, but then again, I am "only" an educated and trained biologist well-read in the subject (yes, I've read "Origin") who also teaches evolution at both the NYS and AP levels. And well, you're a lawyer, whose expertise in the subject is...well...um...

Hey, for shits and giggles, let's see how the folks who came up with the terms and concepts feel, shall we?:

Spencer:"This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."

Darwin:""I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."

Gee whiz, counselor - it turns out that the expert witnesses who know best - the individual that is credited with the "natural selection" term/concept (Darwin)and the individual credited with coining the phrase "survival of the fittest" (Spencer) completely disagree with you. I used their exact words.

It doesn't matter what google or wiki quotes you try to paste together now from later scientists who try to tease out nuances, subtleties, etc. in the attempt to separate the two phrases - the irrefutable fact is that the two individuals who matter the most (the ones who coined the relevant concpets/terms) agree with my assertion and disagree with yours.

Anyways, I rather pick a better fight than nit pick Darwin v Spencer.

Yeah, considering that this latest attempt to pick a fight waaaaaaaaay the hell out of your area of expertise isn't going well for you, I'd suggest moving on.

[Trollfessor]

Again, this is just my 2¢.....

With all you wrote, your rate per word isn't very much.

[Truman]

So what's your fucking point? That the last 200+ years of government has been unconstitutional?

Clearly, the fact that I’m not about to engage in one of your cute, li’l straw man arguments has been lost upon you.

Let’s review: You rationalize that because Madison owned slaves (…as did Jefferson, AND Washington, et al), that somehow this discredits the fourth president’s take on the Constitution,

I simply asked you to prove him wrong.

Instead, you post two pages of your patented, insipid pabulum in a futile attempt to spin the discussion a different direction.

Bottom line: You can’t.

And that’s my point.

[Truman]

So now we're comparing attorneys to sports teams?

Not so much. It’s just that such cerebral blasts as “go fuck yourself you obtuse tard” and “you’re a fucking dolt” leave me somewhat unimpressed and don’t exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence in the (wee)man’s capabilities.

‘Sayin.

[Moving Sale]

It doesn't matter what google or wiki quotes you try to paste together now from later scientists who try to tease out nuances, subtleties, etc. in the attempt to separate the two phrases - the irrefutable fact is that the two individuals who matter the most (the ones who coined the relevant concpets/terms) agree with my assertion and disagree with yours.

I get that and I agree that at the time they were much closer in meaning. My point is that NOW 100plus years later there is a difference in the way most people look at the two terms. That difference was there in the late 1800's but it was not as pronounced. Even then Spencer was usually talking about human social systems not genetics.

I know you teach 14yos about the clap. I know you are the board science guy. I know I am only trained to marry Law with Fact. That is just great but it doesn't change the fact that I'm really not too hip to take this to page 12 batting D v S back and forth.

Spencer coined the term that Darwin later said fit his concept of NS I agree. Not many scientists I know (most of them are University Professors with PhDs in Bio and the like) use the terms interchangeably. That was my point.

Carry on...

[Moving Sale]

So now we're comparing attorneys to sports teams?

Not so much. It’s just that such cerebral blasts as “go fuck yourself you obtuse tard” and “you’re a fucking dolt” leave me somewhat unimpressed and don’t exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence in the (wee)man’s capabilities.

‘Sayin.

YOU can't read a simple passage from our Constitution without shitting all over yourself and you doubt MY capabilities?

I Laughed!

Now go fuck yourself you stupid tard. That or take 10th grade American Government again.... if you ever took it in the first place.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

My point is that NOW 100plus years later there is a difference in the way most people look at the two terms.

Actually "most people" pretty much use the terms interchangeably. In fact, I'd wager that if you ask 100 folks who came up with "survival of the fittest," the #1 answer would be Darwin. hell, I'd bet that almost NONE of 'em would mention Spencer.

That difference was there in the late 1800's but it was not as pronounced.

The two quotes I gave you from Darwin and Spencer say otherwise. They seem to make the equivalence of the terms pretty clear. Since they were the ones considered the authors of the terms and concepts, I'll take their expertise over yours.

I know you teach 14yos about the clap. I know you are the board science guy.

I know it's very "smackboard" to sum up another poster's resume in the most simplistic terms possible so as to diminish their alleged expertise and try to save face, but let's try to be accurate:

- I hold two degrees in biology and a Master's in biology education
- I spent over ten years doing HIV research, including work for the AIDS Vaccine Evaluation Group/Unit, the AIDS Clinical Trials Group, collaborated with Applied Biosystems in developing their HIV Genotyping Kit, and did HIV genotyping and HIV RNA viral load assays for research and diagnostic purposes
- I have co-authored two papers on HIV mutations and drug resistance
- I teach Living Environment (NYS's version of h.s. bio), AP Biology (a college-credit-earning course), as well as the infectious disease course you referenced
- in the process of earning my degrees and keeping my neurons charged on topics like evolution, I have read Darwin, Dawkins, Carroll, Gould, Ruse, etc. and attended professional seminars and conferences on evolution and that related to evolution (e.g., HIV drug resistance).

So, just to be clear, counselor - I do and have done a hell of a lot more than just "teach 14 year olds about the clap."

Spencer coined the term that Darwin later said fit his concept of NS I agree. Not many scientists I know (most of them are University Professors with PhDs in Bio and the like) use the terms interchangeably. That was my point.

If so, then it was one you made badly.

It would appear that your original point was nothing more than a drive-by attempt at one-upsmanship.

I said that Darwin helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest"

You replied with:

Nice try, but it was Spencer who coined it in "Principles of Biology."

You were wrong. Spencer coined the PHRASE....after he read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and used the phrase to mean the same thing as "natural selection." Spencer himself made this clear with his own words, as did Darwin.

At no point did you make any reference to the supposed biology PhD's with which you claim to hobnob. Well, not until things went badly for your argument and you whipped them out at the very end. So much for your claim that their alleged scientific stand was your "original point."

Hell, I'm in a far better position to whip out the "well, I polled my bio PhD friends, and they say..." card since I have an established reason for actually KNOWING those folks, and well, I saved the completely anecdotal, unsubstantiated third-person "buddies" crap and used actual quotes from Darwin and Spencer.

Just admit that you were wrong. The only reason I'm bothering to prolong this particular debate is because I want you to not waffle, equivocate, or move the goalposts...just admit that you were wrong.

[Moving Sale]

I tried to hand out an olive branch and you insist on being a tard. Ok I’ll play…

Market economy is the survival of the fittest.

And, as Darwin pointed out when he helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest," it is not necessarily the biggest, the swiftest, the strongest, that wins the day.

No, he coined the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ and called it NS. Spencer then coined the phrase “survival of the fittest.” Later Darwin, after some discourse with Wallace, wrote: “"I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient." Sometimes you fucking tard, SOMETIMES. Now is not one of those times.

Did ya read what I wrote? “I beg to differ that NS and SotF are even the same concept.” ARE you fucking tard, ARE. Not were. There has been a lot of science since the 1800’s. Both social and biological. The terms have grown apart (not to the sheeple they haven’t hence your ‘take 100 people’ blast is probably right if by people you meant tards like yourself) in the minds of most people.

Darwin had his ideas which he labeled NS. Spencer had his ideas which he labeled SotF. Different men with different ideas. If they were the same there would be no need to talk about both. Talking about one would be talking about the other. In my world we make that distinction. In your world you don’t. Fine. Be a tard with a lowly BS in biology and an education Master’s (I Laughed!) Go through life telling people how Darwin is Spencer and Spencer is Darwin.

I said that Darwin helped coin the concept of "survival of the fittest"

And you were wrong and then you were a jackass about it.

Hell, I'm in a far better position to whip out the "well, I polled my bio PhD friends, and they say..." card since I have an established reason for actually KNOWING those folks, and well, I saved the completely anecdotal, unsubstantiated third-person "buddies" crap and used actual quotes from Darwin and Spencer.

I was talking about my Dad and my Sister and both of my Brothers-in-law who all teach at a University, College or do top notch research and all of their buddies who I constantly come in to contact with. Fuck you if you think I don’t have an “established reason” for knowing my family and their friends.

The only reason I'm bothering to prolong this particular debate is because I want you to not waffle, equivocate, or move the goalposts...just admit that you were wrong.

No you.

[Mister Bushice]

Holy Christ, MS. Give it the fuck up.

[RadioFan]

This is simple if you have basic compassion and common sense. We can all give up one golf game a year or something like that in order to lend help to people who are down on their luck. Think if it was you. So yes the government needs to help the helpless unfortunate ones. When Tony gets older I am going to have him do volunteer work on some Saturdays at a homeless shelter. My dad did that with me and it helped shape my character. Walk the talk.

STFU, idiot.

[Moving Sale]

Holy Christ, MS. Give it the fuck up.

I tried. :?

[Atomic Punk]

Your example doesn't work because it is in no way, shape, or form, an accurate representation of real-world economics. Your example would still have Kodak controlling photography and being a financial powerhouse...instead, it is a shadow of itself.

For those that read the Phibes v MtLR exchange... MtLR just gave a Phibes his/her walking papers from any further discussions. Get so tired of reading fucking college kids arguing with adults.

[Y2K]

I get that and I agree that at the time they were much closer in meaning. My point is that NOW 100plus years later there is a difference in the way most people look at the two terms.

Survival of the fittest?

Bwaaaa
Darwin and Spencer were a couple of pansy assed faggots

Real men will eat Maggots.

Sincerely,
Bear Grylls