Aardvark

In that case you would recognise my property rights over my goods? Just trust to peoples communal spirit not to abuse those rights?

Ask him to quantify what exact taxes are embedded in the price of a car. Then ask him how these would be reduced by one single penny by the abolition of income tax. As income tax has no relevance at all on the price of a car he will not be able to answer honestly without bullshitting. A sales tax would only add to the cost of the car, not reduce it. Therefore his entire argument falls. Simple.

People seem to be under the impression that if you repeat a slur enough times that it becomes the truth. People can legitimately oppose Bushs policies and opinions but he isn't actually stupid. Stupid people don't get Masters degrees.

The act of sharing is by definition voluntary. I CHOOSE to share. In a society with no property rights i would have this choice taken away from me. And so i would not be able to gain good will through sharing, when people feel they have the right just to take what they want. I may be a communal animal, but i don't want to have others feel they are automatically entitled to the fruits of my labour. That would offend against any concept of natural justice.

There are arguments for a flat sales tax replacing income tax but not that it would be progressive. Every economic study shows that lower income earners spend a greater proportion of their money on goods which would be subject to a sales tax. It would be regressive. Talking about stripping out embedded taxes in the price of things is just nonsense. A flat sales tax would not reduce the price of any cars. Accept the fact that it would be a regressive tax.

Pond water. It's easy, i did it at school. Just fill up with samples of water from a few different sites and wait. Algae, plants, invertaberates all appear and after a short while develop a stable eco system. Just make sure there is sufficent bio mass (ie, a couple of handfuls of rotting leaves.) It'll last pretty much indefinetely and each one is different so you can have fun comparing if you do more than one. Have fun.

Technically speaking we are still in an ice age. Without human intervention it would be expected that the climate would warm enough eventally to melt the Northern polar ice cap at least. The world has gone through several periods hotter than now without any ice at the poles.

Reticule? i don't mean to be obtuse but what do you mean?

I don't see it that way. I think property predates law. Abolishing law will not abolish property. For instance, in your society a man clears some land, works hard to plant and tend a crop and then harvests it. He will then be naturally resentful if someone else states 'there is no such thing as property' and helps himself to the harvest. I think we have to accept that the idea of property is natural to our species. Any society would have to find a way of working with that idea rather than against it.

Funny you should mention 'responsible' democrats. Here's a link i found on Michael Moores website. http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=284 As you predicted, they are on the case of the wicked vote rigging conspiracy.

That sounds seriously impractical. Firstly you have to quantify someones abilities. Then to place a value on those abilities (without using money as a system of value). Then make people use those abilities in a way someone has defined as beneficial for the greater good. Then someone to decide and distribute a quota. It would require a very large bueacracy to administer. It would be difficult to enforce, inefficent and open to abuse.

That was why i mentioned bigots and added . Socerers implication would be quite funny. 'Still having homosexual thoughts? Stop that, try harder! Harder damn it, HARDER!, It's your duty to enjoy this copy of Penthouse, if that doesnt work then a complusory trip to a lap dancing club. If that fails than of to Madame Fifi's, we'll see if her girls can get any response.' A de-Gayness course could be interesting.

Thanks for that post, it's always interesting to hear straight from the horses mouth. Australian politics is very interesting, i think the mandatory voting rule has have a big impact. Ironically a lot of working class types tend to be quite culturaly conservative and as they all vote now that has strongly effected Australian politics. John Howard seems to have struck a cord with the people by appealing over the heads of the metropolitian elites. The Labour party is in danger of allowing itself to be marginalised. Does that analysis make any sense to you or am i misreading the situation? On a purely subjective note, Australia seemed to be much more Americanised than New Zealand. New Zealand felt almost like an idealized version of a happier England while Australia felt a bit more like a good version of Texas. Hope i haven't offended you!

If a politician admits a mistake it is pounced upon, blown out of all proportion by the media and used to attack him. I can understand his reticence.

To avoid discrimination from bigots? Or maybe, from desire to have a family? There can be both positive and negative reasons why someone would want to overcome a predisposition. It should be for them to decide, not others.

The British established trading posts in India and gradually expanded in terms of influence, by economic strength, politics, local alliances and some wars fought in alliance with local rulers (against other Europeans trying to muscle in). There was never an 'invasion' of India. The export of Opium to China was to make money, not to 'eliminate resistance' Remember the opium trade was quite legal at that time. And the map of the Mongol empire at it's largest in about 1296 still shows it as being smaller than the British empire.

The main reasons tend to be disagreements about money, or about sex. Even in an anarchy they will be things of worth which people will have disputes over, assuming all people don't become completely alturistic which seems improbable. And sexual jealousy, i doubt any political system can avoid that.

And on a less amusing note than human extinction. We have been genetically modifying plants and animals for years, in a haphazard way of taking advantage of any randomn variations in livestock and plants. In the 1960's rice seeds were exposed to radiation for the express purpose of inducing mutations. These seeds were then planted to see if the results were interesting. ( i wish i'd been involved in those experiments, they sound like they were fun!) If you're worring about genetic modification then that would seem to be a little bit less safe than the GM technology of today.

The Mongols did not rule all of Asia. Invading armies did penetrate Poland, no, they did not reach Bavaria. And they left the same year they arrived. Here is a link showing a map of their Empire. It was impressive but never got even near to rulling all of Asia. http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:Fwt82-pnd5oJ:www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2532/page4.html+map+mongol+empire&hl=en