Insect-only eatery aims to make bugs palatable

[Theodarzna]

But we already have the best system which is liberal democracy.

First, this is some Poes Law territory, second, Given the state of things, no they aren't.

- - - Updated - - -

lol wtf, you must be insane to think violent revolution can lead to prosperity.

What about the processes that led to this present moment wasn't violent? Do you imagine the conquest of North America as a peaceful affair? Or the exterminating of its population?

[PC2]

First, this is some Poes Law territory, second, Given the state of things, no they aren't.

Of course liberal democracy is the best. Notice how all the liberal democracies are leading the world in prosperity, where as all the non-liberal non-democracies are all backwards shitholes. It's not some massive coincidence.

[Theodarzna]

Of course liberal democracy is the best. Notice how all the liberal democracies are leading the world in prosperity, whereas all the non-liberal non-democracies are all backwards shitholes. It's not some massive coincidence.

I find it impossible someone could even graduate American High School, as terrible as that level of education is, and actually just say that sentence with a straight face.

Geography, Slavery, and the Colonization of the New World..... nope. An amazing world view you have.

[PC2]

Geography, Slavery, and the Colonization of the New World..... nope. An amazing world view you have.

What does geography, slavery, and colonization have to do with whether or not the principles of liberal democracy are better than the reverse, which is a centralized economy and/or (non-democratic)authoritarianism.

[Theodarzna]

What does geography, slavery, and colonization have to do with whether or not the principles of liberal democracy are better than the reverse, which is a centralized economy and/or non-democratic authoritarianism.

If the "metric" is present-day wealth than they make every bit of difference. Your own standard was "Who is rich right now" and equated that with Good. Assuming anything claimed about Liberal Democracy is anything other than hype and PR.

[PC2]

If the "metric" is present-day wealth than they make every bit of difference. Your own standard was "Who is rich right now" and equated that with Good. Assuming anything claimed about Liberal Democracy is anything other than hype and PR.

No that's a common misconception. Success and disparity is derived from the history and conflict between better and worse *ideas* and theories about how the world works. Not the history of who exploited more vs less.

[Theodarzna]

No that's a common misconception. Success and disparity is derived from a conflict between better and worse *ideas* and theories about how the world works. Not the history of who exploited more vs less.

I wonder how I got that conception? Oh, right! I read your post a couple of posts up.

Of course liberal democracy is the best. Notice how all the liberal democracies are leading the world in prosperity, where as all the non-liberal non-democracies are all backwards shitholes. It's not some massive coincidence.

In blue is you stating the first part, and red adding that other parts of the world were poor for purely ideological reasons.

[PC2]

I wonder how I got that conception? Oh, right! I read your post a couple of posts up.

In blue is you stating the first part, and red adding that other parts of the world were poor for purely ideological reasons.

History is the history of ideas, so yeah the poor places are poor because they developed ideas and good ideologies slower. For example any continent on the planet could have developed liberal democracies and the ideas that enabled the scientific and industrial revolution. There was plenty of geography and natural resources to do that in many places, but the other places didn't develop the good ideas as fast which is why they are relatively poor.

[Theodarzna]

History is the history of ideas, so yeah the poor places are poor because they developed ideas and good ideologies slower. For example any continent on the planet could have developed liberal democracies and the ideas that enabled the scientific and industrial revolution. There was plenty of geography and natural resources to do that in many places, but the other places didn't develop the good ideas as fast which is why they are relatively poor.

History is a chaotic string of events, only genealogically tied by any causality. So in your book, geography, the history of slavery, colonies, the discovery of two continents, the flora and fauna are nothing?

The fascinating concept you got there, but it is a history that even the most dedicated whig wouldn't endorse. Not even Skroe would go in for that.