The status quo is that people will not get selected because of race. Everybody is racist to some extent. No matter what your race, your background, your sex, or your intelligence, you understand people better if they are more like you. Consequently, you will more likely select people that look like you. If you are male, you will understand males better than females and are more likely to give a guy a break. Likewise, if you are female, you will understand females better, and you will give that gal a break. So that's all good: everybody is equally racist, sexist, pedantic, as anybody else.

But now the problem starts. The majority, being equally discriminatory as the minority, has a disproportionate effect on the well-being of the minority. Take sexism at the workplace as an easy example. Suppose everybody, male or female, makes one sexist remark to the opposite sex once a week. Now also suppose that the workplace consists of 10 times the number of males over the number of females. Not out of the ordinary in tech circles. Then, on average, every male will get a sexist remark every 10 weeks. Every female will get 10 sexist remarks per week. The girl is harassed 100 times more often than the boy. The same goes if the ratios are reversed.

Should we do affirmative action, and ask the guys to watch their language 10 times better than the girls? Or is that sexist?

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would be very proud of this representative republic they founded. Not entirely sure who it represents though. I guess it's time to call it the People's Republic of America, to emphasize where the power lies in this Republic.

It's typically a bit more subtle than this. Here's an example of the mathematics of discrimination.

Why is a male-dominated workplace typically sexist? Simple. Suppose that each person, regardless of sex, makes a sexist remark once every week to someone of opposite sex. Now suppose that the male-female ratio in the workplace is ten to one. Then, on average, every female in the workplace is subjected to 10 sexist remarks per week, while the average male is subject to 1 sexist remark every 10 weeks. For the males this doesn't feel sexist, the females experience a very hostile workplace, yet both are equally sexist. In order to balance this, males need to be 10 times less sexist than females. Is asking males to be more sensitive to their behavior than females in itself sexist?

This holds for any prejudice people have. The minority will be disproportionally affected by it. I'm not sure if affirmative action is the answer, but the status quo does mean that people of merit will not get where they could be.

So, explain then please: what form of government does Brittain have, or the Netherlands, or Denmark, or Sweden, or Norway. They cannot be republics, as they have a hereditary head of state. As per your logic they can't be democracies as 'representative democracy' is the same as 'partial democracy' and is a contradiction in terms. Under what type of government do I live? A monarchy? And am I now to argue that a monarchy is preferable to a democracy?

Not really, There is typically a left/right divide, and there's a conservative/progressive divide, but no simple mapping as you sketch exists.

How come? If a bunch of people come together, they are a bunch of people. How do they suddenly lose rights? The fact is that corporations are not persons, they are owned by persons. Given a corporation a separate vote gives the owner a second vote. Give the corporation rights to bribe, and you give the owner the right to bribe. Walmart is not a person, it's the Waltons that run the show. Give Walmart a right, and it goes directly to the Waltons. They get that above and beyond the rights they have as US citizens. And that is undemocratic.

Nonsense. The US is the only country in the world where this weird construct of corporate personhood is used. Are you claiming there's no limited liability outside of the US?

Jesus was a hippie.

Many of the rich have inherited the money. I've worked with second generation rich: they are well-intended, but typically so involved with their lifestyle that work is merely a hobby. Third generation rich are 'old-money', i.e., aristocracy. No positive influence is to be expected from them. I.e., the rich are a diverse bunch. The ones that actually became rich are typically awesome. But the world is ruled by Paris Hilton.

Obviously the concept of a representative democracy (i.e., the form of government all western republics and monarchies have adopted) is still foreign to you.

And of course, no declaration of war was made. The US constitution had been superceded. By what exactly is left as an exercise to the reader.

Hi Stenvar, you sound like a rational person. Have you actually read this thread where people are completely and openly questioning global warming occurring, questioning the morals of the people involved in climate research, questioning antropogenic global warming, arguing that scientific research is a gravy train that keeps on running, forwarding a conspiracy theory that politicians and corporations worldwide have for the first time been able to collude globally, and generally display an attitude resembling young earth creationists and truthers? These are the denialists. You are the only one in this entire thread that argues an economic opposite viewpoint based on the scientific evidence we have so far. All 100 others are simply denying a problem exists. They are trying to further a political agenda by attacking the messenger, not the message. They are denialists and are not worth discussing.

But if you have a reasoned argument on what needs to be done w.r.t. AGW, why are you spreading lies about the facts of AGW? And if you're not actively spreading lies (as you don't seem to be at least in this post), why are you defending those that are? Claiming something isn't true because you fear what others will propose (not enforce, propose) to mitigate the fact is at best childish. In this case it's close to criminal.

Awesome, we give the US the property rights to the atmoshpere above the US. We'll fine the US for any effects that it spreads around it's any area it doesn't control. I think three trillion dollars per ppm CO2 would be nice thank you.

I'm absolutely convinced that AWG is true, but I am severly skeptical about the measures proposed in your message to have the desired effect. Unfortunately, the discussion about AWG completely dwarfs the discussion about what we can do to mitigate the effects. That is really what pisses me off. The AWG deniers are absolutely preventing a sane solution to even be discussed. It's infuriating.