The questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XIII
- Thread starter Mathilda
- Start date
- Status
They didn't speak German, didn't call themselves Germans, and didn't live in what is commonly referred to as "Germany". "German" is anachronistic for the classical age, anyway; one might as well call Anglo-Saxons "English".How did I know this was going to happen?
If they weren't German, than what were they?
madviking
north american scum
If what you see is what your get, why can't you judge a book by its cover?
If the more the merrier, why do too many cooks spoil the broth?
PlutonianEmpire
King of the Plutonian Empire
How do I determine the air circulation system of a given habitable planet? (Hadley, Ferrell and Polar cells, etc.)
Well, then what should I denote them as? I mean, I thought they were from the area the Roman's called Germania? Or were they farther east?
Przeworsk material culture, which is usually identified with the Goths pace Heather, is further east than Roman Germania Magna. From there, the Goths theoretically went to the Ukraine and Romania, thence into the Balkans, France, and Spain.
Now, the language that the Goths spoke - or at least, the one that's associated with them - is usually described as being part of the East Germanic group of languages, all of which are extinct now and which bear little to no resemblance with either Althochdeutsch or modern Hochdeutsch. The linguistic affiliation of the Gothic language - not necessarily, mind, the Gothic people - is perhaps the only grounds on which anybody could call them "Germans". And it's a pretty tenuous link at that. Germanic might be better, but it still doesn't really help that much with classification, and tells you jack about what the Goths actually were. It's been argued very cogently that most "Goths" didn't speak Gothic at all, and were actually a construct of the Roman Army that adopted a pseudoethnic identity during the period of warlordism in the fifth century crisis.
Saying Anglo-Saxons are the English is like saying the English are American.Anglo-Saxons aren't the English?
I have never recieved a reasonable, logical or satisfactory answer from a libertarian about how they would deal with or resolve the following issues and problems without government intervention in the "free" market:
1. The problem of monopolies
2. The problem of collusion/oligopolies/cartels
3. The problem of negative externalities
4. The issue of social good and social ills
5. The problem of certification
6. The impossibility of perfect information and rational behavior
7. The necessity of public goods
1. The problem of monopolies
2. The problem of collusion/oligopolies/cartels
3. The problem of negative externalities
4. The issue of social good and social ills
5. The problem of certification
6. The impossibility of perfect information and rational behavior
7. The necessity of public goods
A libertarian would argue that monopolies and cartels are more often created by states than prevented by them, and that even if a company does have 100% market share, there is no actual guarantee that it is engaging in monopolistic practices, because the possibility exists (if there are low to no barriers to market entry, for instance) that implicit competition is exerted by other companies that might try to move into the market if a company attempts to act monopolistically, setting high prices and lowering production.
I imagine some libertarians might argue that most goods that are commonly perceived to be public are, in fact, not public goods at all, for various reasons. Probably the same criticism would apply to most commonly defined social goods.
Perfect information and rational behavior haven't been assumed since, like, the seventies.
Libertarians would also argue that negative externalities do exist, but that the state usually has difficulty solving them anyway, and they would contend that better definitions of private property would work better to solve negative externalities than would other forms of state action.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "certification".
Anyway, libertarians do attempt to address all of these problems; whether you find their arguments convincing is ultimately up to you.
I imagine some libertarians might argue that most goods that are commonly perceived to be public are, in fact, not public goods at all, for various reasons. Probably the same criticism would apply to most commonly defined social goods.
Perfect information and rational behavior haven't been assumed since, like, the seventies.
Libertarians would also argue that negative externalities do exist, but that the state usually has difficulty solving them anyway, and they would contend that better definitions of private property would work better to solve negative externalities than would other forms of state action.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "certification".
Anyway, libertarians do attempt to address all of these problems; whether you find their arguments convincing is ultimately up to you.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
More moderate libertarians like myself(and the left libertarians) don't immediately call government evil but acknowledge its usefulness, but at the same time, its possible waste and inefficiency. We quickly get rid of it when it's shown that it's an unnecessary burden when compared to what the private sector could do. Government is useful in solving all of the issues you listed. Maybe not via direct control, but definitely through regulations.
That said, with right-libertarians, yes, good luck. The extremists become anarcho-capitalists, ignoring that government is necessary to be able to hold onto large amounts of property in the first place. What some will do for an extra buck in the short term...
Oh wow, more info than I could have asked for, thanks Dachs
So, taking from this paragraph, in everyday use, the best, blatantly over-simplifying term I should use to denote the Goths would be Eastern-Germanic? Or should I just drop the whole Germanic thing and call them Eastern European (or something similar in vain)?
Well, they were only Eastern European for a coupla centuries. Be silly to call the Visigoths or Ostrogoths - or, for that matter, the post-380s Gothic construct in the Balkans - "Eastern European". East Germanic only works linguistically. Honestly, if you just say they were Goths you'll probably get the point across.
Well, the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths, those guys are a little easier, because I can denote them as the guys who sacked Rome n'stuff. With Goth's on the other hand, the only thing I worry about is if I don't call them an Eastern-Germanic tribe first, people might think I'm talking about the sub-culture
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Dude, have you never read "Asterix and the Goths"?
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
Because many hands make light work?
If he who hesitates is lost why are they fools that rush in where angels fear to tread?
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
This thread has turned into a case of "Great minds think alike" or is it "Fools seldom differ"?
Mad Man
Your lord and master
How do we take the OT survey posted at the top of the page?
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
You use the report post button to reply (the one that looks like a warning sign).
You have to wait 2 minutes after answering each question though
You have to wait 2 minutes after answering each question though
Well, Visigoths and Ostrogoths were both, uh, Goths.Well, the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths, those guys are a little easier, because I can denote them as the guys who sacked Rome n'stuff. With Goth's on the other hand, the only thing I worry about is if I don't call them an Eastern-Germanic tribe first, people might think I'm talking about the sub-culture
I have, and it was lulzy. And of very dubious use in actually teaching somebody something.
- Status
