Message from @Drywa11
Discord ID: 601856673543487569
Ah yes
Because America, despite being founded on Lockean liberal values, was *definitely* leftist, and definitely *not* right-libertarian
locke was an og leftist
It's always the ones with statues as their pics...
iirc locke supported equality before the law and a popular legislature
Siberia is not in Wyoming. Really you can't point to anywhere that landmass correlates with population. It was rotated to even suggest it would or worse that it is mathematically valid.
you're not controlling for confounding variables
you're just pointing out that population density varies
Well whatever confounding variables you can think up they apply universally because there's *no correlation between landmass and population * at all anywhere.
Given the original left-right divide originally referred to the actual seating arrangement in the French parliament in the 19th century, liberals were originally on the left.
if you have a group that controls x amount of land and you give them y amount of land in addition there will likely be more of them than if they hadn't received the additonal land
the right traditionally supported hereditary privileges extending to legal privileges, legislative representation to be based on social class (in and of itself hereditary in regards to certain classes) if it is to exist at all, and an order based on divine right, not any sort of social contract
locke was certainly a leftist in his day
Ehh, only if you were to kill everyone that’s already on that land. It’s not like the Ottoman, Roman and Austrian empires became filled solely with Latins, Turks and Germans. Hell Hitler bitched about how the Germans in Austria were becoming more and more of a minority despite them supposedly controlling the whole country.
"only if you were to kill everyone that’s already on that land"
<:hyperthink:462282519883284480>
It’d be debatable and reduce the gains from conquering it in the first place. There’s a reason Poland and Western Russia aren’t densely populated to begin with.
it still affords each individual german more living space
It's not a debate point. You're simply factually wrong. You cannot have debates on physical reality (at least none that will affect it. Adding land doesn't add population. Improving agriculture does. Lots of things can. But the causal relationship you assert is imagination.
adding land doesn't directly add population it just makes it so that it is easier to add more population
it's easier to support a larger family when property is more easily available
If you have a nation of farmers perhaps, but in an industrial economy it would be more constrained by earnings.
it would be more important in an agrarian society but it still matters in an industrial economy
after all housing cuts into your earnings
The Amish are fuckin woke
True
@Lêohte
I'm not making a correlation. You're asserting a causal relationship with there *isn't even a correlation. *
Which countries have the largest population today?
Russia and Canada are the largest countries (despite not having the largest populations) iirc
yea russia is fucking huge
I was just trying to be helpful by pointing to a rather obvious error in your thesis. To a normal adult human this should result in a "my bad" or correction. Happens all the time in regular life.
Nah, the thesis is correct, just because there are a few outliers. Graph population size and landmass
Instead you seem dead set on arguing as to how 2 plus 2 might somehow equal 487 because the only other possibility is that you made a mistake.
Ok mate 🤣
Outliers? Did you look at the chart? China has close to the landmass of the US.
India has half the landmass of *Australia* Outliers 😂
A lot of that isnt hospitable you brainlet
Same for canada and russia
A bunch of China is fucking desert iirc
I suppose by your logic, Australia's an outlier, since it's bigger than India (despite the former only having like 25M people)