Controversy and racism pays. On that note, why aren't you on top of this Adria Richards tech conference dust up? It's delicious fodder between PC bigots who think everyone else is a bigoted woman-hater. So far PC is losing. It's a classic.

One more thing about Yglesias's absurd comment: he thinks only as far back as there has been government, and also has a very non-American idea of the nature of the state and property. He betrays a disdain for one of the founding principles of this country (America) regarding the rights of the individual, including his right to property. He would wipe out centuries of struggle by ordinary people (elsewhere prior to the founding of our country) to lift themselves up and acquire full rights. He would return us to no later than the 13th-century, and even then he would chose France and Spain over England and the Low Countries from whence our notions of private ownership and non-aristocratic governance are derived from.

Obviously Yglesias bought a house "for the people" since he doesn't believe in private property. We should petition to share it with him via squatters' rights. You know, like in "Dr. Zhivago."

How does these children warrant salaries sufficient to afford that?

Bleah. English much? I think my point comes across, though.

I understood you just fine.

No worries, dude. Your English is adequate for the times, isn't it? :-)

It's difficult to imagine that, before we developed political organization, people did not believe that they owned their personal possessions. That was all there was for hunters and gatherers to own. By the time agriculture developed, there was likely some kind of political structure that could protect rights in cultivated land, or take away the rights in favor of giving them to the political leadership.

Does Yglesias mean to imply that, because early civilization probably was not Lockean in nature, property rights do not inherently exist? Property rights are a moral issue. The government has the power to protect them or take them away. Morality requires protection of property, but government is often immoral.

History, and pre-history are overwhelmingly on your side. Also, Yglesias would find Tom Paine disagreeing with him vehemently. Then again, Paine believed in "Common Sense." In that tract, the supposed "atheist" Paine drew upon the Old Testament to show that human freedom came before an age of kings.

He's a lefty. He's allowed to be a hypocrite. No news here.

If Matt Yglesias were to lose his job, that would be a separation of church and Slate...

LOL! And do notice that his last name means "church" in Spanish. :-)