No, you don't seem to get it. You're addressing my point about the article being a failure to prove instants where a place is better by being outdated, but that was all you had when I asked my original question. You haven't provided any other examples, so it no longer applies...if there is a different aspects that proves otherwise, it has yet to be provided. I also don't agree that freedom even has to equate to 'has the best everything', so this entire line of argument won't likely go anywhere.
You've selectively focused on aspects of the articles that suit your point, and incorrectly claimed that I think "freedom = best of everything". Of course this discussion isn't going anywhere, especially if you think that the US recently lowering certain tax rates suddenly makes all those articles outdated.
Capitalism doesn't do this. Also, 'believers' of capitalism are anyone who has ever been in a supermarket. I swear this line reads like something you could actually say about socialism or its counterparts and it would prove far more accurate...Miss me with that horseshit.
Without actually clarifying, I honestly question if even you knew exactly what all that word salad was supposed to be saying...
I know what it means. It's not my fault you don't.
I've asked (several times now) for a real-world (or at this point, any) example of what you're talking about. Which I've yet to receive, and I don't take "lul, giving a shit" as an example of this ideal in practice.
Well, if "giving a shit" isn't an adequate example of ensuring others can improve their productivity without harming anyone else's productivity in your view, perhaps you should look up "Pareto efficiency".
Disregarding that there is two options presented, and the idea of their being more options is redundant. Because the two options are broad. So, are speaking about isolationism and globalism being 'useful in conditions and context'? Because that seems to be what is being answered, though specifically some of it had to do with free trading. If so, it's absurd to say "Sometimes, having no/next to no free trade will prove great for a nation's economy." It's a middle ground you're presenting that shouldn't even exist...
I imagine you're asking for my view on if the US should be economically isolationist or engage in free trade. I think neither option alone is optimal, and both should be pursued to maximize the economic security of the US and its trading partners.
I refuse to take anything said seriously, because of arguments like this. (I also kind-of refuse to believe you're actually that misinformed on such a thoroughly dismantled talking point...)
"The probability of collateral damage, i.e. infringing the rights of others, is too high. This is how we define “arms.”"
This also applies to guns in cities, because stray bullets will come down unless your gun happens to fire rounds at escape velocities.
"Thus, “arms” refers to those a militiaman might be expected to use with proficiency."
I can proficiently use nuclear weapons.
"So, we can reasonably infer that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that private citizens could, if they chose, possess the “arms” that a footsoldier would."
I guess anyone that privately owns an M2 Browning better give theirs to the state.