I’m sorry to hear that you find it unrewarding to have discussions centered around evidence and reason. Unfortunately, I have a different opinion.

The only part of your response that gets at my argument is a trite heuristic.

correlation is not causation

Well no shit Sherlock. You clearly are just arguing to argue. You don’t’ believe what you are saying or worse, you aren’t saying anything. Makes arguing with you unrewarding.

You won’t affirm or deny this basic proposition:

On average socialism revolution lead to more bloodshed than liberal revolutions.

It makes having this argument virtually impossible. And extremly boring I might add. One can always nickel and dime another’s argument. Criticizing what has been extended is easy because that extension defines the constraint in which it can be criticized. You avoid such extension out of insecurity about possible contingencies once the constraints have been defined.

Talk about boring. Never extending just criticize. Snoooze-o-rama.

Invariably? Okay, I’ll try to pick a counterexample that’s close to home so I don’t get “uh, I don’t know anything about that country”. So Mexico, with its exceptionally low tax rate and deregulated market structure, should have more wealth and a lower gini coefficient the US or Canada, both of which have less liberal economies?

“killing innocent people is a bad thing”

You’re the one who has said that he is happy with the way the US handled WW2. This included killing innocent people. Unless of course you want to take the position that no one is truly innocent, and if that is true talking about whether it is right or wrong to kill imaginary people is silly.

“Those willing to shed other’s blood are less likely to do so when the state they find themselves in respects liberal values. Some of my readers have led me to believe that liberal values hold the same propensity for violence as do other values. Huh. So it turns out that liberal values reduce a citizens willingness to commit violence.”

Correlation is not the same as causation. In fact, often the onset of violence precedes the onset of communism, suggesting that the causality may in fact be the opposite of what you suggest (for example: China).

“the vast majority of insurgents are native Iraqis”

Doesn’t this contradict what you said earlier - that the Iraq war is not a recruiting tool for terrorists, and insurgents is a nice word for terrorist?

“The least supportive group turned out to be the unemployed, 74 percent of whom said they support or strongly back armed attacks.”

You do realize what this implies, right? Of the demographic group least in favor of attacking US soldiers violently, 74% are in favor of people who kill them. Yes, it really sounds like those Iraqis are happy about the U.S. continuing to be there.

please explain.