Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
I'm an Atheist. And I stand against gay marriage for two reasons.
1. I believe marriage should be privatized. Expanding the franchise is therefore a step in the wrong direction.
2. Homosexuals deserve to be punished for backstabbing sex workers after they won their important legal battles.
West Virginia doesn't count, lol.
Ever wonder about Senator Byrd? They are old school Democrats, from the time before Lyndon Johnson.
I don't believe in judging a person for their dishonesty when the rules in question are cheap. In that case, I prefer to call it creative disobedience. If anything, she's a hero!
Time to declare war on France and place Jean-Christophe Bonaparte on the throne. We all know they'll simply surrender. At present, the true heir works for Stanley-Morgan, so we can assume he understands finances very well.
Yell,
I'm just making sure I understand your position. You sometimes present yourself as a Dominionist.
I made a typo in the post you responded to, Yell.
I meant to say ""Finally, your belief that America was founded as a Theocracy, or that the constitution (does not) forbid Theocracy, is bizarre and contrary to the historical facts."
Is your response the same?
Yell,
I have argued in favor of moral anti-realism for years, but I have never argued in favor of anarchy. I only stated I would rather be born in an anarchy under Flint's contrived scenario. Entirely a hypothetical question. Had you read the thread in its entirety, it would have been obvious to you that I would have selected the country based on GDP had Flint allowed it.
Moral anti-realism does not mean "pillage, rape, murder." All that's required is to believe that our moral convictions are extraneous from the facts. For example, John Locke correctly understood human behavior as, for example, generally cooperative. His error was concluding that those facts about human behavior proved there was a natural moral law. In fact, he only supported a hypothesis about human behavior, not morality.
The scientific fact is that humans are equipped to cooperate because cooperative strategies help our species have more babies. Although there are scientists who claim this proves morality, they are making the same error Locke did. Even the recent "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris received heavy criticism from secular academics.
Finally, your belief that America was founded as a Theocracy, or that the constitution forbids Theocracy, is bizarre and contrary to the historical facts.
Yell,
Are you saying that I am confused about the intentions of social conservatives, or are you saying you affirm the opinion that the government ought to praise and impose the Christian standard of life on the population?
Yell,
There is no disagreement that some things should be illegal. Where Libertarians disagree with Social Conservatives is on what should be criminalized. You Social Conservatives want to use the law enforcement apparatus to compel people to worship your god and only copulate within the context of a heterosexual marriage etc. Libertarians think writing laws to serve such interests is an abuse of power, and would like to see government's intervention in people's lives greatly reduced. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
These sort of laws ought to be abused.
Flint,
I really don't care to see Ron Paul as president. For example, he subscribes to Austrian Economics, a school of crap. Moreover, Paul Krugman pwned him in a debate. However, your defaming campaign against him isn't very well substantiated, as Kemp stated. Nevertheless, there is reason to write him off as a misguided and deceptive politician.
That said, Paul is entertaining and useful for starting the "bushfires of freedom."
Yell,
So...
For obvious reasons, we should criminalize behavior that deceives and deprives of life or property etc. However, you apparently think it's acceptable to impose your religious way of life on me. That sir, is what all tyrants try to do.
In the case of the KKK, it's easily understood they were confused about "evil" and employed terrorism to get their way. So they really aren't a relevant example.
Since you insist, I'll go with Somalia. My reasoning is that although Somalia is ruled by competing mafia-like warlords, at least the mafia does what you pay them to do. That, and Somalia has plenty of opportunity 
.
LP,
Eh, ok. I don't think I ever disagreed with that. My disagreement with the conventional thought towards rights has been and continues to be the claim that rights are moral guarantees. I always had a pragmatist position towards them.
Flint,
That's not an informative question. It's like asking me to choose the life of the person behind the left door or the person behind the right door. As I have already stated, form does not cause liberality. There have been liberal autocracies in history, the most successful and long-lasting was during Rome's period called the "Five Good Emperors (each successor to the throne was chosen by merit)." Moreover, the majority of democracies, broadly speaking to include republics, are illiberal.
Concluding Statements:
1. Most democracies, oligarchies and autocracies are illiberal.
2. A government's form does not cause it to be liberal.
So because of (1) and (2), your question isn't informative. I may as well toss a coin.
What is Informative:
Better Predictor of Liberality:
1. Western states and Japan are the best known liberal democracies. Indeed, they account for the majority of liberal democracies. But there are many other democracies in the present day, and the majority of them are illiberal.
2. What the Western states and Japan have in common is a high standard of living, as a result of being wealthier. Of course, you could argue that their wealth resulted from liberal democracy. While liberal democracy may have made them wealthier, the fact is that the traditional nobility wasn't overthrown until a middle class developed.
So rather than ask me what country I would like to be born in to based on government type, it would be more informative to ask me to decide based on GDP per capita.
Flint,
Nope. Lets use Rome as an example. During the late Republic, the ruling elite were obscenely oppressive. For example, they literally seized the property of middle-class landowners, turning them in to massive estates operated by slaves. Additionally, the tax system was obscenely corrupt. Tax collection was contracted to individuals with the coin to pay for the rights, and the collectors were permitted to profit from the taxes that exceeded the amounts officials estimated could be collected in a given district. This gave the tax collectors incentive to squeeze the people of all the money they could, and they were deeply hated for it. On the other hand, politicians profited from the scheme, and Caesar's desire to replace tax collection with a bureaucratic system is partly what got him assassinated.
When Augustus Caesar ascended to power, his autocratic government was better than the late Republic. He established a bureaucratic system for tax collection, generally complied with the rule of law, invested in public goods, and under his reign the Empire prospered with a remarkable amount of free enterprise. Augustus' reign was consequently very liberal, while the Republic preceding him was very illiberal.
LP,
By civil rights I meant the rights in the constitution. Today, the government can detain you indefinitely without charging you with a crime. Moreover, Asset Forfeiture laws permit the police to seize your cash and other valuables if they see them after they pull you over, under the guise that it's "drug money," and still not charge you with a crime either.
That doesn't mean I believe in natural rights. I just want my 4th and 5th amendment rights protected.
This thread is ridiculous.
Flint,
1. For me to concede that a Republic is the best government would be dishonest. The answer is simply "It depends."
2. The fact that most contemporary military coups lead to tyranny is irrelevant.
They have been conquered. They can get over it.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> +1 Justiniian>
I am surprised you supported it, considering how, by economic liberty, I mean free-market capitalism.
1. I don't care what form the government is. My major concerns are that people are guaranteed economic liberty and civil rights that protect them from political abuses. In other words, I just want a liberal government, on paper and in practice.
2. You are correct that the majority of contemporary autocratic governments are undesirable. I'm not defending illiberal government.
3. But you fail to acknowledge that the majority of republics in the world are illiberal republics. The majority of contemporary liberal republics in the world are in the West.
4. The United States is fast becoming illiberal. It's coming to the point where elites write laws to make everyone potential criminals just to advance their careers by taking credit for convicting more criminals and/or let their cronies loot the private property of innocent citizens.
5. Given that I want liberal government, I would be fine with a liberal autocracy. If a US general seized absolute power and was able and willing to guarantee liberal government, then I would support him.
6. I will concede one thing though. Republics are more likely to be liberal and more likely to stay liberal over time. But a liberal autocracy is still better than an illiberal republic.
Edit: Fixed some ambiguity.
***IMPORTANT NOTICE ***
In case I failed to make it clear, liberal government is not the same as the politics of the democratic party or other leftists.
No one denies that China is scum. But so is the US, and so is every country on the earth. They are all scum!
United States:
1. Carrying condoms is evidence of prostitution.
2. The president can order the detainment of anyone indefinitely.
3. Torture of enemy combatants.
4. 4th amendment rights are thrown away.
5. Roadside asset forfeiture.
With social security, you get back less than you pay in to it. I would rather spend my money on purchasing assets than on that pyramid scam.
Flint,
So you want to impose your desired lifestyle on everyone else? Sounds like you advocate an authoritarian regime.
Liberty sucks?
Huh?
Xeno,
We aren't disagreeing about rent-seeking. We disagree about how to undo the damage. The free-market will take care of most monopolies and oligopolies on its own. The exception is with natural monopolies, which is one of few exceptions I permit government intervention.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.