I am just curious what the conservatives would do about X in a hypothetical scenario.

Suppose General X seized Washington D.C. by force, and actually managed to maintain absolute power. Within 6 months, he effectively restored the U.S. federal government to the size and intended purpose as mandated by the U.S. constitution, and then abdicated from power. Before abdicating from power, he helped himself to $20 billion from the U.S. treasury and then resigned to a remote estate to live out the rest of his life in luxury.

Question:

General X illegally seized power, and stole $20 billion from the U.S. treasury. However, he restored the Republic. Would you consider him a criminal or a hero? A mix of both? If you considered him a criminal, would you want him punished? If so, what should his punishment be?

Kemp,

Probably a poor choice of words on my part, but I meant to say that I am a moral anti-realist, which means that morals (and good/evil) do not have mind-independent existences. Evil does not exist in the fabric of reality.

Kemp,

1. The economy of the USSR may not have been 100% centrally planned, actually it developed an active black market under Brezhnev, but the U.S. is far from that.

2. Yes, the government caused most of our economic problems. Yes, our government's laws, policies and regulations frequently reduce economic competitiveness.

3. Despite (2), fiscal and monetary policy still work.

4. The all items index in the U.S. only rose 1.8% from last November over the course of 12 months. That means low inflation.
CPI data here: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1211.pdf

5. Yes, lower taxes on the rich will help the economy grow... a little. But, a propensity to invest depends on estimated future profits. If consumers are afraid to spend money, then investors will be discouraged from investing as much as they would have otherwise. Yes, abolishing misguided government regulations and programs (like Obamacare) would stimulate demand because costs would drop, and a complete overhaul of our health care and business regulations are needed. But lowering taxes on the rich will have one of the least effects on consumer spending. Now, if taxes on the rich were 90%, then yeah, lowering their taxes to 20% would have a huge impact on consumer spending. But at present, the effective tax rate for the rich is very low.

6. Yes, I have debt. Debt can be a good thing depending on your equity.

Kemp,

You're conflating fiscal or monetary policy with central planning. That fiscal and monetary policy work doesn't need proof because it's established macro economics 101. It's like asking for proof that WW2 happened.

That said, I agree with Milton Friedman that government spending is likely to be the least effective. A more effective fiscal solution would be to increase consumer spending by reducing taxes on the working and middle classes. And if further government spending is to be used, it ought to be spent on debt relief.

Also, the Republican idea of reducing taxes on the rich is dumb because the economy is driven by the demand side and not the supply side.

> The Yell wrote:

> Without reference to any immutable human law that was a priori absolutely correct, without regard to cultural choice?  No, they can't.>

Oh ok. Well duh. Although, I don't see what the problem is due instrumentalism and our capacity for empathy.

So the conversation would look like this.

Atheist:  That is extremist nonsense condemned by all civilized peoples!
Me:  So what?
Atheist:  It offends the sentiments of most of us with developed faculties and empathy, and we don't want to live in a society like that>

> The Yell wrote:

> I dunno that nobody treats laws as sacred...I'd buy it if arguments with atheists go like this

Atheist:  That is extremist nonsense condemned by all civilized peoples!
Me:  So what?
Atheist:  Hmmm....oh yeah.>

Are you saying that an atheist can't provide an answer for why they condemn genocide without treating a law as sacred?

Well, an atheist who was being consistent with empiricism would have to adopt a legal point of view that recognizes the law as having strictly instrumental value. So rather than seeing the law as having sacred status, I think such an atheist would view the law as ideally a kind of social contract that is open for ongoing negotiation.

Speaking of sacredness, why does the political right in the U.S. treat the constitution, a document written by men, as sacred? Isn't it the godless liberals who generally don't view it as sacred?

My argument is much more simple.

1. I have a second amendment right to bear arms.
2. I like my guns.
3. If you try to take them away from me, then come at get them!

Kemp,

Well yeah. But not all atheists are communists, so the association is dumb.

Ummm no. Faith is ending. The percentage of Americans who consider themselves non-religious are increasing, and the religious people in the U.S are concentrated in older demographics.

Religion is dying. Get over it. Good riddance.

Actually, it's hard to lose weight because of the body's set point. Basically, your returns with start to plateau. That, and exercise doesn't burn enough calories. Exercise is good for maintaining a good metabolism and regulating appetite though.

But, the single most important thing is changing food habits. Flint, my state has diners at truck stops. They are like restaurants intended for truckers, and they sell good food. Really, they are some of the cheapest, high quality restaurants around. Dont you have them?

Hey, didn't render say that King Carlos was a fascist? I think that discredits him right there.