You're talking about tiny periods of time that show nothing. You're referring to rare exceptions as if they're the rule.

I'm simply stating that, because
(A) Autocrats have inherent motivations to be illiberal in order to stifle challenges to their rule [in order to maintain their power] and
(B) Autocratic systems inherently have no checks on who ends up ruling and
(C) There are absolutely no checks on illiberal policies of autocrats and
(D) Man is inherently corruptible, so no "we'll choose a valiant dictator and he'll appoint a valiant successor!" argument would be anything but ignorant, childish, and stupid,

We may therefore conclude that autocracy is inherently illiberal. Not all four of these simple, indisputable premises are required to come to that conclusion, either. History confirms my argument, without exception. Referring to rare examples of a few decades is no argument.

On top of this, your examples are shortsighted and lack historical depth in regard to your claims of liberalism. Even your "liberal" examples had no checks on their military policy, taxation, and trade. People disagreed, the autocrats just had the power to illiberally squash their dissent.

Why are you responding like he's serious. He's trolling.

Einstein didn't just mention getting a doctorate. He mentioned getting TWO! hahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahaha

That's the only thing I want to know.

First, you disable the part of the brain which can differentiate between "your" and "you are."

Then, you make up all kinds of facts where your knowledge is lacking.

You then reasonably conclude, from your fictional facts, that we need more nanny-state government to protect us from ourselves. It's a scary world out there. We better get those Republicans elected. They're GENIUSES I tell you! They'll protect us all!

Your organizational skills leave something to be desired. Never have you posted a thesis or a conclusion, let alone any basic form of organization. Your walls of text have killed many innocent Pandas. Or at least bored them to sleep.

"I could care less if you get herpes, aids, gonhorea, commit suicide... so long as you don't affect others rights/lives... hey cool with me."

Uh huh.

"I see a drug addict as a potential terrorist."

Oh, here's where you go bat-shit crazy! You just make up reasons for a nanny-state out of thin air.

"And your Alcohol line shows you did not read the starting post. FAIL!"

No, it shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, are being hypocritical, and fabricate all "evidence" to support your position.

"As for Nicotine I have long advocated for a means to remove tobacco from society."

That's great. At least you're open about wanting a nanny-state to babysit you. I can respect your authoritarian, liberty-less position, though I do not agree with it.

"It is addicting or a clinic for those with addictions could not free market survive. Trying to straw man the argument has no merit."

The Church of Scientology exists in a free market too. By your logic, we may conclude that it's legit. Talk about logical fallacies.

Additionally, I discussed the fact that psychological addictions can be attached to virtually anything. I argue that the solution is psychological and individual, not legal for the 90+% of people who don't have problems with smoking marijuana. And this is all you've got? If that's your standard for making something illegal, you should be going crazy. Ban chicken wings: People get addicted, get fat, cost us money, and die. On that note, ban Chinese food and Pizza too. It's TOO damn delicious. Ban porn: People get addicted and it can contribute to sexual dysfunction. Ban sex outside of marriage: You could get a DISEASE!

If that's all the response/logic you've got to the topic of addiction, you're being hypocritical to not advocate banning all kinds of things. There are many things which people get addicted to which are more harmful than marijuana. That it's a drug doesn't make it magically more harmful than anything else. If harm is your standard of measure, pot should be far lower on your list of items to ban than countless other things, including chicken wings.

You're just ignoring the logical arguments I presented you with. You have no response. But to cry and call me names. "OMFG THIS GUY SMOKED A JOINT 12 MONTHS AGO LOCK HIM UP!" Yeah, you're a little ridiculous. You sound like you're on drugs.

So you're against high tax rates.

And you equate this with natural economic inequality.

With no notice of the fact that people democratically get suckered, like idiots, into electing governments which overtax them. With no notice of the fact that this is not inherently related to natural economic inequality, which is not a bad thing.

"Second concept:  systems of regressive taxes, fees, charges which result in systems whereby the rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer are an inevitable result of capitalistic activity."

That's just an ignorant and overly simplistic understanding of economics and free markets. You are aware that relatively free markets have made Americans the richest people on earth and skyrocketed their standard of living in a very brief period of time? You do understand that your standard of living is finite and can be measured by the things you have an can afford, and is not somehow magically diminished by the fact that others work harder than you, are smarter than you, and have acquired more wealth than you?

You're raping the crap out of the word "regressive" when you use it to describe taxes. You're using it to describe "anything that doesn't inherently redistribute wealth to the poor." If a rich man pays 6% tax on his taco and a poor man pays 6% tax on his taco, you describe this as "regressive." Even if the rich man tends to buy more expensive tacos and, in actuality, pays more taxes. You rape the crap out of the word so much that you describe the rich paying the same percentage and a higher dollar amount as "regressive."

"Take 'renting' as an example: the cost of rent is incurred as a loss each month by the renter.  The land-owner, in contrast, over the long-term, almost always collects a capital gain.  Thus, over say 20 years, while the poor renter has paid the equivalent of $300,000 in rental fees, the rich home-owner has gained the equivalent or more in capital gains in the value of the property.  In this way, over the long-term, cost of living is higher for the poor renter than it is for the owner, who actually accumulates a gain over the long term."

So you're against the private ownership of property? So it's capitalism at fault? Many renters become owners. Owners who rent are offering a service, which required they make a substantial investment of their own wealth to be able to do, in exchange for a fee. This is called capitalism. It rewards hard work and good decisions. You should read about it sometime. It's done great things for standards of living around the world, especially for the poor!

"This is an example of how the cost of fulfilling basic need, housing, is more expensive for the poor than for the wealthy,"

You just completely ignore the cost of the property, which the owner had to first acquire and then give up in exchange for the property. By just ignoring the cost to the wealthy entirely, you could claim that housing is more expensive for the poor if it's $5/month. That's just stupid, misleading, and ignorant.

If someone saved up $300,000 over decades and bought a property, you're here saying [cluck] them they're unjust to make any profit out of renting it out. You just completely ignore that the asset has value, or that they had to earn $300,000 by being a productive human being in order to reward themself with the asset in the first place.

This is exactly the ignorant speech I've pointed out many times is Communist. Here you're arguing against private property and free markets. Whereas capitalists see money as something to be earned and used to purchase rewards for one's productivity, you see it as evil because everyone should just share everything. The renter, you argue, has as much right to the property as the owner, who payed for it with money that they earned. We have a name for the ideology you're describing. It's called communism.

"Thus, over say 20 years, while the poor renter has paid the equivalent of $300,000 in rental fees, the rich home-owner has gained the equivalent or more in capital gains in the value of the property."

Maybe the poor renter shouldn't rent a property for 20 years which does not allow for enough savings to purchase a property of his own. How do you propose we save idiots from their own bad decisions? I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

"In this way, over the long-term, cost of living is higher for the poor renter than it is for the owner, who actually accumulates a gain over the long term."

That's up to the poor renter and his decision making process. You're implying that owners should rent properties out for no profit. How exactly do you propose that would work? Why would people buy property, build on it, and rent it out in return for nothing? That would be a huge waste of money. Are you proposing we all live in communes? In case the obvious again escapes you, that's communism.

I'm with you on our tax rates being exorbitant and it rising to the level of crime. But to equate this with income inequality, as if it's anything NEAR that simple, is just silly and ignorant. You go far beyond arguing against oppressive taxation. You're arguing for owners to rent property for no profit? That doesn't make any sense.

Have you put any thought into this at all? Free markets work because they reward productivity and responsible decisions. If you just tell everyone they deserve 2 loafs of bread and some cheese, you quickly find they don't produce shit and everyone has less. That's why communism fails. That's why your ideas fail.

If you tell someone he can't plan to make a profit off of renting his property in a decade or few (or, so it doesn't make NO sense, let's presume a tiiiiny profit over a huuuuge period of time), you end up with less rental properties built. You end up with lower quality rental properties. That's BAD for the poor renter. That's why communism fails. That's why your ideas fail.

You didn't even suggest a mechanism by which anything you proposed would work. The owner should make nothing? Explain why he'll own. Explain why he'll earn the money to purchase to begin with.

"One day, one civilization somewhere, sometime will somehow transcend this cycle, and historians of that era will look back on ours in astonishment that ours operated this way, for, ultimately, in all likelihood, the solution is probably so simple that it boggles the mind to even begin to fathom it as the solution.
And, well, hell if I know what it is..."

We know. It's communism.

You mean when production of home-building materials and homes goes up 9000% and everyone has a home? Achieved my magical robot technology from aliens?

Hell, we GIVE housing, food, and money for clothing away to millions of people. We don't even require they do any work for it. The biggest crime against humanity I see is people taking others' productivity for granted and not laboring in return. Government enabling this is, perhaps, tied for the #1 spot.

Please be more specific. Please share with us specific, preferably personal (and not anecdotal nor fictional), accounts of the injustice you decry. What exploitation and coercion have you experienced and witnessed? What, specifically, are you objecting to here?

You haven't named a single concrete thing that you're objecting to. It's kind-of hard to follow.

Is the free market the problem? It's not fair enough? Government interference with that market? Not enough government interference with that market? We can't even answer these simple questions from what you've said.

6.9% of private workers are unionized. I think your claims of checks and balances are overblown. The free market does well for 93.1% of us.

(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm)

And even socialists used to openly acknowledge that public sector unions would be ridiculous, inherently lead to corruption, and bankrupt everybody. Oh look. They have. They are.

Justinian I,

Stop pretending to be a dolt.

Autocrats choose their heirs. Augustus chose Tiberius. Tiberius chose Caligula. Your example, in only 2 generations, directly led to Caligula.

Democratically elected officials are chosen by the people. The people led to Jefferson. The people led to FDR. Did Jefferson choose heirs who messed up and chose Obama? No. There's no parallel. That's just stupid.

"4. The best you can say is that democracy takes longer to become illiberal."

How illiberal a government they elect depends on the people and their education and values. At any time, they can, through education and values, elect better leaders. This is a mechanism to keep government liberal (if that's their choice) absent in autocratic government.

Want more liberal government under democratic government? Convince people to agree with you and you can make it happen. Want more liberal government under autocratic rule? Keep it down or you might be imprisoned or put to death.

This is a huge difference which makes democratic government structurally more liberal than autocratic government.

Duh.

Because of the corruptibility of man, many have argued that government is inherently illiberal for centuries. I tend to agree with them. But some are more illiberal than others. And autocratic government is inherently far more illiberal than democratic government.

Decades means nothing. Good job, autocracy got lucky with a ruler for a few years. And that ruler was followed by illiberal garbage, as they always are. Score 0 for autocracy not being inherently illiberal.

"You are highlighting how an illiberal successor is more likely to result from an autocracy that practices hereditary succession."

Your examples are of peoples who adopted and had great choice in their successors. They weren't entirely trapped. And your implication that virtuous people could ever appoint worthy and liberal successors for any sustained period of time is laughable.

"Poor example? If liberalism and autocracy are a contradiction, then no autocrat can rule liberally."

That's not true. Autocracy can be inherently illiberal yet produce liberal policies for a short time. The fact that it is capable of producing liberal policies for a short time does not change the fact that it inherently (and inevitably) leads to illiberal policies.

That's like Communism isn't inherently antithetical to freedom because it allows a few people some freedom some of the time. Minor and short-lived exceptions do not change the rule. That there are a few brief periods of relatively liberal policies among autocrats does not change the fact that autocracies are inherently illiberal.

Your new example led to Caligula. Fine work.

"Fine example? You said liberal autocracy was a contradiction. That means that liberal and autocracy are logically incompatible. Therefore, I only needed to provide one counter-example to prove you wrong."

You provided a poor example which shows exactly what I said it would. Why the [cluck] do I need to explain something this [clucking] obvious? This is [clucking] retarded.

I said they're inherently illiberal. That is, they inherently enact illiberal policies and head in that direction. The example you cited was not particularly liberal, and it certainly headed in a very illiberal direction. Which is exactly what I said always happens. And it did in your example.

There are motivations for autocrats to be illiberal, among them greed and the natural desire for more. But there's no mechanism to keep autocrats virtuous. They're autocrats; this is inherently the case. Man is corruptible. Autocracy has no check on this. This is a structural flaw, which is to say that autocracy is inherently illiberal. The motivations of autocrats are to be illiberal. There are no checks on their being illiberal. Autocracy inherently leads to illiberal policies. Therefore, autocracy is inherently illiberal. You can argue that it's not necessary ENTIRELY, DIRECTLY, IMMEDIATELY illiberal. But that'd be a pretty pointless equivocation. It's still inherently illiberal, even if you want to argue it's slightly indirectly so.

Your example wasn't particularly liberal. They allowed their peoples the freedoms that would keep them complacent/productive and exerted all the power over them that they could/felt necessary. And, just as I said all such autocracies do, they headed in a very illiberal direction. Commodus was an autocrat too. He's the conclusion of your example. He's exactly what I said autocracy leads to. Your example leads to him. Your example leads to a very illiberal government in very short time. And most autocrats don't take nearly so long.

If you owned me, I want some of what you're smoking. I'll start loving our new massive "Affordable Care Act" taxes in no time.