M.2 Posted April 27, 2017 Author Posted April 27, 2017 On 2017. 04. 26. at 8:05 AM, luxfelix said: You'll have no disagreement from me with regards to how freedom has a cultural prerequisite (i.e. "freedom club"). I can certainly recall examples of people selling their freedoms (for security, short-term gain, etc.) in government systems; however, I would need more information on what you mean when concerning what selling one's freedom would look like in a free market (would it be a free market if they could not renegotiate the terms/reclaim their freedom?). Switching gears a bit here: Imagine you have various monarchs meeting at a party. How would they would interact with one another -- 1) Where the party is in neutral territory? 2) As monarchs attending a party in the court of another monarch's realm? (Of particular interest, does anything happen to their legitimacy, status, and/or behavior?) A good example are the thousands of Indonesian and Bangla people who moved to the Middle-East as foreign workers, and who now are stuck as effective serfs. The Arabs did not defraud them, nor did they breach contract. It is simply that these poor souls were stupid. Now the arabs would not renegotiate the terms, and they are free not to. It was not rare that monarchs met up at parties and hunting trips. Here again, Napoleon is an excellent example. You can read about how the Habsburgs, the Tsar, the Kaiser, and the British treated him at encounters. The only Monarch who treated him as an equal was the Russian Tsar, since he was an Eastern Monarch, and his measure of legitimacy was not the same as that of Westerners..
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted April 28, 2017 Posted April 28, 2017 What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? they both have a democratic system of government. They are both democracies. Listing them as separate and not merged looks idiotic. It's like having monarchy and Xarchy, despite both having a hereditary absolute head of state.
M.2 Posted April 28, 2017 Author Posted April 28, 2017 15 hours ago, Magnetic Synthesizer said: What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? they both have a democratic system of government. They are both democracies. Listing them as separate and not merged looks idiotic. It's like having monarchy and Xarchy, despite both having a hereditary absolute head of state. I was going to slam you for being intellectually lazy, and for not reading my very first post thuroughly, but then I thought maybe you are simply a victim of honest ignorance. Therefore, I decided to explain. You do have a point, since REPUBLIC = REX + PUBLICA = RULE OF THE PEOPLE, and DEMOCRACY = DEMOS + KRATOS = RULE OF THE COMMONERS. These two words mean ethimologically exactly the same thing, except ine is in Latin and the other in Greek. However, in today's usage in politology, these do not mean the same thing. Example: Athens was a pure democracy, whereas Rome was contemporarily a pure republic. Athens was ruled directly by the citizenry, but Rome was ruled by a group of men who were not accountable to the citizenry. But yes, most of the world today takes from both of these systems. Please read the following for the full picture: Pleshttp://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic To your comment on Monarchy... no.
luxfelix Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 On 4/27/2017 at 7:47 AM, Mishi2 said: A good example are the thousands of Indonesian and Bangla people who moved to the Middle-East as foreign workers, and who now are stuck as effective serfs. The Arabs did not defraud them, nor did they breach contract. It is simply that these poor souls were stupid. Now the arabs would not renegotiate the terms, and they are free not to. It was not rare that monarchs met up at parties and hunting trips. Here again, Napoleon is an excellent example. You can read about how the Habsburgs, the Tsar, the Kaiser, and the British treated him at encounters. The only Monarch who treated him as an equal was the Russian Tsar, since he was an Eastern Monarch, and his measure of legitimacy was not the same as that of Westerners.. Though I think I see your point with your example, I don't consider the Middle-East to be a good example of a free market. How many legitimate monarchs can there be?
M.2 Posted May 4, 2017 Author Posted May 4, 2017 4 hours ago, luxfelix said: Though I think I see your point with your example, I don't consider the Middle-East to be a good example of a free market. How many legitimate monarchs can there be? Well, it is on you to tell me if the middle-east has a freer market than the West or not. As long as a monarch is under the will of God/gods he is a legitimate monarch.
luxfelix Posted May 10, 2017 Posted May 10, 2017 On 5/4/2017 at 6:20 AM, Mishi2 said: Well, it is on you to tell me if the middle-east has a freer market than the West or not. As long as a monarch is under the will of God/gods he is a legitimate monarch. Sure, I'd say so, largely due to the de jure restrictions on government interference in the market... de facto, though admittedly, that case is hard to make. I'm open to counter-arguments. To clarify, would it then be possible -- so long as they are under the will of God/gods -- to have every able-bodied adult become a monarch and/or a regent for a minor/absentee (maintaining their realm in trust until they come of age/return/etc.)?
M.2 Posted May 10, 2017 Author Posted May 10, 2017 10 hours ago, luxfelix said: Sure, I'd say so, largely due to the de jure restrictions on government interference in the market... de facto, though admittedly, that case is hard to make. I'm open to counter-arguments. To clarify, would it then be possible -- so long as they are under the will of God/gods -- to have every able-bodied adult become a monarch and/or a regent for a minor/absentee (maintaining their realm in trust until they come of age/return/etc.)? I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom Apparently some Middle-Eastern countries such as UAE, Bahrain, Quatar, Israel and Oman have freer economies than most western countries. Seems pretty legit as far as I can tell. Also, these countries happen to be monarchies with the exception of Israel. Most monarchies solved this problem by having the nearest relative of the heir fill in for a while, or by having the chancellor take the wheel. The office of the king is not necessarily a person, but a branch of government. I don't know how the system should deal with this issue ideally.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted May 10, 2017 Posted May 10, 2017 36 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom Apparently some Middle-Eastern countries such as UAE, Bahrain, Quatar, Israel and Oman have freer economies than most western countries. Seems pretty legit as far as I can tell. Also, these countries happen to be monarchies with the exception of Israel. Most monarchies solved this problem by having the nearest relative of the heir fill in for a while, or by having the chancellor take the wheel. The office of the king is not necessarily a person, but a branch of government. I don't know the system should deal with this issue ideally. From what I can tell of history, the most stable monarchies are ones whose succession is based on primogeniture. Especially primogeniture since if its "any son of the recently deceased King" a civil war is very likely to occur as the result of aristocrats jockeying for their preferred son. I know the tiny Arabian countries appear to be wealthy, however I have no idea if they're meritocracies or more nepotist. Theoretically if any intelligent Arab in, say, the United Arab Emirates can become a millionaire through the fruits of his labor (legally) then I'd say that's an example of a free market under a monarchy. However I can't say for sure since it might not be all that great beyond their capitals, or it's largely just a system for those that know people.
luxfelix Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 8 hours ago, Mishi2 said: I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_economic_freedom Apparently some Middle-Eastern countries such as UAE, Bahrain, Quatar, Israel and Oman have freer economies than most western countries. Seems pretty legit as far as I can tell. Also, these countries happen to be monarchies with the exception of Israel. Most monarchies solved this problem by having the nearest relative of the heir fill in for a while, or by having the chancellor take the wheel. The office of the king is not necessarily a person, but a branch of government. I don't know how the system should deal with this issue ideally. For the sake of your argument, I'll accept that there are nations with monarchies and freer economies than many democracies only claiming free markets. Succession is legitimate because the monarchs -- themselves having legitimacy through a deity/deities -- has made the decision and/or passes on their legitimacy through their genes? I'm curious as to what legitimacy and monarchy means in a community where everyone (able-bodied/of-age/etc.) is a monarch; would this essentially be a different flavor of anarchy?
M.2 Posted May 11, 2017 Author Posted May 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, luxfelix said: Succession is legitimate because the monarchs -- themselves having legitimacy through a deity/deities -- has made the decision and/or passes on their legitimacy through their genes? I'm curious as to what legitimacy and monarchy means in a community where everyone (able-bodied/of-age/etc.) is a monarch; would this essentially be a different flavor of anarchy? A bit of clarification: It is not the person of the monarch that is approved by the deities, but the office of the monarch, the crown. How the systems in a given government fills the office, that is another story. As a matter of fact, they can simply choose not to fill it and have a Crowned Republic instead, which is still technically a monarchy. - There are monarchies that are not hereditary, but elective, wherein they have a system for choosing the next monarch. There have not been many non-hereditary elective monarchies because passing on legitimacy through heirs is the most practical and safest way of transfering power within the branch. As for elective monarchs, the successor is approved by some form of council, the clergy, and if there is one, the constitution or a charter. - I think I see what you are getting at. I remeber you mentioned this point way back. See if this makes sense: What makes a family, and what makes the man the head of the family? In the olden days and traditional cultures, a marriage/family is only valid when they get their status "approved" by the community and by God. Sure you can have a family without the approval of anyone, (which is pretty much what atheists do), but then they have absolutely no authority to legitimize the family as a united entity. This is when the phrase "its just a piece of paper" truly applies. As for the "man of the house", he only has authority over his children because he has been authorised by the community and by God. I could get into how the lack of such traditions broke the modern family, but I think you get my point. - About anarchy. Full disclosure: I am not well versed on this topic, but I am learning, so please be patient with me and correct me where I am wrong. We are all governed by Willpower. Ones who have stronger wills, they will lead the weaker. This is how the world has worked for thousands of years, so I doubt any change to this dynamic anytime soon. That said, I don't want to be under the will of you, nor the people, nor the nobles, nor even myself for that matter. Which is why we people need (at least as an illusion) to be governed by something greater than ourselves: an idea, a god, a constitution... and we would very much like to think that whoever our human authority is, is carrying out the will of that certain greater thing. About the free market that would supposedly lead our anarchist society, I do not trust it. If you have examples to present, where a free market driven anarchist society has thrived, I would be more than happy to change my views. Until then, anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than a pretty good idea to me.
luxfelix Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 On 5/10/2017 at 10:07 PM, Mishi2 said: A bit of clarification: It is not the person of the monarch that is approved by the deities, but the office of the monarch, the crown. How the systems in a given government fills the office, that is another story. As a matter of fact, they can simply choose not to fill it and have a Crowned Republic instead, which is still technically a monarchy. - There are monarchies that are not hereditary, but elective, wherein they have a system for choosing the next monarch. There have not been many non-hereditary elective monarchies because passing on legitimacy through heirs is the most practical and safest way of transfering power within the branch. As for elective monarchs, the successor is approved by some form of council, the clergy, and if there is one, the constitution or a charter. - I think I see what you are getting at. I remeber you mentioned this point way back. See if this makes sense: What makes a family, and what makes the man the head of the family? In the olden days and traditional cultures, a marriage/family is only valid when they get their status "approved" by the community and by God. Sure you can have a family without the approval of anyone, (which is pretty much what atheists do), but then they have absolutely no authority to legitimize the family as a united entity. This is when the phrase "its just a piece of paper" truly applies. As for the "man of the house", he only has authority over his children because he has been authorised by the community and by God. I could get into how the lack of such traditions broke the modern family, but I think you get my point. - About anarchy. Full disclosure: I am not well versed on this topic, but I am learning, so please be patient with me and correct me where I am wrong. We are all governed by Willpower. Ones who have stronger wills, they will lead the weaker. This is how the world has worked for thousands of years, so I doubt any change to this dynamic anytime soon. That said, I don't want to be under the will of you, nor the people, nor the nobles, nor even myself for that matter. Which is why we people need (at least as an illusion) to be governed by something greater than ourselves: an idea, a god, a constitution... and we would very much like to think that whoever our human authority is, is carrying out the will of that certain greater thing. About the free market that would supposedly lead our anarchist society, I do not trust it. If you have examples to present, where a free market driven anarchist society has thrived, I would be more than happy to change my views. Until then, anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than a pretty good idea to me. On the clarification, are crowns jurisdictions over realms, or peoples -- "King of France" or "King of the French" -- or both realms and peoples? Does this change with regards to rank and/or personal unions; for example, are ducal crowns less legitimate than kingdom crowns (or baronial, county, imperial, etc.) and/or when crowns merge/split? You hit on a very central theme with family as a form of monarchy. A family is a core relationship between two (and then more with progeny thereafter) followed by concentric circles of extended family members crisscrossing and buttressing one another; the man is traditionally the head of the family largely because of biological relationships between men and women whereby the husband can provide for the family while the wife cares for the children and home. I see the parallel you mention with the approval of the community and god in a ceremony not unlike a coronation where a monarch is wedded to their people/realm(?). By willpower are you referring to one's ability to make decisions for themselves and/or act them out? Two things that I find relevant for this discussion: When talking about anarchy on its own, I'm describing the idea of a blank canvas or a state of nature that individuals then paint with their own preferences; we can have one group of like-minded people forming ancapistan over here, another group installing a commune over there, and others deciding they would rather live as hermits/nomads off in the distance (etc.). Eventually, the strengths/weaknesses and preferences of peoples will be demonstrated beyond the theoretical. The key between all of these flavors would be the ability to choose for oneself which to join (or choose none). This only exists in the free marketplace of ideas within the minds of those people that debate with words (and more than words...) in the world. The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head that resembles anarcho-monarchy is the Icelandic system [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth] ... and even that is a bit of a stretch. (Though I am interested to what you think of it.)
M.2 Posted May 14, 2017 Author Posted May 14, 2017 On 2017. 05. 12. at 7:31 AM, luxfelix said: 1. On the clarification, are crowns jurisdictions over realms, or peoples -- "King of France" or "King of the French" -- or both realms and peoples? Does this change with regards to rank and/or personal unions; for example, are ducal crowns less legitimate than kingdom crowns (or baronial, county, imperial, etc.) and/or when crowns merge/split? 2. You hit on a very central theme with family as a form of monarchy. A family is a core relationship between two (and then more with progeny thereafter) followed by concentric circles of extended family members crisscrossing and buttressing one another; the man is traditionally the head of the family largely because of biological relationships between men and women whereby the husband can provide for the family while the wife cares for the children and home. I see the parallel you mention with the approval of the community and god in a ceremony not unlike a coronation where a monarch is wedded to their people/realm(?). 3. By willpower are you referring to one's ability to make decisions for themselves and/or act them out? 4. Two things that I find relevant for this discussion: When talking about anarchy on its own, I'm describing the idea of a blank canvas or a state of nature that individuals then paint with their own preferences; we can have one group of like-minded people forming ancapistan over here, another group installing a commune over there, and others deciding they would rather live as hermits/nomads off in the distance (etc.). Eventually, the strengths/weaknesses and preferences of peoples will be demonstrated beyond the theoretical. The key between all of these flavors would be the ability to choose for oneself which to join (or choose none). This only exists in the free marketplace of ideas within the minds of those people that debate with words (and more than words...) in the world. The closest thing I can think of off the top of my head that resembles anarcho-monarchy is the Icelandic system [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth] ... and even that is a bit of a stretch. 1. Very interesting question, and not as easy to answer as one might assume. - In western tradition, the monarch was the lord of the lords of the land, and everyone and everything on it. Such monarchs of today are: The Duke of Luxembourg, The King of Spain, The King Saudi Arabia, The Prince of Monaco... - In other cases, the monarch is not only the owner of the land, but also the arch religious figure. Examples: The Queen of England, The King of Sweden, The Great Sultan (no longer really exists). - Another duality can be that the monarch is the head of the land and the people. Most "pagan" monarchies are so: The king of Thailand, the Emir of Brunei, The King of Bhutan, Emperor of Japan - In the extreme cases, the monarch the head of the land, the religion and the people: The Roman Pontiff is the only one I can think of at the moment - An odd outlier is the King of the Belgians (no, not Belgium), who is only the monarch to the people of Belgium. 2. Yes, both relationships are that of authority and subordinity. But most of us know that power and authority has to come from somewhere. Now we all know that hierarchy does not come from pleasure but from necessity. And if we are going to have hierarchy, be it in marriage or in a state, then it had better come from God/constitution/people. I suppose one can spot the commonalities between such ceremonies, but I wouldn't say the relationships are the same. Idk... I'm going to have to think about this one a bit more. 3. Willpower is the essence of our humanity, or at least that is how we are taught in Sunday school: the only thing that parts us from animals is that we can "will". This is going a bit deep into theology a bit, but there is a difference between how animals want stuff, how humans want stuff, and how God wants stuff. Anyways, every human has a will, but some have it more than others. Such strong-willed people are the ones who end up leading others, and not because they are handsome, strong, smart, popular, or of any other trait. You may have experienced this in a free market circumstance, for example when your middle-school class chose a class president. Supposing the teacher didn't interfere to choose her pet, you may recall that the one who got chosen was the one who really badly "wanted" it. People with much willpower usually end up being entrepeneurs, lead politicians, or daring scientists. 4. Thoughty. However, don't you think that we have already had that blank slate chance 7000 years ago? I think the contest has already begun, and ancap was either already eliminated or not yet accomplished. I really like Iceland, but I would not say that it is a convincing example. They are too small, too isolated, too young, and too powerless. I just might do research myself on which country is the most ancap, because now I got curious. Have you perhaps read Mr.Molneux's book on ancap? I haven't gotten there yet, but I wonder what he says.
luxfelix Posted May 16, 2017 Posted May 16, 2017 On 5/14/2017 at 1:47 PM, Mishi2 said: 1. Very interesting question, and not as easy to answer as one might assume. - In western tradition, the monarch was the lord of the lords of the land, and everyone and everything on it. Such monarchs of today are: The Duke of Luxembourg, The King of Spain, The King Saudi Arabia, The Prince of Monaco... - In other cases, the monarch is not only the owner of the land, but also the arch religious figure. Examples: The Queen of England, The King of Sweden, The Great Sultan (no longer really exists). - Another duality can be that the monarch is the head of the land and the people. Most "pagan" monarchies are so: The king of Thailand, the Emir of Brunei, The King of Bhutan, Emperor of Japan - In the extreme cases, the monarch the head of the land, the religion and the people: The Roman Pontiff is the only one I can think of at the moment - An odd outlier is the King of the Belgians (no, not Belgium), who is only the monarch to the people of Belgium. 2. Yes, both relationships are that of authority and subordinity. But most of us know that power and authority has to come from somewhere. Now we all know that hierarchy does not come from pleasure but from necessity. And if we are going to have hierarchy, be it in marriage or in a state, then it had better come from God/constitution/people. I suppose one can spot the commonalities between such ceremonies, but I wouldn't say the relationships are the same. Idk... I'm going to have to think about this one a bit more. 3. Willpower is the essence of our humanity, or at least that is how we are taught in Sunday school: the only thing that parts us from animals is that we can "will". This is going a bit deep into theology a bit, but there is a difference between how animals want stuff, how humans want stuff, and how God wants stuff. Anyways, every human has a will, but some have it more than others. Such strong-willed people are the ones who end up leading others, and not because they are handsome, strong, smart, popular, or of any other trait. You may have experienced this in a free market circumstance, for example when your middle-school class chose a class president. Supposing the teacher didn't interfere to choose her pet, you may recall that the one who got chosen was the one who really badly "wanted" it. People with much willpower usually end up being entrepeneurs, lead politicians, or daring scientists. 4. Thoughty. However, don't you think that we have already had that blank slate chance 7000 years ago? I think the contest has already begun, and ancap was either already eliminated or not yet accomplished. I really like Iceland, but I would not say that it is a convincing example. They are too small, too isolated, too young, and too powerless. I just might do research myself on which country is the most ancap, because now I got curious. Have you perhaps read Mr.Molneux's book on ancap? I haven't gotten there yet, but I wonder what he says. 1. Ah, and lets not forget the Hohenzollerns whom were at one time "kings in Prussia" as opposed to "kings of Prussia" due to political concerns as an elector in the HRE... 2. I'd be interested to pick this one back up later when you're ready. 3. (This could probably be in a thread on its own.) In relation to this thread's topic on monarchy -- and with regard to legitimacy -- where does willpower come into play? 4. I don't know, but I'd imagine you're right. Borrowing from the Founders' view of America, different societal systems/institutions require a certain type of person with beliefs in common that synchronize with that form of society. I have. The connection between Molyneux's book and medieval Iceland in particular is the idea of DROs (Molyneux) and Chiefs (Iceland), where people choose a court(DROs)/chief(Iceland) and their rules to follow. (Or, at least, that's the nugget here.) Tying it back to the thread here, would/could someone choose which monarch to follow and/or become one themselves if they have the willpower and/or legitimacy?
M.2 Posted May 17, 2017 Author Posted May 17, 2017 20 hours ago, luxfelix said: 2. I'd be interested to pick this one back up later when you're ready. 3. (This could probably be in a thread on its own.) In relation to this thread's topic on monarchy -- and with regard to legitimacy -- where does willpower come into play? 4. I have. The connection between Molyneux's book and medieval Iceland in particular is the idea of DROs (Molyneux) and Chiefs (Iceland), where people choose a court(DROs)/chief(Iceland) and their rules to follow. (Or, at least, that's the nugget here.) 5. Tying it back to the thread here, would/could someone choose which monarch to follow and/or become one themselves if they have the willpower and/or legitimacy? 2. If the bible is any indication, marriage and government are very different relationships. Monarchy/government was institutionalised by the people, who demanded they have a secular ruler beside the priestly classes. IE: Seperation of powers. Marriage on the other hand was institutionalised by God himself. Am I on topic? What do you think? 3. Monarchy is probably the most secure form of government in ways that it is safe from being toppled by human willpower. Monarchy emphasises the Will of God, and not the will of man. Does this make sense? 4. Would you be so kind to tell me more about it? Where does this model fit as a form of government? 5. With reference to point number 2, will of man is strongly disregarded in an ideal monarchy. Of course, one can choose whom they have allegiance to. However, once you swear an oath to a monarch, it is not nice to go back on it. Theoretically yes, the Habsburgs are probably the best example of royal ambition. They went from a small noble family to ruling over 1/5 of the world's surface area. Nevertheless, they had to go through the System legitimately, not relying solely on their willpower, but also deferring to the Holy See, the Holy Roman Empire, and the nations they ruled over.
luxfelix Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 On 5/16/2017 at 8:15 PM, Mishi2 said: 2. If the bible is any indication, marriage and government are very different relationships. Monarchy/government was institutionalised by the people, who demanded they have a secular ruler beside the priestly classes. IE: Seperation of powers. Marriage on the other hand was institutionalised by God himself. Am I on topic? What do you think? 3. Monarchy is probably the most secure form of government in ways that it is safe from being toppled by human willpower. Monarchy emphasises the Will of God, and not the will of man. Does this make sense? 4. Would you be so kind to tell me more about it? Where does this model fit as a form of government? 5. With reference to point number 2, will of man is strongly disregarded in an ideal monarchy. Of course, one can choose whom they have allegiance to. However, once you swear an oath to a monarch, it is not nice to go back on it. Theoretically yes, the Habsburgs are probably the best example of royal ambition. They went from a small noble family to ruling over 1/5 of the world's surface area. Nevertheless, they had to go through the System legitimately, not relying solely on their willpower, but also deferring to the Holy See, the Holy Roman Empire, and the nations they ruled over. 2. I get where your coming from. I may be taking the metaphor of Elizabeth I being "married to her people" as monarch too literally; that, and trying to find an applicable scale to daily life, such as in Everyday Anarchy. 3. Likewise, I see where you're coming from; however, we've seen a decline in the number and power of monarchies throughout the world. Would this not suggest that they too are vulnerable to human willpower, be it democratic or totalitarian coups? Additionally, this would seem to be the case in both religious and secular societies in opposition to the Will of God. 4. (You'll likely get more value from reading about it from those who've studied it more in depth than me.) As a form of government, I would classify it as a kind of anarcho-monarchy. 5. Using the Habsbugs as a case study, when did they receive legitimacy from God to become monarchs -- was it a matter of destiny, attained through deed, and/or otherwise? (Emphasis on how to replicate and how that fits in with the concept of legitimacy as described here in this thread?)
M.2 Posted May 30, 2017 Author Posted May 30, 2017 On 2017. 05. 26. at 6:45 AM, luxfelix said: 3. Likewise, I see where you're coming from; however, we've seen a decline in the number and power of monarchies throughout the world. Would this not suggest that they too are vulnerable to human willpower, be it democratic or totalitarian coups? Additionally, this would seem to be the case in both religious and secular societies in opposition to the Will of God. 5. Using the Habsbugs as a case study, when did they receive legitimacy from God to become monarchs -- was it a matter of destiny, attained through deed, and/or otherwise? (Emphasis on how to replicate and how that fits in with the concept of legitimacy as described here in this thread?) 3. This is the question isn't it? How come monarchy fell out of favour, despite having been essentially the only form of government for 6000 years? I believe it has to do with the second greatest lie ever sold, which is democracy, that man needs no will but his own. With humanism came the Tower of Babel - we have become too confident in our own free will. And of course, man has free will, and can do whatever he pleases. But "democracy" is a comparatively new experiment, and so far it has already failed in most countries it has been tried in. 5. The story of Habsburg family, as I said, is the perfect manual on how to gain power. It's actually not even remotely a secret, as they made it their motto: "Leave the waging of wars to others! But you, happy Austria, marry!" In English: strong family, strong religion.
luxfelix Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 5:21 PM, Mishi2 said: 3. This is the question isn't it? How come monarchy fell out of favour, despite having been essentially the only form of government for 6000 years? I believe it has to do with the second greatest lie ever sold, which is democracy, that man needs no will but his own. With humanism came the Tower of Babel - we have become too confident in our own free will. And of course, man has free will, and can do whatever he pleases. But "democracy" is a comparatively new experiment, and so far it has already failed in most countries it has been tried in. 5. The story of Habsburg family, as I said, is the perfect manual on how to gain power. It's actually not even remotely a secret, as they made it their motto: "Leave the waging of wars to others! But you, happy Austria, marry!" In English: strong family, strong religion. 3. I've come across the argument that the Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the end for monarchy. Theologically, it represents the shift to subjective interpretation of the Bible -- where the Bible was arguably not meant to be used in that way -- and where the Church loses power, monarchies derived therefrom begin to lose legitimacy. We then have characters like Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, and later Bolsheviks that have their own justifications for removing crowned heads. WWI lead, more immediately, to the end of many monarchies as well. Maybe this ties into the idea that malevolent rulers have found it easier to run tax farms within Democratic structures? 5. Well, aside from the inbreeding -- which is another big reason for the failure on monarchies at the turn of the last century -- that is a great example of how to expand non-violently. Are you referring to the act of marriage as the origin point for their legitimacy? Is it a matter of only marrying within nobility?
Gavitor Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 Why do you think having rulers of any description is better than none. What is the benefit of having said ruler(s)? On 5/4/2017 at 3:20 AM, Mishi2 said: Well, it is on you to tell me if the middle-east has a freer market than the West or not. As long as a monarch is under the will of God/gods he is a legitimate monarch. I don't understand what the will of god(s) is, how do you determine what that is and how do you verify that it is valid? On 5/10/2017 at 7:07 PM, Mishi2 said: - About anarchy. Full disclosure: I am not well versed on this topic, but I am learning, so please be patient with me and correct me where I am wrong. We are all governed by Willpower. Ones who have stronger wills, they will lead the weaker. This is how the world has worked for thousands of years, so I doubt any change to this dynamic anytime soon. That said, I don't want to be under the will of you, nor the people, nor the nobles, nor even myself for that matter. Which is why we people need (at least as an illusion) to be governed by something greater than ourselves: an idea, a god, a constitution... and we would very much like to think that whoever our human authority is, is carrying out the will of that certain greater thing. About the free market that would supposedly lead our anarchist society, I do not trust it. If you have examples to present, where a free market driven anarchist society has thrived, I would be more than happy to change my views. Until then, anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than a pretty good idea to me. A leader and a ruler are not the same thing. A leader gives you the choice to follow, a ruler does not. I'm curious what is the principle that says it's ok for a person or group of people to do what is considered wrong or immoral for everyone else?
M.2 Posted June 1, 2017 Author Posted June 1, 2017 10 hours ago, luxfelix said: 3. I've come across the argument that the Protestant Reformation was the beginning of the end for monarchy. Theologically, it represents the shift to subjective interpretation of the Bible -- where the Bible was arguably not meant to be used in that way -- and where the Church loses power, monarchies derived therefrom begin to lose legitimacy. We then have characters like Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre, and later Bolsheviks that have their own justifications for removing crowned heads. WWI lead, more immediately, to the end of many monarchies as well. 4. Maybe this ties into the idea that malevolent rulers have found it easier to run tax farms within Democratic structures? 5. Well, aside from the inbreeding -- which is another big reason for the failure on monarchies at the turn of the last century -- that is a great example of how to expand non-violently. Are you referring to the act of marriage as the origin point for their legitimacy? Is it a matter of only marrying within nobility? 3. It is a good case that Protestantism was the beginning of the end of monarchy, but I think protestantism is only a part of the greater issue. Yes, the conclusion of WW1 was the turn of the tide, when suddenly republics outnumbered monarchies. 4. It is a popular myth that serfs and peasants of the medieval and renaissance were unfortunate beggars, not much better off than slaves, who had absolutely no freedom of movement nor class mobility. Human mobility and migration was much more prevalent centuries ago that it is today, as we see the examples of the Slavs, the Germans, the Huguenots, Jews, entire populations migrating to make a better life for themselves. As for individuals, you could always study at monasteries if you were smart, start a trade if you were clever, or kill a warlord and get knighted. These days every single person in any self respecting democracy is kept a very close eye on, while back in the day the state never cared about your personal life. The great "interference" of the state first occured during the French Revolution, with the end of monarchy. Also, even today, there is a tendency for monarchies, in comparison to proximate democracies to be much freer. Say what you want of Saudi Arabia, it is much freer than the Islamic Republic of Iran. Thailand is freer than Laos and Cambodia, Luxembourg is freer than all of its neighbours, Japan is freer than Korea and Taiwan. 5. Indeed, I was actually trying to emphasise that they got to power following the non-aggression principle, and by following the rules. Marriage into a royal family was one way of gaining legitimacy, but there was also the option of getting noticed by the Pope or the people and the nobles of a nation. by doing great deeds and getting knighted or sth. 7 hours ago, Gavitor said: 1. Why do you think having rulers of any description is better than none. What is the benefit of having said ruler(s)? 2. I don't understand what the will of god(s) is, how do you determine what that is and how do you verify that it is valid? 3. A leader and a ruler are not the same thing. A leader gives you the choice to follow, a ruler does not. 4. I'm curious what is the principle that says it's ok for a person or group of people to do what is considered wrong or immoral for everyone else? 1. Rulers, as far as we humans understand, are an absolute necessity to people. If that were not the case, there would be at least one example of a completely egalitarian anarchist society. 2. Verifying is, you no doubt know, is tricky, and that is why we have so many religons aroud. The "will of the gods" thing has been around for as long as there have been men. We have always believed that there was a will higher than our own. You can check the arguments of Aristotle. 3. Fair distinction. I can get behind that. Do you get more of a choice in a democracy or in a monarchy? 4. It's not ok. Humans are natural absolutists, and we believe that morality is universal, and does not depend on man. It takes a modern relativist to claim that morality is dictated by us.
Gavitor Posted June 1, 2017 Posted June 1, 2017 7 hours ago, Mishi2 said: 1. Rulers, as far as we humans understand, are an absolute necessity to people. If that were not the case, there would be at least one example of a completely egalitarian anarchist society. 2. Verifying is, you no doubt know, is tricky, and that is why we have so many religons aroud. The "will of the gods" thing has been around for as long as there have been men. We have always believed that there was a will higher than our own. You can check the arguments of Aristotle. 3. Fair distinction. I can get behind that. Do you get more of a choice in a democracy or in a monarchy? 4. It's not ok. Humans are natural absolutists, and we believe that morality is universal, and does not depend on man. It takes a modern relativist to claim that morality is dictated by us. 1. Does not answer my question. 2. Also does not answer my question. 3. False dichotomy. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, you can have a democratic monarchy. I'm arguing for neither. 4. Morality by definition has to be universal otherwise its nothing more than a preference. If its not ok why do you advocate for monarchy which is giving a person the right to do what is wrong for everyone else?
M.2 Posted June 2, 2017 Author Posted June 2, 2017 5 hours ago, Gavitor said: 1. Does not answer my question. 2. Also does not answer my question. 3. False dichotomy. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, you can have a democratic monarchy. I'm arguing for neither. 4. Morality by definition has to be universal otherwise its nothing more than a preference. If its not ok why do you advocate for monarchy which is giving a person the right to do what is wrong for everyone else? 1. Sorry 2. Sorry 3. Sorry. 4. I am not.
M.2 Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 http://www.thecounterrevolution.org/2017/07/a-simple-argument-for-monarchy.html
Siegfried von Walheim Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Mishi2 said: http://www.thecounterrevolution.org/2017/07/a-simple-argument-for-monarchy.html An interesting article. There were some points I mean to argue, I'll copy and paste them in bubbles. Quote “A Man is a Democrat because he himself wants to rule, a man is a Monarchist because he wants to be ruled well” An interesting claim, but I don't know how true it is. Personally, I want to rule as well as be ruled well. I want to rule myself and the affects of my actions, and delegate matters I am unfamiliar or ignorant of to experts. Therefore, I wish to both rule and be ruled. My question is always how to single out the right people for the right jobs. I think the answer is "the Free Market". Quote I do not have a right to take things that belong to you, and my neighbor does not, so we can’t give a chosen representative of ours the said right. If we take it even further and have 100 people all consent that said representative has this right over you, it still does not endow him with the legitimate authority to do so. No matter how large we make the base of people affirming his action, it does nothing to legitimize his authority exercised. My biggest problem with the article is a lack of definition for authority. Depending on what is meant is what is really being said. If authority is a sensation or illusion given to he perceived to be the judge, jury, and executioner then mobs have authority. If authority is someone with known/demonstrated expertise in a given area, then a mob, unless comprised of experts about a specific subject, cannot have authority. However authority does not guarantee truth. A hundred scientists can say the Earth is flat and be proven true in everything else they've claimed/argued/proven, and still be wrong here. Therefore, authority is useful for delegating responsibilities to individuals with proven records in what they do because no man can be a true 100% fountain of expertise polymath. Quote Authority then clearly does not stem from man, but only from God. Although I am a Christian, I won't accept this as proof if the definition of "authority" is expertise, unless by God what is meant is genes and the result and series of happenings since God's creation of the universe. Quote Christ tells Pilate in his trial that “Any power you have comes from God”. God himself assures us of the natural truth we can so easily find evident in our natural logic. In nature, we see one strong leader emerge among groups of animals. The lion, the so-called king of the jungle, do not operate among democratic groups. Among every group, weak and strong, an alpha male emerges, and different groupings of animals keep generally to different areas. We see a natural case for nationalism, and taking pride in where one happens to be born and reside. What we see in the natural world clearly reflects the supernatural world. God as creator and King of the universe, and see among the ranks of heaven a hierarchy of supernatural beings and men arrayed under the headship of God. The most natural state of man is indeed monarchy. Analogies aren't arguments. They can make an argument more digestible but the only argument I can find for monarchy here is "because it is natural". And I agree, one man or woman being in charge based on expertise is natural to civilization. So too, unfortunately, is beta resentment. Quote The Role of the King: he King and the royal family have a noble responsibility to be an example to the whole nation. They are to, at all times, act with dignity and respect. In the very traditional notion of monarchy, the royal family has an obligation to strive to the ideal of family life. Everything in right order, the way they live their lives should be an example to the whole nation of decorum and proper function. As a moral example, I agree. A leader ought exemplify his own spoken and unspoken beliefs and act as a champion to others. Quote The king is also the protector of the commons. What is the commons? The singularly talented and unspectacular? Why? Why ought the King protect the "commons"? What are the commons in danger from and what are they owed? Why does the King owe him? How can the King cure their dangers? Quote ...The Kaiser had a huge role in holding the nation together, as citizens of all backgrounds could look to him, and see the nation. The king and the royal family have a responsibility to be a lead example of secular morality, and refrain from public disorderliness, so that all citizens may look to them, and model their own lives off that of the monarchy. I agree here that an Imperial family and a homogeneous culture (ideally based on a mix of Christendom, UPB, and NAP) can bridge the gaps made by race and ethnicity, to some extent, namely the extent to which ethnic and racial groups are capable of being assimilated with one another. A good argument as compared to a senate which would fuel the pre-existing fires of racial and ethnic and cultural differences. Quote Nobility: One supremely unfortunate consequence of the enlightenment is the hatred espoused for even the idea that there can be distinctions among men, such as nobility, yet it is instinctive of every man to recognize they exist. I don't know if the Enlightenment is responsible for that since, from what I understand, the principle of the Enlightenment is that merit and skill are to be valued far and above background and pedigree. Which I'd generally agree with when I can refer to someone's past and merits as a means of judging their quality. This does not necessarily hurt nobility unless the nobility is an institution promoting and maintaining the unskilled by artificially elevating them... Which was sometimes the case. I'd argue "true nobility" can only be created, sustained, and fairly taken away by the Free Market. Quote ... As the king serves as the father figure to the nation, one should consider the nobility to be an older brother. As one does not only look to the father, but older siblings for guidance end example, one should also look to the nobility. Ehh... superior individuals ought to be respected and allowed to handle the matters in which they're skilled. However unless the culture is homogeneous and the society's branches mutually appreciative, I can't say I agree with this notion. However I do think the Free Market plus Christianity = Productivity and respect for others as individuals. Quote ... The monarchy has a sacred duty to protect the Church and enable its salvific mission to all mankind, and the Church in return consecrates the monarch, and endows his rule with a certain authority otherwise much lacking. How does a church grant authority based on the reasoning that authority is expertise? Moral authority? Quote The Church, as with all men, has a strict set of laws governing the actions of the monarch. He cannot order unjust actions without the condemnation of the Church, and is bound to act within certain parameters or risk losing support from the church, and his throne. Possibly. However the Church cannot have a monopoly on morality as the Church is comprised of fallible mortals, therefore other groups (like FDR and the alternative media for example) ought compete as granters of moral authority. Quote In the past year, there has been an active campaign to deny that there are even differences between men and women, seeking the active abolition of gender and gender roles. In the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima, she tells us that the last battles of satan will be over marriage and the family. Words to note in these troubled times of ours'. Quote Monarchy and fatherhood go hand in hand in strengthening the nation. Fatherhood definitely. Monarchy maybe. Monarchy can only work in the long term if only the most able and best judges of character are in power. Nobility could potentially, as experts in whatever various things they do, alongside the moral authority granted by the Church, the media, celebrities, etc. (note I am not suggesting all celebrities and media should be moral authority, however they do hold moral authority over some people, and I think if "alternative media" or "alternative celebrities" weren't persecuted by the establishment then a true competition among celebrities could be had for who holds true moral authority and therefore who actually matters in terms of judgement), could most certainly work. And the best way to create that is with an AnCap Free Market society since the most able always before the most powerful and productive in a state of freedom. 1
M.2 Posted July 14, 2017 Author Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: An interesting article. There were some points I mean to argue, I'll copy and paste them in bubbles. Thanks for reading, Kaiser. I just found this article, and found it to be an excellent summary of what monarchy is meant to be. I actually learned a bit myself. Quote An interesting claim, but I don't know how true it is. Personally, I want to rule as well as be ruled well. I want to rule myself and the affects of my actions, and delegate matters I am unfamiliar or ignorant of to experts. Therefore, I wish to both rule and be ruled. My question is always how to single out the right people for the right jobs. I think the answer is "the Free Market". The quote says that democracy has its basis on the arrogant will of man to rule himself. This definitely true. Democracy literally means the rule of the masses. I understand the popuar form of government in the FDR community is free-market anarcho-capitalism. However, I remain pretty much unconvinced about its viability as a system. People will be free on the free market, therefore, they will also sell their freedoms. Then you don't have a free market anymore. As far as history goes, Free-Market Anarcho-Capitalism has a worse viability record than communism. Quote My biggest problem with the article is a lack of definition for authority Authority, as the Church defines it, comes from God. The Monarch is chosen by God, and therefore he has authority. Authority is the divine right to tell other people what to do, and he can of course relay his authority through the government. Quote Although I am a Christian, I won't accept this as proof if the definition of "authority" is expertise, unless by God what is meant is genes and the result and series of happenings since God's creation of the universe. Authority comes from morality, which means you are very much obliged to act morally. I don't think you would disagree. The moral authority for christians is God, in fact, he is morality in person. Quote Analogies aren't arguments. They can make an argument more digestible but the only argument I can find for monarchy here is "because it is natural". And I agree, one man or woman being in charge based on expertise is natural to civilization. So too, unfortunately, is beta resentment. Being natural is as good of an argument as you can get. Whenever you create a system, it is bound to regress in time back to monarchy, and not necessarily to the good kind. The Roman Republic became the Empire, all the African democracies are effectively dictatorships now, the American Experiment is failing, as power is becoming more and more centralised, and all the Western democracies will follow suite if they don't get their act together. There is only one explanation to this phenomenon: We are naturally inclined to want monarchy/dictatorship. Somebody will eventually grasp all the power. If it is a person sanctioned by God, you have a monarchy. If not, you have a dictatorship. Quote What is the commons? The singularly talented and unspectacular? Why? Why ought the King protect the "commons"? What are the commons in danger from and what are they owed? Why does the King owe him? How can the King cure their dangers? In British vernacular, the Commons is the everyday Joe. The King has an obligation, as the head of the government and representative of God, to protect the people from inner and outer threats. I don't think I need to explain any further... Quote I don't know if the Enlightenment is responsible for that since, from what I understand, the principle of the Enlightenment is that merit and skill are to be valued far and above background and pedigree. Which I'd generally agree with when I can refer to someone's past and merits as a means of judging their quality. This does not necessarily hurt nobility unless the nobility is an institution promoting and maintaining the unskilled by artificially elevating them... Which was sometimes the case. I'd argue "true nobility" can only be created, sustained, and fairly taken away by the Free Market. People much smarter than us have been debating this topic for ages, and I myself still haven't completely made up my mind. Actually, you are right about nobility. Originally, all nobles received their titles by demonstrating remarkable moral character. Hence the title: noble. What the text is refering to is the lie we have been sold that all men are equal (they mean the same). That is simply not true. Sme men are better than others, and they deserve to be recognised. And argument can also be made that their offspring may inherit that recognition because... genetics. People in the old days knew not of genetics, but they knew that personality and traits are hereditary. Quote Ehh... superior individuals ought to be respected and allowed to handle the matters in which they're skilled. However unless the culture is homogeneous and the society's branches mutually appreciative, I can't say I agree with this notion. However I do think the Free Market plus Christianity = Productivity and respect for others as individuals. I think you are reading something into the text. It says simply that you ought to look to people who are better than you for guidance. Quote How does a church grant authority based on the reasoning that authority is expertise? Moral authority? The church is the presence of the Body of Christ on earth, thus the Church represents God himself, and thus has the right to grant authority to whom it chooses. Authority is not expertise. Your parents are not your parents because they are very good people. They are your parents and authority because God gave them to you. Now, whether or not an authority is moral or not is another question. Quote Possibly. However the Church cannot have a monopoly on morality as the Church is comprised of fallible mortals, therefore other groups (like FDR and the alternative media for example) ought compete as granters of moral authority. This is the age-old debate we are having with our protestant brothers. Morality is not a matter of competition. You don't get to vote on what is moral and what isnt. By our faith, the Christ gave the Church to us, and promised that the Church will never be led astray. This of course refers to dogma and doctrine, and not discipline. I know this is a very poor argument, so I will state my personal opinion. If there is such a thing as UPB, then people are surely looking for it. How do we know who is the best at looking for it? You look at their records, their arguments, their history. The problem here is that Stephism is only a few years old, and seems to be in flux quite a bit. The church however has been a solid dictator of morality for 2000 years, and that is pretty compelling if you think about it. I know Mr.Molyneux has said that the Church has been pretty inconistent as well, but he is wrong. No matter what doctrine you look up, you are bound to find a solid basis for it in the documents that were written 2000 years ago. If you were given 2000 years to work on an argument, how good is your argument likely to be? Quote And the best way to create that is with an AnCap Free Market society since the most able always before the most powerful and productive in a state of freedom. By the time Ancap Free Market has had a few hundred years to prove itself, I'm sure we will know which system is better. I am going to take a swing at Mr.Molyneux here. That is something I rarely do, but here goes. Mr.Molyneux is a philosopher; his job is to think about morality, and he does that very well. Ancap and free market rule may be the best and most moral system on paper, but it has never worked yet. And I doubt it ever will, because that model does not take into calculation that we are living in a very broken world. Monarchy is not meant to be the most moral system ever. When the man started demanding a king, God was not happy about it. But humans have free will, so God sanctioned the establishment of Theocratic Monarchy. He did not sanction any other system, because there is no other system in which he can be the moral authority.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: Thanks for reading, Kaiser. I just found this article, and found it to be an excellent summary of what monarchy is meant to be. I actually learned a bit myself. The quote says that democracy has its basis on the arrogant will of man to rule himself. This definitely true. Democracy literally means the rule of the masses. I understand the popuar form of government in the FDR community is free-market anarcho-capitalism. However, I remain pretty much unconvinced about its viability as a system. People will be free on the free market, therefore, they will also sell their freedoms. Then you don't have a free market anymore. As far as history goes, Free-Market Anarcho-Capitalism has a worse viability record than communism. The viability of AnCap, which has never occurred in full, can be gauged based on how well societies do when they're close to it (like early America or the early Roman Republic and to some degree the Roman Kingdom and early Roman Empire) compared to far from it (like Soviet Russia, North Korea, and Communist China). Clearly trends show the less government there is, the better. White people and East Asian people in particular are shown to do better when there is less government control over people and more individualist control, i.e., controlling oneself, taking accountability for one's failures, suffering the consequences of bad decisions, ostracism, and stronger communal spirit through a common morality (which is universal by definition) and respect for private property. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: Authority, as the Church defines it, comes from God. The Monarch is chosen by God, and therefore he has authority. Authority is the divine right to tell other people what to do, and he can of course relay his authority through the government. Which begs the existence of God and the interventionism of God as well. Since God has given man free will and has largely taken a backseat to watch rather than intervene, man must act as if there was no God and therefore, like children grown up, hold each other accountable. Since there is no tangible way to determine whether God has truly given anyone divine right, divine right must not be something that can be given but acquired. Hypothetically speaking someone who lives morally and champions morality has the divine right because, if I define "divine right" as great moral authority (i.e. expertise), then a champion of virtue is by definition someone with the divine right. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: Authority comes from morality, which means you are very much obliged to act morally. I don't think you would disagree. The moral authority for christians is God, in fact, he is morality in person. In which case why do we speak of God? I cannot argue religion since I don't know enough, but I'd refer to Stef's arguments against the consistency of God's portrayal as to why we, the moral and intellectual leaders of society, cannot be lead by a ghost whose form had been robbed. However in spite of that I find the Christ itself to be very much worth heeding for its proven success in building and preserving White civilization. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: Being natural is as good of an argument as you can get. Whenever you create a system, it is bound to regress in time back to monarchy, and not necessarily to the good kind. The Roman Republic became the Empire, all the African democracies are effectively dictatorships now, the American Experiment is failing, as power is becoming more and more centralised, and all the Western democracies will follow suite if they don't get their act together. There is only one explanation to this phenomenon: We are naturally inclined to want monarchy/dictatorship. Somebody will eventually grasp all the power. If it is a person sanctioned by God, you have a monarchy. If not, you have a dictatorship. If that's the case then logically we should become Muslims since they are closest in behavior to our most ancient of ancestors. Nature is a poor argument for morality because nature is immoral. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: In British vernacular, the Commons is the everyday Joe. The King has an obligation, as the head of the government and representative of God, to protect the people from inner and outer threats. I don't think I need to explain any further... You do in terms of "why" the King should care? Beyond keeping the law enforced and fair, the King should care not for the commoner as much as he cares for the noble because the nobleman is by definition noble while the commoner is by definition common. Of course I'm not arguing an aristocracy should persecute the common, but rather realize they're common and treasure the rare and high quality for compared to the top 10% of humanity the bottom 90% are just fertilizer. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: People much smarter than us have been debating this topic for ages, and I myself still haven't completely made up my mind. Actually, you are right about nobility. Originally, all nobles received their titles by demonstrating remarkable moral character. Hence the title: noble. What the text is refering to is the lie we have been sold that all men are equal (they mean the same). That is simply not true. Sme men are better than others, and they deserve to be recognised. And argument can also be made that their offspring may inherit that recognition because... genetics. People in the old days knew not of genetics, but they knew that personality and traits are hereditary. What I found interesting is how learning about genetics just confirms the "age old bias" or whatever the Left would call it that is actually true. I'd argue nobility in the truest since could rise again in a state of freedom, without robbers and looters centralizing power. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: I think you are reading something into the text. It says simply that you ought to look to people who are better than you for guidance. Which can be dangerous as not every superior man has the inferior's best interests at heart, therefore the inferior man must be very aware of the superior man's history and record before employing him for whatever he might need. My mind is numbing a bit, forgive me if what I have said or start to say lacks sense in some way, and be sure to ask me for clarification since I have a strong suspicion I'm making less sense as a type. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: The church is the presence of the Body of Christ on earth, thus the Church represents God himself, and thus has the right to grant authority to whom it chooses. Authority is not expertise. Your parents are not your parents because they are very good people. They are your parents and authority because God gave them to you. Now, whether or not an authority is moral or not is another question. Depends on the definition of authority. If I define authority as "possessing proven expertise" then it is not in and of itself moral, but it can be moral. Unearned authority would theoretically be someone claiming authority by compensating for their lack of authority with the power of a gun. My parents are mine simply because they had sex. Having sex is not a granter of authority, but rather responsibility. My parents have as much authority over me as their records and histories would imply, and have great responsibility for me as I did not choose to be born nor to grow up in the conditions that I did. If you define authority as merely power, then we are no longer arguing morality but mere Machiavellianism. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: This is the age-old debate we are having with our protestant brothers. Morality is not a matter of competition. You don't get to vote on what is moral and what isnt. By our faith, the Christ gave the Church to us, and promised that the Church will never be led astray. This of course refers to dogma and doctrine, and not discipline. Consensus is not a guarantee for morality, agreed. My argument was that with competing champions, every other champion will have to redouble their efforts to live in what they consider to be moral as a way of proving the viability of their causes. I think ideally the Church would be the sanctuary for champions to debate publicly and the media a microphone and record keeper to ensure the champions are truly living by their own standards. Whether or not their lifestyles are sustainable, how much happiness they bring, and how productive they are, in a state of freedom being the ultimate test. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: I know this is a very poor argument, so I will state my personal opinion. If there is such a thing as UPB, then people are surely looking for it. How do we know who is the best at looking for it? You look at their records, their arguments, their history. The problem here is that Stephism is only a few years old, and seems to be in flux quite a bit. The church however has been a solid dictator of morality for 2000 years, and that is pretty compelling if you think about it. I know Mr.Molyneux has said that the Church has been pretty inconistent as well, but he is wrong. No matter what doctrine you look up, you are bound to find a solid basis for it in the documents that were written 2000 years ago. If you were given 2000 years to work on an argument, how good is your argument likely to be? Better than most, obviously. I am not arguing against the Church, but rather arguing to amend the Church for the Church has a history of occasionally straying from Godliness. The Church being defined both in terms of what the popular (by its members) interpretations of doctrine as well as its cloth-wearing members. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: By the time Ancap Free Market has had a few hundred years to prove itself, I'm sure we will know which system is better. Well, if all goes well I'll prove it. Most likely though it'll never happen without first improving the quality of an ethnically homogeneous White or East Asian country's childhood and imparting Christian and UPB ethics upon them. Then it's practically a guarantee. However the first part is the truly challenging part. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: I am going to take a swing at Mr.Molyneux here. That is something I rarely do, but here goes. Mr.Molyneux is a philosopher; his job is to think about morality, and he does that very well. Ancap and free market rule may be the best and most moral system on paper, but it has never worked yet. And I doubt it ever will, because that model does not take into calculation that we are living in a very broken world. Why do you call him "Mr. Molyneux"? I know you don't mean to antagonize, but I have noticed only critics refer to him formally whereas sympathizers and adherents address him casually. It's a tangent but it's the first thing that came to my mind. I said earleir the best evidence for the success of AnCap is how the freer a society is the more productive it is. Compare China post-Mao (90's onwards) compared to during-Mao for a huge demonstration of how many lives freedom can save. 8 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: Monarchy is not meant to be the most moral system ever. When the man started demanding a king, God was not happy about it. But humans have free will, so God sanctioned the establishment of Theocratic Monarchy. He did not sanction any other system, because there is no other system in which he can be the moral authority. If God is moral, then divine monarchy must also be moral. If it isn't, then morality cannot be an argument for monarchism. My best argument for monarchism and aristocracy is ability and efficiency. I theorize the first AnCap society will arise from a laissez faire and morally enlightened and Christian Kingdom or Empire because its founding principles will be respect for the high quality and disdain for the degenerate and deadbeat.
M.2 Posted July 14, 2017 Author Posted July 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: The viability of AnCap, which has never occurred in full, can be gauged based on how well societies do when they're close to it (like early America or the early Roman Republic and to some degree the Roman Kingdom and early Roman Empire) compared to far from it (like Soviet Russia, North Korea, and Communist China). Clearly trends show the less government there is, the better. White people and East Asian people in particular are shown to do better when there is less government control over people and more individualist control, i.e., controlling oneself, taking accountability for one's failures, suffering the consequences of bad decisions, ostracism, and stronger communal spirit through a common morality (which is universal by definition) and respect for private property. If I understand correctly, Ancap means No Government. If that is so, it is simply impossible. There is no such thing as a society without government, and there never was. Now of course, we can argue about HOW MUCH government there should be. I think the math is simple. If you can't police yourself, somebody else will. That exactly why we need the church, whose job it is to tell us how to do that without force. Mr.Molyneux rides a lot on the fact that East-Asians are smart, but he never mentions that we demand much more government than whites do. And that is because of the lack of an absolutist ideology. That said, countries where christianity has begun to blossom, people have become much more critical of government. See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Mongolia... in that order. The prevalence of Faith is invertly correlated to the prevalence of the State. Quote Which begs the existence of God and the interventionism of God as well. Since God has given man free will and has largely taken a backseat to watch rather than intervene, man must act as if there was no God and therefore, like children grown up, hold each other accountable. Since there is no tangible way to determine whether God has truly given anyone divine right, divine right must not be something that can be given but acquired. Hypothetically speaking someone who lives morally and champions morality has the divine right because, if I define "divine right" as great moral authority (i.e. expertise), then a champion of virtue is by definition someone with the divine right. The existence of God is another debate, but Monarchy works with pagan gods as well. It is about having an absolutist ideology to govern the state and the people. That ideology can be Islam, Christianity, or... just those two I guess. Sure, we can go into that debate, but I think the article does a good job at explaining divine right. Quote In which case why do we speak of God? I cannot argue religion since I don't know enough, but I'd refer to Stef's arguments against the consistency of God's portrayal as to why we, the moral and intellectual leaders of society, cannot be lead by a ghost whose form had been robbed. However in spite of that I find the Christ itself to be very much worth heeding for its proven success in building and preserving White civilization. This is something well worth discussing. Our God is goodness itself. He is what we compare everything to, he is the basis of our absolutist ideology. Whether Mr.Molyneux knows it or not, ABSOLUTISM itself is a Judeo-Christian invention. You cannot find absolutism anywhere else, not in China, not in Japan, nowhere. The only ones that came close to discovering Absolutism without christian help are the ancient greeks. And for you, modern western people, a relativistic world is completely unimaginable. Your brains are literally incapable of thinking without moral absolutes. I however, can, and I understand why Christianity and Islam are spreading like wildfire across the world. Without God, specifically the judeo-christian god, your "moral leaders" have nothing but opinions. Yes, I have read his book on UPB. Quote If that's the case then logically we should become Muslims since they are closest in behavior to our most ancient of ancestors. Nature is a poor argument for morality because nature is immoral. Ha...good one. Genital dismemberment is natural indeed. On a serious note, no, natural is not evil, nor is it good. Natural is neutral. We, however, are not natural, but we are meant to be good. Islam however, is unnatural. As for monarchy, as a form of government, it is a necessary evil for our evil world. The only reason it is preferable to communism, is because it is far MORE NATURAL. It is still unnatural, but it is closer to zero than democracy is. Quote You do in terms of "why" the King should care? Beyond keeping the law enforced and fair, the King should care not for the commoner as much as he cares for the noble because the nobleman is by definition noble while the commoner is by definition common. This again goes back to morality. The answer is: because that is his job. Why should he do his job? Because God told him to. Sure, if monarchy were simply a raw dictatorship, then he doesn't have to care. There is no authority over him. Quote Which can be dangerous as not every superior man has the inferior's best interests at heart, therefore the inferior man must be very aware of the superior man's history and record before employing him for whatever he might need. Sure, everything is dangerous. We are all rotten evil. Theoretically, the noble has received his title for being a moral champion, so theoretically, he should be trustworthy. Quote Depends on the definition of authority. If I define authority as "possessing proven expertise" then it is not in and of itself moral, but it can be moral. Unearned authority would theoretically be someone claiming authority by compensating for their lack of authority with the power of a gun. My parents are mine simply because they had sex. Having sex is not a granter of authority, but rather responsibility. My parents have as much authority over me as their records and histories would imply, and have great responsibility for me as I did not choose to be born nor to grow up in the conditions that I did. If you define authority as merely power, then we are no longer arguing morality but mere Machiavellianism. I think we actually agree. Just gotta clean up our terms. Authority is the right that was given to us by God. Ideally, he gives authority to those that have the expertise. Though expertise does not automatically grant you authority. If, by some chance an incompetent person is given authority, that is illegitimate authority, but it is still authority, because he was given that. An illegitimate authority can be disobeyed without violating any moral rules. Makes sense? Quote My argument was that with competing champions, every other champion will have to redouble their efforts to live in what they consider to be moral as a way of proving the viability of their causes. I think ideally the Church would be the sanctuary for champions to debate publicly and the media a microphone and record keeper to ensure the champions are truly living by their own standards. Whether or not their lifestyles are sustainable, how much happiness they bring, and how productive they are, in a state of freedom being the ultimate test. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are making the pragmatist materialist argument. Which is that if it helps me live, it must be good/better. You say that viability, productivity, happiness, sustainability are the gold standards for your morality, right? You see, it is a very good argument, and it is the basis for the entire UPB theory. There is only one small problem. I can destroy the entire argument with a single word: ISLAM. If those are your standards, then Islam itself should be the UPB, since they are winning the war of cultures. A keyword you have used is FREEDOM. Unfortunately, I still need some proof as to why "freedom" is objectively good according to you. Quote Well, if all goes well I'll prove it. Most likely though it'll never happen without first improving the quality of an ethnically homogeneous White or East Asian country's childhood and imparting Christian and UPB ethics upon them. Then it's practically a guarantee. However the first part is the truly challenging part. I would not put all my money on genetics if I were you. It was whites that invented communism, fascism, political correctness, and worst of all, globalism. Then E-Asians perfected all of them. Quote Why do you call him "Mr. Molyneux"? I know you don't mean to antagonize, but I have noticed only critics refer to him formally whereas sympathizers and adherents address him casually. I said earleir the best evidence for the success of AnCap is how the freer a society is the more productive it is. Compare China post-Mao (90's onwards) compared to during-Mao for a huge demonstration of how many lives freedom can save. He introduces himself "this is Stefan Molyneux" in his videos. And since he hasn't offered me to call him "Stef", I cannot do so. Contrastly, I call Mike Michael, because that is how he signs his letters. Is there a scale you could use to point out where all of these systems are? I understand AnCap is at zero, and theoretical communism is at 100. Where exactly is America now? Quote If God is moral, then divine monarchy must also be moral. If it isn't, then morality cannot be an argument for monarchism. My best argument for monarchism and aristocracy is ability and efficiency. I theorize the first AnCap society will arise from a laissez faire and morally enlightened and Christian Kingdom or Empire because its founding principles will be respect for the high quality and disdain for the degenerate and deadbeat. Humans were created by God as well. That doesn't mean we are moral. Just as we corrupted ourselves, we have corrupted monarchy. Theoretically yes, theocratic monarchy is completely moral, but it simply cannot be moral because of our fallen nature. It does however, at least. work. I agree with you on that argument. AnCap could be argued to be moral, but since it is not in accordance with nature, it cannot work. When you are talking about subjects of AnCap, you are not talking about humans, or at least not the humans that exist as of now. As a matter of fact, monarchy has been proven to work in every single culture in the world. Whereas Ancap, even theoretical Ancap, can only work under very specific conditions that have yet to align.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Mishi2 said: If I understand correctly, Ancap means No Government. If that is so, it is simply impossible. There is no such thing as a society without government, and there never was. Now of course, we can argue about HOW MUCH government there should be. I think the math is simple. If you can't police yourself, somebody else will. That exactly why we need the church, whose job it is to tell us how to do that without force. Theoretically it's very possible. If a government is defined as a centralization of force, then a decentralization of force would be AnCap. According to Practical Anarchy by the Stefpai, the police and military would be privatized as the essentials of national defense. Historically mercenaries, the Swiss Guard in particular, were the best soldiers around while the poor grunts dragged off to fight some stranger's war were typically not the best until early modern warfare equalized the capabilities of individual soldiers, until modern warfare which is starting to resemble and favor the copying of post-Roman pre-Early Modern individualism in combat and warfare. If I, a Marshal of some sort, overthrew the government of say, Greenland, and then ordered the creation of competing police and military insurances, then encouraged the populace to subscribe to their police and army of choice, I would have effectively made myself obsolete. Of course I'd have to be careful lest I risk the chance of one or more of these groups attempting a coup to seize power since I'd be "forcing freedom", which may be a bad plan to make AnCap happen but it's the first that came to mind as I typed. Hence I think the best thing until then is a laissez faire (I wish right clicking would tell me how to spell that correctly) monarchy/minarchy with little in the way of private regulation and much in the way of promotion of virtue would be required first. Quote Mr.Molyneux rides a lot on the fact that East-Asians are smart, but he never mentions that we demand much more government than whites do. And that is because of the lack of an absolutist ideology. That said, countries where christianity has begun to blossom, people have become much more critical of government. See South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Mongolia... in that order. The prevalence of Faith is invertly correlated to the prevalence of the State. Yeah, I think you're right. However East Asians are also easy to control as a minority, for the most part. Homogeneity is better since it takes out the inherent ethnic and racial tensions. However if something apocalyptic happens to we White folks, it's up to the East Asians to carry the standard as the last civilization group on the planet. Quote The existence of God is another debate, but Monarchy works with pagan gods as well. It is about having an absolutist ideology to govern the state and the people. That ideology can be Islam, Christianity, or... just those two I guess. Sure, we can go into that debate, but I think the article does a good job at explaining divine right. This is something well worth discussing. Our God is goodness itself. He is what we compare everything to, he is the basis of our absolutist ideology. Whether Mr.Molyneux knows it or not, ABSOLUTISM itself is a Judeo-Christian invention. You cannot find absolutism anywhere else, not in China, not in Japan, nowhere. The only ones that came close to discovering Absolutism without christian help are the ancient greeks. And for you, modern western people, a relativistic world is completely unimaginable. Your brains are literally incapable of thinking without moral absolutes. I however, can, and I understand why Christianity and Islam are spreading like wildfire across the world. Without God, specifically the judeo-christian god, your "moral leaders" have nothing but opinions. Yes, I have read his book on UPB. Which is why I "adjusted" UPB somewhat to be Christian since moral absolutism is a must for morality to really exist. Although Stefan is most definitely a moral absolutist, his arguments don't have the "sensational weight" that most religions have. Which isn't a bad thing for intellectuals seeking to learn, but the plebs need an idol. Even a false idol trumps no idol. Quote Ha...good one. Genital dismemberment is natural indeed. On a serious note, no, natural is not evil, nor is it good. Natural is neutral. We, however, are not natural, but we are meant to be good. Islam however, is unnatural. As for monarchy, as a form of government, it is a necessary evil for our evil world. The only reason it is preferable to communism, is because it is far MORE NATURAL. It is still unnatural, but it is closer to zero than democracy is. The most natural state is me going outside beating people up for resources and raping and pillaging like a dog. Child abuse is natural; slavery is natural; even ritualistic barbarism is natural. Nature does not equal good. Taking care of our bodies and not dismembering them is actually unnatural since human beings are naturally inclined to follow the will of the tribe, no matter how irrational it may be. Our values trump whatever is best for us in terms of our behavior. We'd sacrifice life and limb for a group of people that'd wish us to die if we thought it moral, no matter how stupid (and actually evil) it may be. Quote This again goes back to morality. The answer is: because that is his job. Why should he do his job? Because God told him to. Sure, if monarchy were simply a raw dictatorship, then he doesn't have to care. There is no authority over him. Quote Sure, everything is dangerous. We are all rotten evil. Theoretically, the noble has received his title for being a moral champion, so theoretically, he should be trustworthy. I think we actually agree. Just gotta clean up our terms. Authority is the right that was given to us by God. Ideally, he gives authority to those that have the expertise. Though expertise does not automatically grant you authority. If, by some chance an incompetent person is given authority, that is illegitimate authority, but it is still authority, because he was given that. An illegitimate authority can be disobeyed without violating any moral rules. Makes sense? Authority= legal power then? In which case we aren't arguing morals but pragmatism. In which case the freer a society is the more pragmatic the outcomes. Quote Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are making the pragmatist materialist argument. Which is that if it helps me live, it must be good/better. You say that viability, productivity, happiness, sustainability are the gold standards for your morality, right? Er... No. My standards for morality is whatever is best for my progeny. The Free Market and AnCap as well as libertarianism and minarchism are what is best for for my family and bloodline. The mammalian will to provide is balanced with a strong adherence to the moral principles of truth, loyalty, love, and intelligence. Having said that not everything I mentioned is a moral principle. However since you asked what I claim as my moral standard, "Love" and "Progeny" would be them then. Intelligence and loyalty being the two "aesthetic" characteristics I very strongly prefer. Quote You see, it is a very good argument, and it is the basis for the entire UPB theory. There is only one small problem. I can destroy the entire argument with a single word: ISLAM. If those are your standards, then Islam itself should be the UPB, since they are winning the war of cultures. My reply is "Allahu Ackbar" and "British Empire." The first kills the point of Islam and the second proved White Christian values are indeed the best. Quote A keyword you have used is FREEDOM. Unfortunately, I still need some proof as to why "freedom" is objectively good according to you. America, 1900: Super nice place to live. Running water. Plumbing. Food. Lack of coercive central authority and lack of totalitarianism. Historically the freest country and time in history, second maybe to the "Wild" West (which was as wild as your average church or business office). Africa, anytime: a land of barbarism and carnage where life is both an orgy and a torture fest. No natively created running water or even food storage. Basically a land of animals. About as free as North Korea or the Soviet Union divided by a million. Everyone is someone else's slave at all times. It's basically Hell. Roman Empire, 50 A.D. Safe, peaceful, clean water, food, etc. etc. Second or Third freest country and time in all history, rivaled by America (until recently), Britain (until recently), and the first half of the Roman Republic. North Korea: Starving, no privacy, concentration camps, etc. ec. Literally the definition of "unfree". Quote I would not put all my money on genetics if I were you. It was whites that invented communism, fascism, political correctness, and worst of all, globalism. Then E-Asians perfected all of them. Technically Jews invented most of that. Jews also invented (or more precisely contributed greatly) to Capitalism and the liberation of countries like Chile. A pretty powerful and amazing race. But either way the Japanese exemplified, especially in the 50's-2000's, Americanism with an Asian flavor in terms of greatness. China is doing pretty well all things considered. Nowhere near as unfree or hellish as it used to be. Starting to look up to. Quote He introduces himself "this is Stefan Molyneux" in his videos. And since he hasn't offered me to call him "Stef", I cannot do so. Contrastly, I call Mike Michael, because that is how he signs his letters. Well most of us on the forum call him "Stef" and his callers do too. Similarly for Mike. Therefore I joined in and did it to. I was wondering maybe you're being overly formal because it's an Asian thing. Quote Is there a scale you could use to point out where all of these systems are? I understand AnCap is at zero, and theoretical communism is at 100. Where exactly is America now? Well...taking a stab at it. 0=AnCap 10=Post-Pinochet Chile 20=Early Roman Republic/Early America (1800's) 30=Roman Empire/1900's Britain/Pinochet Chile 40=Modern Russia. 50=China/America today 60=Modern Japan 70=Modern Britain/Germany 80=Modern Sweden 90=Hitler's Germany/Civil War Era America 100=North Korea/Soviet Union I know it's rough and my ignorance as to exactly how "free" some countries like modern Russia and Japan are makes this foggy, but I'd argue we're freer than most countries in history but much less free than back when we were a growing empire. Quote Humans were created by God as well. That doesn't mean we are moral. Just as we corrupted ourselves, we have corrupted monarchy. Then by that logic, God is corrupt and therefore the Devil. Or at least mortal. However that makes the Devil, who represents relativism and hedonism and general modern decadence, not that far from God then. However I assume you didn't mean to imply that, and as a Roman Catholic interested in moral absolutism, I would't preach that. However I don't pull out the G-card in general, because unless I'm giving a public speech or argument where sophistry is actually a useful tool,because pulling the G-card leads to a lot of confusion and subjectivity. For example I don't know what God means for you as compared to me, nor how important He is to you relative to me, nor what you perceive to be His will etc. etc. Which is why I'm trying (at least now I'm trying) to avoid using God as an argument because of my theological ignorance and the inherent subjectivity of an internalized father figure. Quote Theoretically yes, theocratic monarchy is completely moral, but it simply cannot be moral because of our fallen nature. It does however, at least. work. I agree with you on that argument. AnCap could be argued to be moral, but since it is not in accordance with nature, it cannot work. When you are talking about subjects of AnCap, you are not talking about humans, or at least not the humans that exist as of now. I somewhat agree. I know AnCap won't work today because White people need to regrow a spine first. AnCap can only work once a significant amount of White people have grown a moral backbone and a moral absolutists in what I'd loosely call a "Stefanist-branch of Roman Catholicism". I.e., UPB and NAP + Bible= Evolution. Quote As a matter of fact, monarchy has been proven to work in every single culture in the world. Whereas Ancap, even theoretical Ancap, can only work under very specific conditions that have yet to align. Yes, that's true. However there's a lot of elbow room with monarchism because it doesn't inherently specify an economic or legal system to live under, merely the existence of a hereditary dictator. Notice the most civilized and powerful races in the world do what they can to restrict the power of the State and the individual's ability to do harm unto others. Freedom to Bare Arms was put into the American constitution in order to prevent groups of political thugs or mafias from seizing power, and mitigating the danger posed by any existing or unknown future gangs. EDIT: I'm surprised I haven't need moderation pending in any of these posts. I think Stefpai may have taken my suggestion of totally abolishing the moderation system and leaving it to the reputation system to filter crap. Well, I feel special now... <3 Edited July 14, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim
M.2 Posted July 14, 2017 Author Posted July 14, 2017 11 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: Theoretically it's very possible. If a government is defined as a centralization of force, then a decentralization of force would be AnCap. According to Practical Anarchy by the Stefpai, the police and military would be privatized as the essentials of national defense. Historically mercenaries, the Swiss Guard in particular, were the best soldiers around while the poor grunts dragged off to fight some stranger's war were typically not the best until early modern warfare equalized the capabilities of individual soldiers, until modern warfare which is starting to resemble and favor the copying of post-Roman pre-Early Modern individualism in combat and warfare. If I, a Marshal of some sort, overthrew the government of say, Greenland, and then ordered the creation of competing police and military insurances, then encouraged the populace to subscribe to their police and army of choice, I would have effectively made myself obsolete. Of course I'd have to be careful lest I risk the chance of one or more of these groups attempting a coup to seize power since I'd be "forcing freedom", which may be a bad plan to make AnCap happen but it's the first that came to mind as I typed. Hence I think the best thing until then is a laissez faire (I wish right clicking would tell me how to spell that correctly) monarchy/minarchy with little in the way of private regulation and much in the way of promotion of virtue would be required first. Congrats. I think we are both monarchists. As you mentioned, armies in the old days did not answer to a faceless state, but to the one who owned them... the monarch, or actually, to his noblemen. It is not until the oh so overrated "enlightenment" that the poor peasants were dragged off to fight the war of the centralised faceless state. There is a reason for why the organised crime system is so effective, notably in Japan, China, Russia, Italy. They operate on eclusively free market principles. What they have however, their leadership is also a form of government. Only it resembles more of a monarchy than a democracy. Quote Which is why I "adjusted" UPB somewhat to be Christian since moral absolutism is a must for morality to really exist. Although Stefan is most definitely a moral absolutist, his arguments don't have the "sensational weight" that most religions have. Which isn't a bad thing for intellectuals seeking to learn, but the plebs need an idol. Even a false idol trumps no idol. The fact is that Mr.Molyneux cannot claim to know what UPB is. His system of determining what UPB is, is already flawed. Because he does a pretty poor job at defining WHY something is preferable. Why should we be good? So that we can live a good life? Why should we be living a good life? What is a good life? Why does it matter? None of what we do on this planet really matters, since none of this will exist in a few billion years. Quote The most natural state is me going outside beating people up for resources and raping and pillaging like a dog. Child abuse is natural; slavery is natural; even ritualistic barbarism is natural. Nature does not equal good. Taking care of our bodies and not dismembering them is actually unnatural since human beings are naturally inclined to follow the will of the tribe, no matter how irrational it may be. Our values trump whatever is best for us in terms of our behavior. We'd sacrifice life and limb for a group of people that'd wish us to die if we thought it moral, no matter how stupid (and actually evil) it may be. I think we are in agreement. Allof what you listed is natural, since that is what we would expect from an animal. But we are not animals, so we do not aim for the natural, but the supernatural. Monarchy vs Democracy, for example, is not a matter of good vs bad, rather a case of bad vs less bad. Being more natural is a positive point in this case. Quote Authority= legal power then? In which case we aren't arguing morals but pragmatism. In which case the freer a society is the more pragmatic the outcomes. Not legal power. Legitimate power. Here is an analogy: If as a child, you were were obliged by law to go to school, but your parents did not want to send you, then the police are legally right to arrest your parents, but your parents are morally right in not letting you go to school, quite simply because they are your parents. Quote No. My standards for morality is whatever is best for my progeny. You said no, but you still confirmed. Maybe I'm wrong. What would be "good/best" for your progeny? Quote My reply is "Allahu Ackbar" and "British Empire." The first kills the point of Islam and the second proved White Christian values are indeed the best. What is wrong with Allahu Akbar? How does the British Empire prove that? Quote America, 1900: Super nice place to live. Running water. Plumbing. Food. Lack of coercive central authority and lack of totalitarianism. Historically the freest country and time in history, second maybe to the "Wild" West (which was as wild as your average church or business office). Don't get me wrong. I agree those are good things. But what would you say to a guy from Quatar who thinks your country is abhorrent with all its freedoms? Quote Well most of us on the forum call him "Stef" and his callers do too. Similarly for Mike. Therefore I joined in and did it to. I was wondering maybe you're being overly formal because it's an Asian thing. The more towards the east you go, the more formal things will get. The unspoken rule that Germanics (hungarians included) go by, is that you can only be informal if permitted by the elders, or by the women. Quite frankly, I have a bit of a disgust for Europeans who go all "heeeeeyyyy guuuuys" when speaking English. But this is just culture. Quote I know it's rough and my ignorance as to exactly how "free" some countries like modern Russia and Japan are makes this foggy, but I'd argue we're freer than most countries in history but much less free than back when we were a growing empire. I think that is quite accurate. There is the freedom index and the HDI that you can check out for the relevant data. So what is wrong with chile? What needs to change for it to become full on Ancap? Quote Then by that logic, God is corrupt and therefore the Devil. Or at least mortal. However that makes the Devil, who represents relativism and hedonism and general modern decadence, not that far from God then. However I assume you didn't mean to imply that, and as a Roman Catholic interested in moral absolutism, I would't preach that. However I don't pull out the G-card in general, because unless I'm giving a public speech or argument where sophistry is actually a useful tool,because pulling the G-card leads to a lot of confusion and subjectivity. For example I don't know what God means for you as compared to me, nor how important He is to you relative to me, nor what you perceive to be His will etc. etc. Which is why I'm trying (at least now I'm trying) to avoid using God as an argument because of my theological ignorance and the inherent subjectivity of an internalized father figure. Humans have free will. Every creature that was granted free will has a choice to follow good or bad. This doesn't make God bad. But this is deep theology. I think we need not discuss this here. I understand your point on the G-card. Nevertheless, I am a firm believer that you cannot have moral certainty wothout God. If we leave himout of the equation, then we are just discussing preference. So I disagree wholeheartedly; the pulling of the G-card is exactly what destroys relativism and subjectivity. I'm sure you have heard of Dennis Prager. He makes these points quite often. Not too well, but he does an ok job. The protestant revolution has made God subject to personal preference. That is pretty much why we cannot agree. Everything that I am saying is exactly what the Church teaches. I am not pulling anything out of my arse. Quote Yes, that's true. However there's a lot of elbow room with monarchism because it doesn't inherently specify an economic or legal system to live under, merely the existence of a hereditary dictator. Notice the most civilized and powerful races in the world do what they can to restrict the power of the State and the individual's ability to do harm unto others. Freedom to Bare Arms was put into the American constitution in order to prevent groups of political thugs or mafias from seizing power, and mitigating the danger posed by any existing or unknown future gangs. There is an argument to be made that monarchy has always provided a freer economy than any other system. Now of course, we do not compare France of today to the Manchu empire of 1912. If however we compare within regions and between contemporary nations, then the top 10 countries within a region include more monarchies that democracies. Rankings by economic freedom: Freest countries in the World in order: Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UAE, Mauritius, Jordan, Ireland, Canada, Chile, UK. 4/10. (NZ and Canada are debatable, being part of commonwealth)Freest countries in the Middle-East: UAE, Jordan, Georgia, Quatar, Armenia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, Oman, Lebanon. 6/10 Freest countries in Western Europe: Switzerland, Ireland, UK, Finland, Malta, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Germany, Netherlands. 6/10. (Malta is debatable, being part of commonwealth) Freest countries in East Asia: Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Brunei, Philippines. 5/10. (Singapore and Kazakhstan are dictatorships, Taiwan debatable) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World Please note that my ranking would be totally different. But this was the most objective data I could find. It is not gospel, but it is an argument. Quote I'm surprised I haven't need moderation pending in any of these posts. I think Stefpai may have taken my suggestion of totally abolishing the moderation system and leaving it to the reputation system to filter crap. I noticed that too. Maybe we are just being so clean. Have you made that suggestion to him via email?
smarterthanone Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 10 hours ago, Mishi2 said: If I understand correctly, Ancap means No Government. If that is so, it is simply impossible. There is no such thing as a society without government, and there never was. Wrong. See pirates. See wild west. See unincorporated areas throughout history, they were not void of human life, yet had no government. There are still unincorporated places in Africa, I mean you wouldn't want to live there but people do.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) On 7/14/2017 at 8:13 AM, Mishi2 said: Congrats. I think we are both monarchists. As you mentioned, armies in the old days did not answer to a faceless state, but to the one who owned them... the monarch, or actually, to his noblemen. It is not until the oh so overrated "enlightenment" that the poor peasants were dragged off to fight the war of the centralised faceless state. Again it wasn't the Enlightenment, which made people ask questions, which destroyed the old system, it was its age, vulnerability, and decreasing ability to maintain itself. A good monarchy requires the King, Emperor, or what-have-you to have TWO simple skills: Number One; recognition of his own limitations and; Number Two: a good judge of other people's character. Once a man knows his own limitations while having the ability to accurate judge the character and general quality of others, he has the potential to be a great ruler. It's not too hard for the former to be passed down through a family, the latter however is a bit chancy. Genes help, but how long until they're diluted? However historically a hereditary monarchy with a stable and consistent system lasts for a long time without much dramatic changes occurring to it. A Kingdom or Empire built on Classical Liberalism, Stefanism, and Christendom would easily be the country that eclipses the world and grow the people that makes other ethnic groups look like mere subhuman savages by comparison. Quote There is a reason for why the organised crime system is so effective, notably in Japan, China, Russia, Italy. They operate on eclusively free market principles. What they have however, their leadership is also a form of government. Only it resembles more of a monarchy than a democracy. You do not know what the Free Market is if you think any form of coercion can have "free market principles". The main principles of the free market are; the ability to choose, the non-initiation of force, and respect for others' property. A mafia forces the productive members of society to pay tribute to it and generally gives nothing in return for it's naked theft and extortion. Although inherently contradictory, a government can promote the Free Market and sustain it, at the cost of its own long-term power and an increasing likelihood of its own displacement. A mafia, which unlike an established civilized government, does not even claim to give anything in exchange for its theft, is merely a tyrannical system of oppression of the productive in favor of the parasitical. Quote The fact is that Mr.Molyneux cannot claim to know what UPB is. His system of determining what UPB is, is already flawed. Because he does a pretty poor job at defining WHY something is preferable. ...What? Quote Why should we be good? So that we can live a good life? Why should we be living a good life? What is a good life? Why does it matter? None of what we do on this planet really matters, since none of this will exist in a few billion years. He argued this world only matters because we are here to make it matter. He has argued that the benefit of being virtuous is both a gratification for the good as well as, more practically, a surer-way of getting to the ideal "American Dream" of owning the roof over one's head, a family, and stability. He has made many arguments both moral and practical for the benefits of being good as well as why mankind matters. Haven't you at least heard them in passing? I heard most of them just by regularly listening to his call-in-shows and listening to the orgasm of virtue that pours out of his mouth. You can argue UPB based only on its contents, but you can't argue Stef if you don't have a full picture of him. Or at least not without a disclaimer along the lines of "based on what I know; based on what I've heard...". Quote I think we are in agreement. Allof what you listed is natural, since that is what we would expect from an animal. But we are not animals, so we do not aim for the natural, but the supernatural. Monarchy vs Democracy, for example, is not a matter of good vs bad, rather a case of bad vs less bad. Being more natural is a positive point in this case. We are animals or at least mammals by definition. We just hold fellow mortals to higher standards than mere "animals" because we are naturally inclined to be pro-Human. Of course I should add a caveat that not all things natural are evil. For example; it is natural to be pro-human, pro-self, pro-family, pro-nation, etc. etc. and all these things, when utilized or formed correctly, are good both morally and practically. It is true, I should concede, that when coming up with a governmental or societal system, human (or more specifically racial) nature is essential to knowing if it can work. One thing worth noting is that we have never lived in a society where the majority of it citizens did not in some way regularly abuse their children. We have no way of knowing for sure what can happen once society stops abusing their children, or if good people formed a colony and started a new civilization (but we do have some idea since America was built by the superior and entrepreneurial Whites who left behind the shit Whites in an effort to build a relative Utopia. The result was a Second Roman Republic, with all the good and bad associated with it. Who knows how big an impact a budding civilization can have if it stops abusing their kids?) Human nature is something we don't really know, because it is generally human nature + abuse that we know. Many of the greatest men in history had uniquely good childhoods for their time. Others had commonly terrible childhoods. They all fought a personal revolution however with mixed success and failure. Few or none could have known or did know how much their own childhoods shaped them, as well as how their greatness could have been shared by liberating the children. Quote Not legal power. Legitimate power. Here is an analogy: If as a child, you were were obliged by law to go to school, but your parents did not want to send you, then the police are legally right to arrest your parents, but your parents are morally right in not letting you go to school, quite simply because they are your parents. Now you must define legitimacy. Why should I obey my parents? Why are they automatically right? Pragmatism would state "survival". Dogmatism would state "power with bullshit excuses attached". What does the Philosopher say? From what I understand, the Philosopher states that we should obey only the wise and virtuous unless death is the consequence of disobeying. Quote You said no, but you still confirmed. Maybe I'm wrong. What would be "good/best" for your progeny? I denied materialism or libertarianism being my standard for morality, but rather enlightened Christendom and truth being my standards. Honestly I don't know for certain how to answer this simple question. However the two answers that come to mind are "truth" and "progeny". What is best for my progeny is a long, happy, and fruitful life. The most direct way I can give that is by providing resources as capital, being a good father to instill high moral and spiritual character, and I can impart intelligence through genetics and wisdom through knowledge. All these things equal good prospects that are very rarely spoiled. I want my progeny to be safe, happy, and great. Safety comes from wealth and resources. Happiness comes from virtue and resources to a lesser degree. Greatness comes from genes plus early wisdom and a strong moral and spiritual character. Quote What is wrong with Allahu Akbar? How does the British Empire prove that? Allahu Ackbar is why I as a hypothetical Muslim, unless I'm 50 and done with life, can't build a future for my children and why Whitey keeps beating me and not letting me into Europe to rape and pillage (until recently because Whitey went cray-cray). British Empire is why I, a non-hypthetical English speaking German-American, speak English, adhere to largely Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) values in spite of being a German Catholic, and why countries as far apart as China and Japan have English as a commonly studied second language. The British Empire, followed by America, is the most successful culture and race in history in terms of spreading both its seed and its values. Genghis Khan's conquests barely lasted beyond Kublai Khan, except in the Ukraine because the Russians were pussies back then, until Ivan the Great kicked them out. The WASP culture is why I can drink water from a faucet instead of running to a river. The WASPs are why I, someone living in a different hemisphere with a different cultural history, speak English and have largely WASP values. The WASPs are the main champions of Capitalism and the fruits born of it, such as a living standard equal to Kings, and a strong moral backbone that only the cancer of Communism and Feminism could break. WASP culture is the best. As a the representative of a conquered and assimilated people, I can safely say the British Empire was the best in history and thank them for conquering me and convincing my recent ancestors to assimilate. Quote Don't get me wrong. I agree those are good things. But what would you say to a guy from Quatar who thinks your country is abhorrent with all its freedoms? I'd say "Lol *bleep* you heathen". Why should I care what someone from an inferior culture thinks of my superior culture? Unless they can beat me in living conditions, adherence to true moral principles, or in a reasoned debate, I don't give a damn what they have to say. Note: I am saying this realizing White civilization is currently being insane. However this insanity is more a historical anomaly than a rule. I do admire the Muslims for their moral consistency even though they are degenerate and evil. Quote The more towards the east you go, the more formal things will get. The unspoken rule that Germanics (hungarians included) go by, is that you can only be informal if permitted by the elders, or by the women. Quite frankly, I have a bit of a disgust for Europeans who go all "heeeeeyyyy guuuuys" when speaking English. But this is just culture. Well I don't know any who do/did, so I can't comment. As an American I respect forthrightness and honesty over false compliments and unnecessary titles. I'd rather be called "King" for successfully ruling a country than "King" because my Daddy was King. I'd rather be called a "good man" or "sir" for being worthy of respect than for just being alive. Now mind you I greatly respect Stef and Mike. However they're open to first names and prefer first names. Therefore I refer to them casually even though I exalt them for their heroism. Quote I think that is quite accurate. There is the freedom index and the HDI that you can check out for the relevant data. So what is wrong with chile? What needs to change for it to become full on Ancap? It has a government, creeping socialism, and from what I know, a lack of self-knowledge and attention to child abuse. If it didn't have the first two (or really just didn't have creeping socialism) and had SK and a commitment to fight child abuse, it could swing AnCap rather easily. It's definitely the freest country in the world. Too bad I'm not Spanish. I have to actually contribute to the fight for freedom rather than simply inherit it. Quote Humans have free will. Every creature that was granted free will has a choice to follow good or bad. This doesn't make God bad. But this is deep theology. I think we need not discuss this here. If God has free will and created evil, then he is evil. That's why I don't argue God for ethics because he defeats himself, at least because theologians haven't squared the circle yet. Quote I understand your point on the G-card. Nevertheless, I am a firm believer that you cannot have moral certainty wothout God. If we leave himout of the equation, then we are just discussing preference. So I disagree wholeheartedly; the pulling of the G-card is exactly what destroys relativism and subjectivity. I'm sure you have heard of Dennis Prager. He makes these points quite often. Not too well, but he does an ok job. I have no idea who Prager is. However morality need not God, but rather truth. Is it true? Why yes, morality is by definition true because it is universal. If it isn't universal, it isn't moral. It is easier to make claims as to why murder is immoral than why charity is moral because the principle "murder is evil" can be universalized while "charity is right" cannot be. I think. My arguments for morality tend to be more practical and ethnic in nature than reason-based, however I never drop reason when arguing with someone I know to be reason-based. Quote The protestant revolution has made God subject to personal preference. That is pretty much why we cannot agree. Everything that I am saying is exactly what the Church teaches. I am not pulling anything out of my arse. My point is that, most likely, your vision of God differs from the guy standing next to you, because he is abstract like "the Fatherland" and "the Greater Good". We have a similar approximation of Him but no definitive him. Ask one priest if spanking is evil, and one will quote "spare the rod; spoil the child" (in complete ignorance of the line's meaning) while the other would say it is evil and quote Jesus saying something like "do unto me first what you would do to the weakest and littlest among you". This subjectivity, or ignorance, causes problems in using the abstract concept of "the Church" as an argument because although there are some common morals there are also points of disagreement and misinterpretation. I admire UPB and Stef because he is not divided in meaning and can be easily reached for doctrinal confirmation whereas God and Jesus have long since died and/or taken a back seat. Quote There is an argument to be made that monarchy has always provided a freer economy than any other system. Now of course, we do not compare France of today to the Manchu empire of 1912. If however we compare within regions and between contemporary nations, then the top 10 countries within a region include more monarchies that democracies. Rankings by economic freedom: Freest countries in the World in order: Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, UAE, Mauritius, Jordan, Ireland, Canada, Chile, UK. 4/10. (NZ and Canada are debatable, being part of commonwealth)Freest countries in the Middle-East: UAE, Jordan, Georgia, Quatar, Armenia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Israel, Oman, Lebanon. 6/10 Freest countries in Western Europe: Switzerland, Ireland, UK, Finland, Malta, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Germany, Netherlands. 6/10. (Malta is debatable, being part of commonwealth) Freest countries in East Asia: Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Cambodia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Brunei, Philippines. 5/10. (Singapore and Kazakhstan are dictatorships, Taiwan debatable) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World Please note that my ranking would be totally different. But this was the most objective data I could find. It is not gospel, but it is an argument. Eh, I don't know how they're ranked but I'll take their word for it since it "sounds" right. Historically monarchies were very economically unfree, with inane numbers of laws and taxes with selective application of them, and even outright slavery of most of the populace. Modern monarchies are freer because they evolved with the Enlightenment or were destroyed. A simple line: "A good autocracy trumps a good democracy; and a bad autocracy is worse than a bad democracy" surmises my belief on the efficacy of monarchism versus republicanism. In order to maximize the good and limit the bad, a government must be tiny and the people must be moral. I just think a good autocracy is the only way to effect a revolution in the short term, while a restricted government is the best way to sustain the new society in the long term. Quote I noticed that too. Maybe we are just being so clean. Have you made that suggestion to him via email? I haven't. I think we just got lucky. Although I cursed a few times in this reply, therefore I assume it will be subject to moderation. Edited July 15, 2017 by Siegfried von Walheim I decided to censor my curses since I remember it's technically against community guidelines to do so.
M.2 Posted July 16, 2017 Author Posted July 16, 2017 23 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: Again it wasn't the Enlightenment, which made people ask questions, which destroyed the old system, it was its age, vulnerability, and decreasing ability to maintain itself. A good monarchy requires the King, Emperor, or what-have-you to have TWO simple skills: Number One; recognition of his own limitations and; Number Two: a good judge of other people's character. Once a man knows his own limitations while having the ability to accurate judge the character and general quality of others, he has the potential to be a great ruler. It's not too hard for the former to be passed down through a family, the latter however is a bit chancy. Genes help, but how long until they're diluted? However historically a hereditary monarchy with a stable and consistent system lasts for a long time without much dramatic changes occurring to it. A Kingdom or Empire built on Classical Liberalism, Stefanism, and Christendom would easily be the country that eclipses the world and grow the people that makes other ethnic groups look like mere subhuman savages by comparison. I don't like the enlightenment, but in my sentence you responded to, I was talking about the enlightenment only as a reference point for cumpolsory military service. A good monarchy requires 3 things. A legitimate crown (can be an empty crown), an absolutist value system (christianity would be swell), and the consent of the people (counsel or parliament). Quote You do not know what the Free Market is if you think any form of coercion can have "free market principles". The main principles of the free market are; the ability to choose, the non-initiation of force, and respect for others' property. A mafia forces the productive members of society to pay tribute to it and generally gives nothing in return for it's naked theft and extortion. Although inherently contradictory, a government can promote the Free Market and sustain it, at the cost of its own long-term power and an increasing likelihood of its own displacement. A mafia, which unlike an established civilized government, does not even claim to give anything in exchange for its theft, is merely a tyrannical system of oppression of the productive in favor of the parasitical. This is actually my biggest problem with the ultimate free market. In a completely free market, humans would have a price tag on them as well. A completely free market should not have any limits, not even moral ones. If I want to sell myself into slavery, who has the right to stop me? This is how the mafia operates. To them, "coercion" is just a matter of negotiation. Yes they do promise many things in exchange for their theft (taxes). They offer security and order. Believe it or not, they actually deliver. At least the Mafia have been fighting the Migrant Wave, unlike their govenment. Quote He argued this world only matters because we are here to make it matter. He has argued that the benefit of being virtuous is both a gratification for the good as well as, more practically, a surer-way of getting to the ideal "American Dream" of owning the roof over one's head, a family, and stability. He has made many arguments both moral and practical for the benefits of being good as well as why mankind matters. Haven't you at least heard them in passing? I heard most of them just by regularly listening to his call-in-shows and listening to the orgasm of virtue that pours out of his mouth. You can argue UPB based only on its contents, but you can't argue Stef if you don't have a full picture of him. Or at least not without a disclaimer along the lines of "based on what I know; based on what I've heard...". Yeah, I thought you haven't gone down that rabbit hole either. Thats ok, many people don't. Here is an exercise for you. I want you to answer the following question: "Be moral", by asking only the question "why?". Keep repeating it until you get a real answer, or hit a brick wall. I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, so if you are as wll, contact me via priate message. Quote Now you must define legitimacy. Why should I obey my parents? Why are they automatically right? Pragmatism would state "survival". Dogmatism would state "power with bullshit excuses attached". What does the Philosopher say? From what I understand, the Philosopher states that we should obey only the wise and virtuous unless death is the consequence of disobeying. The definition was in the article: “Can two people give a person a right that they themselves do not possess?”. The obvious answer is always no. I do not have a right to take things that belong to you, and my neighbor does not, so we can’t give a chosen representative of ours the said right. If we take it even further and have 100 people all consent that said representative has this right over you, it still does not endow him with the legitimate authority to do so. No matter how large we make the base of people affirming his action, it does nothing to legitimize his authority exercised. Authority then clearly does not stem from man, but only from God. Christ tells Pilate in his trial that “Any power you have comes from God”. The fact of life is that you will obey someone. Somebody will exercise their will over you. Unless they act against God, your parents are your best bet. Quote WASP culture is the best. As a the representative of a conquered and assimilated people, I can safely say the British Empire was the best in history and thank them for conquering me and convincing my recent ancestors to assimilate. I'd say "Lol *bleep* you heathen". Why should I care what someone from an inferior culture thinks of my superior culture? Unless they can beat me in living conditions, adherence to true moral principles, or in a reasoned debate, I don't give a damn what they have to say. Note: I am saying this realizing White civilization is currently being insane. However this insanity is more a historical anomaly than a rule. I do admire the Muslims for their moral consistency even though they are degenerate and evil. My issue is that you have only stated opinions. They think you are inferior, and you think they are inferior. Only one of you can be right. Do you think there is a way to know who is right? Quote It has a government, creeping socialism, and from what I know, a lack of self-knowledge and attention to child abuse. If it didn't have the first two (or really just didn't have creeping socialism) and had SK and a commitment to fight child abuse, it could swing AnCap rather easily. It's definitely the freest country in the world. Too bad I'm not Spanish. I have to actually contribute to the fight for freedom rather than simply inherit it. Chile is the only sizeable country in the world where abortion is completely illegal. I think thats a good case for their attitude towards child abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Chile Their government is in essence constitutionally banned from interfering in the economy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile I guess you are right about socialism in Chile. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html Quote If God has free will and created evil, then he is evil. That's why I don't argue God for ethics because he defeats himself, at least because theologians haven't squared the circle yet. "Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se: and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own wellbeing, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. August, De Civ. Dei, xii)." Quote I have no idea who Prager is. However morality need not God, but rather truth. Is it true? Why yes, morality is by definition true because it is universal. If it isn't universal, it isn't moral. It is easier to make claims as to why murder is immoral than why charity is moral because the principle "murder is evil" can be universalized while "charity is right" cannot be. I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZpjdHTWsfM Looks like you haven't been watching all of FDR lately. Let's get back to this after you have done your homework. Quote My point is that, most likely, your vision of God differs from the guy standing next to you, because he is abstract like "the Fatherland" and "the Greater Good". We have a similar approximation of Him but no definitive him. Ask one priest if spanking is evil, and one will quote "spare the rod; spoil the child" (in complete ignorance of the line's meaning) while the other would say it is evil and quote Jesus saying something like "do unto me first what you would do to the weakest and littlest among you". This subjectivity, or ignorance, causes problems in using the abstract concept of "the Church" as an argument because although there are some common morals there are also points of disagreement and misinterpretation. I admire UPB and Stef because he is not divided in meaning and can be easily reached for doctrinal confirmation whereas God and Jesus have long since died and/or taken a back seat. My vision of God is subjective, true. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a definition of Him. Spanking is not forbidden by the Church. That means that any priest you ask will only have an opinion. I personally, see violence as a form of communication. Not nice communication, but sometimes very necessary. Children can be pretty evil sometimes. And sometimes, they don't understand language. But again, I promised we would return to this one once I have done my homework... The Church is my moral dictator. I cannot argue without bringing it up. I think it was the Church that totally nailed UPB. That is why it is the most widespread faith in the world. I'm not sure what you mean by "easily reached". Everything the Church ever taught is on the internet, unchanged for centuries, whereas he has been shifting around a lot, especially lately. Quote Historically monarchies were very economically unfree, with inane numbers of laws and taxes with selective application of them, and even outright slavery of most of the populace. Modern monarchies are freer because they evolved with the Enlightenment or were destroyed. A simple line: "A good autocracy trumps a good democracy; and a bad autocracy is worse than a bad democracy" surmises my belief on the efficacy of monarchism versus republicanism. In order to maximize the good and limit the bad, a government must be tiny and the people must be moral. I just think a good autocracy is the only way to effect a revolution in the short term, while a restricted government is the best way to sustain the new society in the long term. "Very economically unfree" is the most subjective thing I ever read from you. Well, duh. But compared to what? Also, I don't agree that they were more unfree in comparison to modern monarchies. Do you think the Spain of 1400 was more unfree than the one of today? Or which specific country are you referring to? I don't agree with your quote. You are going to have to define "good" for me in this context. Quote I haven't. I think we just got lucky. Although I cursed a few times in this reply, therefore I assume it will be subject to moderation. I noticed that links automatically condemn the posts to purgatory. So this will be as well for sure.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: I don't like the enlightenment, but in my sentence you responded to, I was talking about the enlightenment only as a reference point for cumpolsory military service. I apologize, I think I forgot the context and answered the wrong question. I think you should expect more of that from me given the length of our conversation as well as the text, however I'll try to avoid that when possible. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: A good monarchy requires 3 things. A legitimate crown (can be an empty crown), an absolutist value system (christianity would be swell), and the consent of the people (counsel or parliament). The first thing is subjective; the second thing I agree with; the third thing I am weary of but consent is obviously better than resentment. However my two points was more for what makes a good ruler than a a good establishment. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: This is actually my biggest problem with the ultimate free market. In a completely free market, humans would have a price tag on them as well. A completely free market should not have any limits, not even moral ones. If I want to sell myself into slavery, who has the right to stop me? This is how the mafia operates. To them, "coercion" is just a matter of negotiation. Yes they do promise many things in exchange for their theft (taxes). Who would sell themselves into slavery? And who would be wiling to buy? And in that remote hypothetical scenario, why does it matter? What is wrong with price tags as ways of measuring the subjective value of something? This show has a price tag based on how much money it costs to run compared to how much money is made running it. Likewise you're spending money (in the form of time) by communicating with me. You'll have to really make a seperate post about debating the free market because this whole "muh sell muhself fo' slavery" thing just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying letting marriages be consensual will result in the occasional bad marriage. Or more precisely, a marriage in which one partner willingly chooses to be the beta of the other. Who cares? How does that affect society as a whole? Unless selling oneself is being actively promoted, the rare fool or prostitute doesn't mean anything. In fact, natural selection is against that. And the Free Market epitomizes natural selection. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: They offer security and order. Believe it or not, they actually deliver. At least the Mafia have been fighting the Migrant Wave, unlike their govenment. Well, I haven't kept up with what they've been up to lately. I like the sound of that. I'd accept any hands in fighting the evil invaders. However it doesn't change the reality of the situation in that it's basically a more honest government. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: Yeah, I thought you haven't gone down that rabbit hole either. Thats ok, many people don't. Here is an exercise for you. I want you to answer the following question: "Be moral", by asking only the question "why?". Keep repeating it until you get a real answer, or hit a brick wall. I would be very interested in continuing this conversation, so if you are as wll, contact me via priate message. Why be moral you mean? Sure, but I think the "why" is obvious. Number one: mutual gain. Number two: it feels good. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: The definition was in the article: “Can two people give a person a right that they themselves do not possess?”. The obvious answer is always no. I do not have a right to take things that belong to you, and my neighbor does not, so we can’t give a chosen representative of ours the said right. If we take it even further and have 100 people all consent that said representative has this right over you, it still does not endow him with the legitimate authority to do so. No matter how large we make the base of people affirming his action, it does nothing to legitimize his authority exercised. Authority then clearly does not stem from man, but only from God. Christ tells Pilate in his trial that “Any power you have comes from God”. The definition of legitimate authortiy is authority granted by God? In that case, how does one acquire legitimate authority? What standard is used to measure legitimacy? 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: The fact of life is that you will obey someone. Somebody will exercise their will over you. Unless they act against God, your parents are your best bet. To be clear, acting against God is synonymous with sinning I.e. being immoral. In which case, yeah. If my parents are bad, I owe them no heed. If they're good, I ought to heed them. Beyond consensual relationships the only people I am"forced" to obey are criminals and government. The former can be easily avoided by moving out of the ghetto (which is harder), and the latter by moving to a laissez faire county or town (also harder, but a simple and direct solution to minimizing restrictions based on power rather than virtue). 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: My issue is that you have only stated opinions. They think you are inferior, and you think they are inferior. Only one of you can be right. Do you think there is a way to know who is right? Simple: who has the bigger empire; who has the better living conditions; and who has the more morally consistent populace. If all else is equal, then what I prefer is automatically superior to the other because...well, I consider classical music superior to rap because I like it more, not necessarily for objective reasons. My culture, race, and nation I have more objective reasons to prefer it for, plus the more subjective and minimalist reasons. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: Chile is the only sizeable country in the world where abortion is completely illegal. I think thats a good case for their attitude towards child abuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Chile Their government is in essence constitutionally banned from interfering in the economy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Chile I guess you are right about socialism in Chile. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ci.html The third point is why I fear a reversal of the pendulum. However that's their problem, I have my own house to fix. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: "Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se: and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own wellbeing, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dion. Areop., De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. August, De Civ. Dei, xii)."\ In other words, evil in theological terms is the result of disobeying God's commandments. In that case, I concede as that explains things from my layman's perspective. After all if I say "here's the proper diet", then I can also say fatness is the result of not following my diet. I think that analogy works. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZpjdHTWsfM Looks like you haven't been watching all of FDR lately. Let's get back to this after you have done your homework. Yeah, I've been busy so I haven't been watching as much. Dennis Prager was a guest I see. When or if I watch the interview, I'll get back to you. I can't argue something I don't know after all. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: My vision of God is subjective, true. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a definition of Him. I think my point was that the Church is fallible, therefore they can be wrong about interpreting His Will. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: Spanking is not forbidden by the Church. That means that any priest you ask will only have an opinion. I personally, see violence as a form of communication. Not nice communication, but sometimes very necessary. Children can be pretty evil sometimes. And sometimes, they don't understand language. But again, I promised we would return to this one once I have done my homework... Do your homework and be horrified of your own words then. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: The Church is my moral dictator. I cannot argue without bringing it up. I think it was the Church that totally nailed UPB. That is why it is the most widespread faith in the world. Agreed. I have some disagreements but as a package deal, there is no better moral package on the market. It covers most of the bases and is consistent from what I know. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: I'm not sure what you mean by "easily reached". Everything the Church ever taught is on the internet, unchanged for centuries, whereas he has been shifting around a lot, especially lately. I meant the Church can be wrong, therefore God's true will cannot be directly reached for we have only scholars' interpretations to go on. Meanwhile Stefan lives and is willing to answer questions directly. I think I meant to answer this point earlier. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: "Very economically unfree" is the most subjective thing I ever read from you. Well, duh. But compared to what? Also, I don't agree that they were more unfree in comparison to modern monarchies. Do you think the Spain of 1400 was more unfree than the one of today? Or which specific country are you referring to? The first that comes to mind is the Holy Roman Empire of approximately the 12th century, in which vagrancy was defended, charging of interest outlawed, and guilds dominated most forms of work. Russia's enslavement of 90% of it's populace being an easy red herring. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: I don't agree with your quote. You are going to have to define "good" for me in this context. Good: just, progressive, stable, and prosperous. Peace and prosperity being two key words. Bad: unstable, dangerous, in a state of war, etc. The idea is that a autocracy can make bigger pendulum swings more quickly than a republic because the whims of the ruler are law under absolute monarchies such as China, Russia, and the German Empire. However I'd argue against myself that most monarchs were so-so rather than one way or the other, and so too most republican leaders. Also, since monarchies tend to live longer than republics most of the time, they may be more stable even in the worst of times. 4 hours ago, Mishi2 said: I noticed that links automatically condemn the posts to purgatory. So this will be as well for sure. It says posted 4 hours ago from the time I am clicking "submit reply". Not too bad.
Gavitor Posted July 17, 2017 Posted July 17, 2017 Still nothing telling me why 1 person or group of people should have the ok to do what is considered wrong/immoral/unlawful for everyone else...
M.2 Posted July 17, 2017 Author Posted July 17, 2017 3 hours ago, Gavitor said: Still nothing telling me why 1 person or group of people should have the ok to do what is considered wrong/immoral/unlawful for everyone else... Why should a person do what is wrong, immoral or anlawful? Are you referring to the monarch? I don't believe a monarch is allowed to do wrong. If so, please point out where exactly that is the case. 9 hours ago, Siegfried von Walheim said: The first thing is subjective; the second thing I agree with; the third thing I am weary of but consent is obviously better than resentment. However my two points was more for what makes a good ruler than a a good establishment. I see. Well, when I say "monarch", I usually mean the office of monarch, not the person. Sure, the person of the monarch is important too, but if that becomes too important, then we traverse into the territory of cult of personality. A good system, be it democracy or autocracy, should theoretically be functional regardless of the personality of the ruler. Quote Who would sell themselves into slavery? And who would be wiling to buy? And in that remote hypothetical scenario, why does it matter? You'll have to really make a seperate post about debating the free market because this whole "muh sell muhself fo' slavery" thing just doesn't make sense to me. It is not theoretical at all, but very real and current. There are still millions of slaves all over the world. Most choose slavery because the alternative would be starvation. As an example, there are hundreds of thousands of slaves in Saudi Arabia, Quatar, UAE right now, who have willingly rooted themselves up from their homes, usually India, Bangladesh or Indonesia, just to get to work as slaves in the Middle-East. As an example closer to home, Europeans are systematically voting away their freedoms willingly. In my home country, it is illegal not to send your child to kindergarten, it is illegal not to have social security, and it is illegal not to work (something, anything). This is already very much like slavery to me, and we voted for it. People have sold their souls on the not-so-free market. Imagine what they would do on the ultimate free market. Quote The definition of legitimate authortiy is authority granted by God? In that case, how does one acquire legitimate authority? What standard is used to measure legitimacy? Sure. Every royal crown, except the Napoleonic crowns, of Europe can be traced back to either the Holy Roman Crown, or some other crown that was granted by the Pope. The Pope is the vicar of Christ, the head of the Church. Therefore, he has the authority to bestow authority. Legitimacy requires 3 things: The will of God, the will of the People, and the will of other monarchs, who were presumably crowned legitimately. If either one of these is failing, then, the legitimacy can be called into question. It does not automatically render a monarch illegitimate, but it is henceforth questionable. Quote To be clear, acting against God is synonymous with sinning I.e. being immoral. In which case, yeah. If my parents are bad, I owe them no heed. If they're good, I ought to heed them. Beyond consensual relationships the only people I am"forced" to obey are criminals and government. The former can be easily avoided by moving out of the ghetto (which is harder), and the latter by moving to a laissez faire county or town (also harder, but a simple and direct solution to minimizing restrictions based on power rather than virtue). There is an argument to be made that government is in fact consensual. "We" voted for everything that we now call government. The "russian people" overthrew their Tsar, and they set up the soviet union. Without their consent, Lenin could have done nothing. Quote Simple: who has the bigger empire; who has the better living conditions; and who has the more morally consistent populace. If all else is equal, then what I prefer is automatically superior to the other because...well, I consider classical music superior to rap because I like it more, not necessarily for objective reasons. My culture, race, and nation I have more objective reasons to prefer it for, plus the more subjective and minimalist reasons. I understand your stance, but how are your standards the "good" standards. When I ask you "what is good", you reply "consent, conditions, size...", and when I ask you why they are good, you say "I like it more". Do you have a standard of UPB, accoring to which your opinion is correct. Its fine if you don't, its just that it is hard to talk about good and bad when I don't know your grounds. Quote I think my point was that the Church is fallible, therefore they can be wrong about interpreting His Will. This has been a point of conflict for hundreds of years, so I don't think we are going to resolve this here and now. We believe that no, the Church doesn't get things wrong. There are very very tight checks and balances in place in order to prevent doctrinal corruption. Quote The first that comes to mind is the Holy Roman Empire of approximately the 12th century, in which vagrancy was defended, charging of interest outlawed, and guilds dominated most forms of work. Russia's enslavement of 90% of it's populace being an easy red herring. So is your statement that monarchies before the enlightenment were much less economically free than countries generally are today? I'm going to have to dig into some data before I can argue any further. I hope you will do the same. Quote Good: just, progressive, stable, and prosperous. Peace and prosperity being two key words. Bad: unstable, dangerous, in a state of war, etc. The idea is that a autocracy can make bigger pendulum swings more quickly than a republic because the whims of the ruler are law under absolute monarchies such as China, Russia, and the German Empire. However I'd argue against myself that most monarchs were so-so rather than one way or the other, and so too most republican leaders. Also, since monarchies tend to live longer than republics most of the time, they may be more stable even in the worst of times. Right. I can run with that definition for now. Name me the country that has been the most just in history. Then name me one that has been most stable, one that has most prospered, and one that has been a champion of progress. Do you think the will of an absolute ruler is more dangerous, or do you think the will of a mob is? I would ask you how stable the free market is, but since we haven't really had a good example of a market-run society, I'll not.
Recommended Posts