lyion wrote:Nah, we needed to up military spending, project imperialism, and piss off the French. The Iraq War accomplished all three so was a resounding success.
You say this in jest but it's pretty much spot on.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
He doesn't agree with Lyion's theses, and was being obscure in saying so?
--R.
Rust Martialis -- Spiritwatcher of War/Valorguard/The Nameless
"There are angels on our curtains; they keep the outside out. And there are lions on our curtains; they lick their wounds, they lick their doubt." -- 'Curtains', Peter Gabriel
Do you have a better name for people enacting most of the proposed ideas of the COMMUNIST manifesto, but adding in the element of force?
I understand that "true" by the book communism is alledgedly supposed to be a peaceful process, but when the book gives a description of the communist agenda and someone acts it out almost word for word, I think it is logical to group them in the same category, for lack of a better word to describe them.
To me this is like Catholics having a different method than Protestants, but they both go by the same book - one may be more correct than the other, but they are both christians (apply this to real and fake communists).
I don't think the USA should be forcing any country to take up a certain political structure - it's not our business. Even though constitutional republics (based on protecting rights) are the correct governmental structure when dealing with a country sized population. At best we should merely influence other countries through nonviolent means to adopt this system.
As for people in the USA who don't like constitutional republics being imposed on them, too bad. It is the only system that deals fairly with all individuals. Every other system violates somebody's rights.
Yamori wrote:I don't think the USA should be forcing any country to take up a certain political structure - it's not our business. Even though constitutional republics (based on protecting rights) are the correct governmental structure when dealing with a country sized population. At best we should merely influence other countries through nonviolent means to adopt this system.
I wasn't talking about other countries. The Revolution thing was neither bloodless nor by any means a unanimous decision by the colonies' inhabitants.
So, in a situation like that currently unfolding in Darfur, you're ok with attempting to talk the perpetrators of genocide into reforming?
As for people in the USA who don't like constitutional republics being imposed on them, too bad. It is the only system that deals fairly with all individuals. Every other system violates somebody's rights.
Fortunately, we've had an unbroken stream of two hundred and thirty years of benevolent government in the U.S., which would never dream of abrogating anyone's inalienable rights regardless of skin color, sex, or creed.
xaoshaen wrote:Fortunately, we've had an unbroken stream of two hundred and thirty years of benevolent government in the U.S., which would never dream of abrogating anyone's inalienable rights regardless of skin color, sex, or creed.
As long as they're rich white male Episcopalians, that is.
--R.
Rust Martialis -- Spiritwatcher of War/Valorguard/The Nameless
"There are angels on our curtains; they keep the outside out. And there are lions on our curtains; they lick their wounds, they lick their doubt." -- 'Curtains', Peter Gabriel
xaoshaen wrote:Fortunately, we've had an unbroken stream of two hundred and thirty years of benevolent government in the U.S., which would never dream of abrogating anyone's inalienable rights regardless of skin color, sex, or creed.
As long as they're rich white male Episcopalians, that is.
--R.
Given the U.S. checkered history in regards to civil rights, I thought the sarcasm was heavy-handed enough not to need additional commentary, myself.
Yeah, unfortunately people were idiots and didn't realize individual rights applied to women and non white people. I'm talking about a specific kind of constitutional republic which does recognize those rights. You are right that a constitutional republic alone doesn't necessarily mean fairness to all under its jurisdiction.
Yamori wrote:Yeah, unfortunately people were idiots and didn't realize individual rights applied to women and non white people. I'm talking about a specific kind of constitutional republic which does recognize those rights. You are right that a constitutional republic alone doesn't necessarily mean fairness to all under its jurisdiction.
And other forms of government are at least equally capable of protecting the rights of their citizenry. It's relatively easy to argue that a benevolent dictatorship is most effective form of government.
Yamori wrote:Yeah, unfortunately people were idiots and didn't realize individual rights applied to women and non white people. I'm talking about a specific kind of constitutional republic which does recognize those rights. You are right that a constitutional republic alone doesn't necessarily mean fairness to all under its jurisdiction.
And other forms of government are at least equally capable of protecting the rights of their citizenry. It's relatively easy to argue that a benevolent dictatorship is most effective form of government.
I'd agree if it were possible.
I don't have that much faith in any single person but myself.
How do you like this spoiler, motherfucker? -Lyion
Harrison wrote:Even the very creation of such a government would not be bloodless. Therefor it will cause "evil" in a sense.
The very creation of almost any government involves bloodshed. Attempting to disqualify a form of government because of a mode of implementation is a bit hypocritical when we enjoy the benefits of living in a nation established through open warfare.
xaoshaen wrote:Fortunately, we've had an unbroken stream of two hundred and thirty years of benevolent government in the U.S., which would never dream of abrogating anyone's inalienable rights regardless of skin color, sex, or creed.
As long as they're rich white male Episcopalians, that is.
--R.
Given the U.S. checkered history in regards to civil rights, I thought the sarcasm was heavy-handed enough not to need additional commentary, myself.
I was playing color commentary to your play-by-play. Sort of meta-sarcasm.
--R.
Rust Martialis -- Spiritwatcher of War/Valorguard/The Nameless
"There are angels on our curtains; they keep the outside out. And there are lions on our curtains; they lick their wounds, they lick their doubt." -- 'Curtains', Peter Gabriel
xaoshaen wrote:Fortunately, we've had an unbroken stream of two hundred and thirty years of benevolent government in the U.S., which would never dream of abrogating anyone's inalienable rights regardless of skin color, sex, or creed.
As long as they're rich white male Episcopalians, that is.
--R.
Given the U.S. checkered history in regards to civil rights, I thought the sarcasm was heavy-handed enough not to need additional commentary, myself.
I was playing color commentary to your play-by-play. Sort of meta-sarcasm.
--R.
Liar =P
but back on topic:
There are a lot of cases where there will be 1 person (or a small subset of people) who really truly are the best people for the job of running a nation
Like Xao said, the main problem is that once they age, you need to find good candidates to replace them, and it's almost always impossible to find a new generation with the exact same ideals/goals/morals as the original
Monarchy can be the best form of government, but can also be the worst
somewhere along the way, I'm still waiting for Yamori to admit that communism isn't evil tho =P
Yamori wrote:Yeah, unfortunately people were idiots and didn't realize individual rights applied to women and non white people. I'm talking about a specific kind of constitutional republic which does recognize those rights. You are right that a constitutional republic alone doesn't necessarily mean fairness to all under its jurisdiction.
And other forms of government are at least equally capable of protecting the rights of their citizenry. It's relatively easy to argue that a benevolent dictatorship is most effective form of government.
I'd agree if it were possible.
I don't have that much faith in any single person but myself.
LUCIUS CORNELIUS SULLA
became dictator of Rome, wiped out all who he listed as "bad for Rome", witch included burocratic senators, bought senators, warlord generals, etc., restored Rome to order, than retired reinstalling democracy
There are a lot of cases where there will be 1 person (or a small subset of people) who really truly are the best people for the job of running a nation
Like Xao said, the main problem is that once they age, you need to find good candidates to replace them, and it's almost always impossible to find a new generation with the exact same ideals/goals/morals as the original
Monarchy can be the best form of government, but can also be the worst
