namelesstavern.net

xaoshaen wrote:

Tossica wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:

Tossica wrote:

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.

Uh... what word? You? Say? This? In? Jest? But? It's? Pretty? Much? Spot? On?

Which? I'm pretty sure I know what each of those words means.

From the context, not so much.

I'm not sure what you're getting at either Xao

He doesn't agree with Lyion's theses, and was being obscure in saying so?

--R.

There's no such thing as evil.

mappatazee wrote:There's no such thing as evil.

Yes there is. Take a good look at liberalism. Nuff said.

Oooh eeevil. Like satan and ghosts and the devil and demons! HELLFIRE!!! EEEVIL!! DAMNATION!

I think Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot were evil.

Likewise I think communism is necessarily evil if it is not voluntary.

Thinking evil is some sort of force, or personified by some sort of avatar like the devil just seems silly though.

You keep missing the point Yamori


If it's inflicted on you, it's not really communism anymore. it's become dictatorship, or oppression of another flavour

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).

Yamori wrote:I think Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot were evil.

Likewise I think communism is necessarily evil if it is not voluntary.

How about forcing a Constitutional Republic on people?

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 wrote:

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.

xaoshaen wrote:

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.

Harrison wrote:I'd agree if it were possible.

I don't have that much faith in any single person but myself.

It's entirely possible. The problem is continuity, not creation.

Even the very creation of such a government would not be bloodless. Therefor it will cause "evil" in a sense.

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:

Rust wrote:

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 wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:

Rust wrote:

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

Harrison wrote:

xaoshaen wrote:

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

Tikker wrote: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

make it electorial monarchy

You're back to a popularity contest within 3 generations I would bet ganzo



You can't rely on the average person to make the best choice unfortunately

Tikker wrote:You're back to a popularity contest within 3 generations I would bet ganzo



You can't rely on the average person to make the best choice unfortunately

who said democartic elections. make prominant science, business, etc people ellect leader