It's Time to Speak the Truth...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I made a side comment that I had changed from a libertarian (capitalist-anarchy) to a conservative. Well, it’s not just from one to the other because one is a mode, and the other is form. I have done a 180, I am now a full fledged American monarchist (and researching Distributism).

Now, before this discussion gets on way, I want to point out that this isn’t something were I just read an awesome book on monarchies (not sure there is one out there), and decided that it was for me. Looking back on this point, I can see this formation having its roots from about 5-6 years ago.

Discuss…and accuse.[/quote]

  1. Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.

  2. Capitalism is the basis of every great civilisation from Carthage to Britain and historically is necessary for advancement of culture, civilisation and standards of living.

  3. Wealth redistribution(read Communism/Marxism) has been a rabble rousing ideology used by evreyone from the Grachhi to Robespierre, Lenin and Hitler. Every state that has ever had a form of revolution based around wealth redistribution has turned into a dictatorship and led to genocide/mass exiles(Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Vietnam etc).[/quote]

Why the comment on redistribution?

[quote]
4. If you want an ‘awesome book on monarchies’ read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. But remember that monarchies with political power are about as likely as tits on a bull in the 21st century. Better go with military dictatorship if you want to be a trendy pseudo-intellectual. People won’t laugh at you as much.[/quote]

I already read Leviathan (I pointed that earlier) and I already pointed out that I do not agree with Hobbes as he’s an absolutist and I am in favor of a restrained Monarch in which they are bound by the constitution and law as common men are (ala, British Crown, Spanish Crown, Belgium, Denmark, and my favorite Vatican!).

And, you make a very good point that a Monarch with (I would say absolute, or majority of) political power is unlikely. As is good, as we know the maxim.

Do you think that I am trying to be a trendy pseudo-intellect? You mean with my oppressive and regressive Catholic & Thomistic morality, my regressive and medieval thoughts on government, my myopic piety, my sexist and chauvinistic views on the family?

Interesting, I don’t know many people that try to be trendy by doing the exact opposite of what everyone else does. I mean I know I look freakin dapper in my two-year-old three-piece suits and polished dress shoes; however, trendy I am not. But, I digress.

102

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The family is an anarchistic institution. It is completely voluntary.[/quote]

Until you run away.

103

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Western Europe has been consistently found to be the happiest place to live by every contemporary study on the subject of which I am aware. One notable example is a study done by the organization for economic cooperation and development in 2009, you can search for it if you like.
[/quote]

So we have finally found a way to quantify happiness.

Excellent.
[/quote]

Smug comments aside, my statement that there have been studies done and that those studies have concluded that people are relatively more happy in Western Europe than elsewhere (based on health, job satisfaction, average income vs. cost of living, instances of depression, etc.) stands as it did before your interjection.

104

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
…I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. I made a side comment that I had changed from a libertarian (capitalist-anarchy) to a conservative. Well, it’s not just from one to the other because one is a mode, and the other is form. I have done a 180, I am now a full fledged American monarchist (and researching Distributism).

Now, before this discussion gets on way, I want to point out that this isn’t something were I just read an awesome book on monarchies (not sure there is one out there), and decided that it was for me. Looking back on this point, I can see this formation having its roots from about 5-6 years ago.

Discuss…and accuse.[/quote]

  1. Anarchism is a make believe form of society where there is no government/monarchy therefore no leadership. It exists in the minds of naive idiots and nowhere else.

  2. Capitalism is the basis of every great civilisation from Carthage to Britain and historically is necessary for advancement of culture, civilisation and standards of living.

  3. Wealth redistribution(read Communism/Marxism) has been a rabble rousing ideology used by evreyone from the Grachhi to Robespierre, Lenin and Hitler. Every state that has ever had a form of revolution based around wealth redistribution has turned into a dictatorship and led to genocide/mass exiles(Cambodia, Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Vietnam etc).[/quote]

Why the comment on redistribution?

[quote]
4. If you want an ‘awesome book on monarchies’ read Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. But remember that monarchies with political power are about as likely as tits on a bull in the 21st century. Better go with military dictatorship if you want to be a trendy pseudo-intellectual. People won’t laugh at you as much.[/quote]

I already read Leviathan (I pointed that earlier) and I already pointed out that I do not agree with Hobbes as he’s an absolutist and I am in favor of a restrained Monarch in which they are bound by the constitution and law as common men are (ala, British Crown, Spanish Crown, Belgium, Denmark, and my favorite Vatican!).

And, you make a very good point that a Monarch with (I would say absolute, or majority of) political power is unlikely. As is good, as we know the maxim.

Do you think that I am trying to be a trendy pseudo-intellect? You mean with my oppressive and regressive Catholic & Thomistic morality, my regressive and medieval thoughts on government, my myopic piety, my sexist and chauvinistic views on the family?

Interesting, I don’t know many people that try to be trendy by doing the exact opposite of what everyone else does. I mean I know I look freakin dapper in my two-year-old three-piece suits and polished dress shoes; however, trendy I am not. But, I digress.[/quote]

Your original post mentions your interest in anarchism. Those who profess to be anarachists are almost always Marxist-type nutters like Noam Chomsky for instance. You also mentioned in your original post that you haven’t read an awesome book on monarchies. I guess I was a bit hostile but dealing with left-wingers tends to bring out the raging bull in me. Especially since 9/11.

Your ideas on a constitutional monarchy don’t seem to have any practical purpose. How would installing a monarchy with no political power advance our society? How would we choose a royal family? It would also require the abolishment of the declaration of Independence. It all seems a little ridiculous to me.

105

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Your original post mentions your interest in anarchism. Those who profess to be anarachists are almost always Marxist-type nutters like Noam Chomsky for instance. You also mentioned in your original post that you haven’t read an awesome book on monarchies. I guess I was a bit hostile but dealing with left-wingers tends to bring out the raging bull in me. Especially since 9/11.[/quote]

He did specifically mention he was more of an anarcho-capitalist, which is a far cry from the anarcho-communism you seem to be familiar with.

106

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Western Europe has been consistently found to be the happiest place to live by every contemporary study on the subject of which I am aware. One notable example is a study done by the organization for economic cooperation and development in 2009, you can search for it if you like.
[/quote]

So we have finally found a way to quantify happiness.

Excellent.
[/quote]

Smug comments aside, my statement that there have been studies done and that those studies have concluded that people are relatively more happy in Western Europe than elsewhere (based on health, job satisfaction, average income vs. cost of living, instances of depression, etc.) stands as it did before your interjection.

[/quote]

Yup, and I say they are BS.

Also, even if it were true it was neither here nor there.

I bet plantation owners were smug as a bug too.

edited

107

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

But it already does happen all around you. The TNation forums are an anarchic society/[/quote]

No, they aren’t - they exist with a backdrop of law and government behind them.

108

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The family is an anarchistic institution. It is completely voluntary.[/quote]

No, it isn’t, and it never has been - parents don’t voluntarily have an obligation to feed and protect and raise their child, unless you believe they are free to voluntarily walk away from that responsibility at any time.

And, of course, that choice to leave would be morally indistinguishable from the choice to remain and take care of the children, assuming “voluntarism” in an “anarchy”.

Tell me, Lifticus - do you think that?

109

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Western Europe has been consistently found to be the happiest place to live by every contemporary study on the subject of which I am aware. One notable example is a study done by the organization for economic cooperation and development in 2009, you can search for it if you like.
[/quote]

So we have finally found a way to quantify happiness.

Excellent.
[/quote]

Smug comments aside, my statement that there have been studies done and that those studies have concluded that people are relatively more happy in Western Europe than elsewhere (based on health, job satisfaction, average income vs. cost of living, instances of depression, etc.) stands as it did before your interjection.

[/quote]

I’m curious would you mind posting those studies? I’d really like to read them.

Thanks.

110

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The family is an anarchistic institution. It is completely voluntary.[/quote]

Until you run away.[/quote]

It’s still voluntary. No one can force anyone to start a family or continue to remain a part of one.

Children are a different matter – but eventually even children must become their own person.

111

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

The family is an anarchistic institution. It is completely voluntary.[/quote]

No, it isn’t, and it never has been - parents don’t voluntarily have an obligation to feed and protect and raise their child, unless you believe they are free to voluntarily walk away from that responsibility at any time.

And, of course, that choice to leave would be morally indistinguishable from the choice to remain and take care of the children, assuming “voluntarism” in an “anarchy”.

Tell me, Lifticus - do you think that?[/quote]

Of course a family is voluntary. Parents may have a moral obligation to take care of their children but that does not negate the fact that they can at anytime walk away from that responsibility. Whether they should or not is besides the point. And I still believe a parent can seek compensation from an other dead beat parent through a legal system and it does not change the voluntary nature of a family.

Besides, there is still no clear cut answer to when a parent should cut the apron strings. No law can tell a parent when a child is ready to be an adult. It must be voluntarily decided.

112

and I have to believe a family is voluntary as long as my mom still lets me live in her basement :stuck_out_tongue:

113

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Western Europe has been consistently found to be the happiest place to live by every contemporary study on the subject of which I am aware. One notable example is a study done by the organization for economic cooperation and development in 2009, you can search for it if you like.
[/quote]

So we have finally found a way to quantify happiness.

Excellent.
[/quote]

Smug comments aside, my statement that there have been studies done and that those studies have concluded that people are relatively more happy in Western Europe than elsewhere (based on health, job satisfaction, average income vs. cost of living, instances of depression, etc.) stands as it did before your interjection.

[/quote]

I’m curious would you mind posting those studies? I’d really like to read them.

Thanks.[/quote]

No problem. I’m on my way out the door now but I’ll be back near a computer in a couple of hours

114

Before I go here is an excerpt from business week article on one of these studies, and one that illustrates my point well:

“Capitalism, sometimes criticized for its heartlessness, was far from a source of discontent, though the top-scoring capitalist countries also tended to have strong social services.”

US was 23rd in that particular one.

115

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Before I go here is an except from business week article on one of these studies, and one that illustrates my point well:

“Capitalism â?? sometimes criticized for its heartlessness â?? was far from a source of discontent, though the top-scoring capitalist countries also tended to have strong social services.”

US was 23rd in that particular one.[/quote]

What is the fundamental unit of measurement for “happiness”?

116

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Of course a family is voluntary. Parents may have a moral obligation to take care of their children but that does not negate the fact that they can at anytime walk away from that responsibility. Whether they should or not is besides the point.[/quote]

Then it is definitionally not voluntary. If you have an obligation, it isn’t voluntary. Whether there are repercussions for breachingthis obligation is not relevant - that is the second step.

You just said there exists a moral obligation of a parent to take care of his/her child - that means a “family” isn’t an exercise in voluntarism, because the parent isn’t actually free to walk away from that responsibility as a moral matter, i.e., a duty exists.

A legal system would necessitate the use of force or coercion to achieve a result, i.e., garnishing income or other asset seizure for child support, and no such remedy exists in Anarcho-topia.

Irrelevant to the question.

117

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Of course a family is voluntary. Parents may have a moral obligation to take care of their children but that does not negate the fact that they can at anytime walk away from that responsibility. Whether they should or not is besides the point.[/quote]

Then it is definitionally not voluntary. If you have an obligation, it isn’t voluntary. Whether there are repercussions for breachingthis obligation is not relevant - that is the second step.

You just said there exists a moral obligation of a parent to take care of his/her child - that means a “family” isn’t an exercise in voluntarism, because the parent isn’t actually free to walk away from that responsibility as a moral matter, i.e., a duty exists.

A legal system would necessitate the use of force or coercion to achieve a result, i.e., garnishing income or other asset seizure for child support, and no such remedy exists in Anarcho-topia.

Irrelevant to the question.[/quote]

Voluntarism implies there is no force or coercion used to obtain a desired outcome. No one can hold a gun to a man’s head and tell him to remain part of a particular family.

A voluntary legal system would use no coercion or force to garnish income. In a voluntary legal framework if such a man were to be found liable and he voluntarily decided not to pay he would most likely be ostracized or shunned and have a hard time finding an other mate with which he can start a new family – not to mention he would have no future contact with family members. I am in favor of such a system.

118

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your original post mentions your interest in anarchism.[/quote]

Yes.

I am not really sure how this works out.

I know, exactly what I meant. I have read a dozen books or so on them, what I was pointing out was that I hadn’t just picked up a book skimmed it and said…I’m a Monarchist.

And, I’m a conservative. So, you don’t have to worry about me.

[quote]
Your ideas on a constitutional monarchy don’t seem to have any practical purpose.[/quote]

Why do you say that?

Advance = Progress? Are you a progressive now?

How come you keep switching between absolute power and no political power? Because I never said any of those things. A powerless monarch is useless, and an absolute monarch is dangerous.

I can’t say, particularly. It would have to be an organic process.

Why would it mean the abolishment of the declaration of Independence?

119

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Voluntarism implies there is no force or coercion used to obtain a desired outcome. No one can hold a gun to a man’s head and tell him to remain part of a particular family.[/quote]

You keep avoiding the issue. You keep discussing repercussions. If you have a moral duty to do something, it isn’t a function of voluntarism. Because if it were, the choice not to do it would be morally indistinguishable from the choice to do it.

By your own admission, this is not true.

So, your “system” would have no remedy at all?

Because even with a punitive, coercive system in place now - where you can suffer some pretty bad pain financially or otherwise if you don’t provide child support - people still voluntarily decide not to pay child support.

Why is there any reason to think that people would suddenly start “volunteering” to pay child support on pain of being, at most, “shunned”, when they don’t even volunteer to do it now on much more severe pain of losing income and property through coercion in addition to being “shunned”?

Can you answer this?

120

Actually, the legal system that Lifticus is promoting here would be quite aggressive. A legal system which basically shuns you from any sort of business if you don’t comply with its rulings essentially uses coercion as well, just in a different way. Instead of mandating a law in which someone is forced to do something, they promote the idea that businesses and people should close their doors - using the threat of force - in order to castigate someone who has broken the law.

That is in many ways more violent and coercive than the system now in place.

That being said, Lifticus, what is your fetish with “voluntary”? Private property is NOT voluntary, and thank god it’s not. Any system that truly relied only on voluntary interaction would not have a functioning economy, it would simply be anarchy in the pejorative.

I hope I get an answer this time.