"Freedom" thread or something

^Same half of the country that was okay with his choice for vicepresident...

Equality 7-2521 wrote: thellama73 wrote: Good to be back! I was busy with a new city and new job and I just fell out of the habit of coming here. I'll try not to let that happen again. Can I ask about any specifics of the job that you are able and willing to share?

It's fairly mundane. Mostly I do research on a wide variety of economic issues and a good bit of writing. I have a few articles in places like the Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard, so that's kind of cool.

thellama73 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: thellama73 wrote: Good to be back! I was busy with a new city and new job and I just fell out of the habit of coming here. I'll try not to let that happen again. Can I ask about any specifics of the job that you are able and willing to share? It's fairly mundane. Mostly I do research on a wide variety of economic issues and a good bit of writing. I have a few articles in places like the Daily Caller and The Weekly Standard, so that's kind of cool.

That sounds more interesting than the places I'm published. Congrats man.

JJLehto wrote: Holy tap dancing christ a wild llama appears. He's missed all the hooplah. Well ok nothing really but surely he'd be interested to know how I've converted to limited government. Though really as crazy as the change sounds I still believe in the basic stuff I did, just different means. Aaand taking a realistic look at life finally and not what I wanted to see

This thread is seriously amazing! First the T and now you. Just 299,999,998 more to go.


Edited by thellama73 - June 21 2012 at 22:48

I'm really starting to think on bringing back the monarchy... 

Edited by The T - June 21 2012 at 23:00

^Good. Use your aggressive feelings boy. Let the hate flow through you!

If you compare Monarchies and Democracies the end results of the societies haven't been much different. One of the advantages of a Monarchy was the perceived relationship between the ruler and the ruled. In a Monarchistic system, the ruled were viewed, rightfully so, just as people who happened to be dominated by a king. When two kings would fight each other, it wasn't that uncommon for the warring parties to ignore the peasants and focus on the opposing king's forces. There was no psychological association with the peasants and the king where being enemies with the one would translate into being enemies with the other.

In a Democracy however, the popular myth states the the people are the government. Thus when you find yourself in a quarrel with the government, you have a quarrel with the people themselves. When it comes time to slaughter the government, the way to do so lies in slaughtering the people.

The same sort of argument could be made comparing dictatorships and democracies. However, Western Democracies have adopted the strategy of punishing innocent people for the sins of their oppressive dictators. Americans in particular have the attitude that, "Hey we overthrew our king. If these people in Muslimistan are too lazy to do it, then they're just as guilty as the dictator." It's a really bizarre and pervasive attitude. Many active service people blame Iraqi citizens because they "forced" the US to overthrow Sadam because they were unwilling to do it themselves. I haven't looked into the origin of this mindset, nor I am even aware of it being studied. I wonder if it originates from the ingrained Democratic feelings of the US or the revolutionary origins of the US state. It could be a general historical association, but history would seem to invalidate that answer.

Anyway, I'm not sure you intended your side comment to get a two paragraph response. But it did, so maybe we have something to talk about.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: ^Good. Use your aggressive feelings boy. Let the hate flow through you! If you compare Monarchies and Democracies the end results of the societies haven't been much different. One of the advantages of a Monarchy was the perceived relationship between the ruler and the ruled. In a Monarchistic system, the ruled were viewed, rightfully so, just as people who happened to be dominated by a king. When two kings would fight each other, it wasn't that uncommon for the warring parties to ignore the peasants and focus on the opposing king's forces. There was no psychological association with the peasants and the king where being enemies with the one would translate into being enemies with the other. In a Democracy however, the popular myth states the the people are the government. Thus when you find yourself in a quarrel with the government, you have a quarrel with the people themselves. When it comes time to slaughter the government, the way to do so lies in slaughtering the people. The same sort of argument could be made comparing dictatorships and democracies. However, Western Democracies have adopted the strategy of punishing innocent people for the sins of their oppressive dictators. Americans in particular have the attitude that, "Hey we overthrew our king. If these people in Muslimistan are too lazy to do it, then they're just as guilty as the dictator." It's a really bizarre and pervasive attitude. Many active service people blame Iraqi citizens because they "forced" the US to overthrow Sadam because they were unwilling to do it themselves. I haven't looked into the origin of this mindset, nor I am even aware of it being studied. I wonder if it originates from the ingrained Democratic feelings of the US or the revolutionary origins of the US state. It could be a general historical association, but history would seem to invalidate that answer. Anyway, I'm not sure you intended your side comment to get a two paragraph response. But it did, so maybe we have something to talk about.

ha go figure.
Hey like I of all people will ever gripe about unnecessary and verbose responses.

Yeah that's some crazy stuff. I just thought you meant in that: In a monarchy (or any dictatorship I guess) things can get done, way more easily..so that was an "upside".
To people that want things done via government of course.

Yeah man, damn I'll have to get back to that...some deep stuff and agreed, I've not heard it ever talked about.
Your own the way to a new political philosophy. Wait no...paradigm. That's what I was thinking.


Edited by JJLehto - June 22 2012 at 12:44

Don't we live in a judicial dictatorship after all? Today the US Supreme court ruled against some provisions in the famous Arizona law, they also struck down limitations on a Montana law to corporate spending, and ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence juvenile murderers to life without parole. Maybe the last ruling mentioned belongs to their sphere of competence after all, but the two first cases show a group of 9 people who decide what states and people can and cannot do. 

9 people, 1 person, or a State full of people - I'm not comfortable with any of them ruling my life.