Political discussion thread

thellama73 wrote: smartpatrol wrote: Well, despite what I may feel is the right way to run a country, I recognize that everybody won't see that, and I think a good balance of people of every political stance, not just centrists, should be in congress. There's just a lack of centrists in congress, particularly Central Conservatives. See, I don't understand that. If you thought you knew the right way to build a rocket, you wouldn't want a whole room full of people with different (in your view: wrong) ideas about how to build a rocket. You'd want people who would do it right so you get a good rocket instead of a big, fiery explosion.

Now, this, I agree with, Logan.  I think a government made up solely of people who believe the same as I do would be the perfect government.  We don't need no centrists, libertarians, conservatives or others interfering with the way things should be run. 

^ good god!!!!! may we perish and burn................

The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: I have never understood why Hitler was considered far right. Nazis were socialists. I guess you could say that conservatives tend to be a bit nationalist, but apart from that I see no similarity. Maybe it's because I tend to think of the left/right divide in economic rather than social terms.  If Hitler was a socialist, then why did he imprison and or execute most communists and socialists?  Hitler was not a socialist in economic terms.  His sole tie to socialism was the placement of the nation above self.  This can be either right or left, although those on the left generally place society (and not nation) above self.  Hitler's sole intent was the protection of the national unity (not the protection of the lower classes or workers but the nation, which in this case meant him and his government).  He was not a Marxist.  He believed in private property rights and contract rights.  And his views have historically been seen as right wing.  It is only the right's current attempts to rewrite history which have confused the matter for some.

Hitler's original points for the NSDAP gave much more power to the workers and were quite socialist in nature. After his ridiculous beer hall putsch and imprisonment even he realized that way to power was not going to work in post-Versailles Germany. The Sin NSDAP actually means "socialist" and the "A" means workers. He was no Marxist for sure (he couldn't have been; he saw marxism as jew basically) but his ideas were somewhat similar to those of Mussolini, another former socialist turned fascist.

Actually, the other extreme of communism wouldn't be a society with another type of totalitarian state but one with none. Fascism and communism are cousins. The real extreme of conservatism (sans the modern religious part of it) would be quite libertarian, maybe even anarcho-capitalist.

I am really having trouble doing quotes on my iPhone. Sorry all.

Epignosis is absolutely wrong about the history of feudalism. Monarchs had very little power if any. It was what emerged after the fall of the Roman Empire when Barons continued to rule local regions, but had no empire to answer to. This is local government gone wild.. The holdings of men of wealth amounted to sweat shops for serfs. Charlemagne was unusual and highly retro throwback to the Roman era.

HackettFan wrote: I am really having trouble doing quotes on my iPhone. Sorry all. Epignosis is absolutely wrong about the history of feudalism. Monarchs had very little power if any. It was what emerged after the fall of the Roman Empire when Barons continued to rule local regions, but had no empire to answer to. This is local government gone wild.. The holdings of men of wealth amounted to sweat shops for serfs. Charlemagne was unusual and highly retro throwback to the Roman era.

And you are positive that feudalism as we know it did not primarily stem from the uterus of Germanic society (rather than the Romans)?

"Monarchs had very little power if any?"  And yet the feudal system was an outgrowth of the monarchs asserting allodial title.

Epignosis wrote: HackettFan wrote: I am really having trouble doing quotes on my iPhone. Sorry all. Epignosis is absolutely wrong about the history of feudalism. Monarchs had very little power if any. It was what emerged after the fall of the Roman Empire when Barons continued to rule local regions, but had no empire to answer to. This is local government gone wild.. The holdings of men of wealth amounted to sweat shops for serfs. Charlemagne was unusual and highly retro throwback to the Roman era. And you are positive that feudalism as we know it did not primarily stem from the uterus of Germanic society (rather than the Romans)?"Monarchs had very little power if any?"  And yet the feudal system was an outgrowth of the monarchs asserting allodial title.

The barons were originally roman positions. German society contributed as well. Of course the Germans by this point had a great deal of Roman envy...what came before and after is not at issue.


You said, "Do you and HackettFan even know what feudalism is?  The nations of Medieval Europe had mighty governments.  Look who held the most power in a feudalistic society.  It isn't the working man.  It's the king."

No, it isn't the working man. That was exactly my point. Your comment that I was responding to said nothing about for the working man. Your comment was:

"I would rather have several small private governments run for profit than one big government run for debt."

I want to know if we should refer to the CEOs of these small private governments as Barons, Dukes, Earls or what. There's no central government so who owns the public roads? The small private governments do. There is no central government, so is there any difference between a legal business and organized crime? Who defines and ultimately resolves the dispute if there is a difference? What would competition between rival small private governments look like? Would they feud? If a feud broke out who would end it other than a victor. Small private governments have nothing to do with individual liberty. This is an implicit problem with economic libertarianism that is never addressed head on by its adherents. There are two principles devolving large central government to small local government is one. Allowing individuals to exercise individual liberty is another. How are these when they're in conflict? That is never answered, and it is why I call it an ideology, not a philosophy. I like both of the principles mentioned, by the way, but not to the exclusion of other principles.

"Small local governments" aren't what supposedly prosperous small countries have?

I think the best solution for the US is really dissolution. 50 states.

The T wrote: "Small local governments" aren't what supposedly prosperous small countries have? I think the best solution for the US is really dissolution. 50 states.

The T wrote: "Small local governments" aren't what supposedly prosperous small countries have? I think the best solution for the US is really dissolution. 50 states.

The proposal was for small PRIVATE for profit governments. This doesn't sound like any sort of democracy that some small countries may enjoy. As far as dissolution of the US, the US constitution is the only free trade agreement that I genuinely like.

The absolute best political ad ever!