If Racism is Bad…

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

---

I don't find either bad.

Racism is OK if studies show racial differences. Northmen are better at handling milk than asians, as an example. I also believe black men are better at running than white men.



Nationalism is about loving and respecting your country, that does not have to include HATING the others. I feel more strongly about Sweden than I do Norway... I also care about Norway more than Nigeria as Norway is closer to Sweden, geographically as well as ethnically.

I see it as just human common sense, you care more about the ones closer to you.

I care more for my family than I do about other families.

I care more about my dog than I do about you dog. Doesn't mean I hate your dog or wants anything bad to happen to it. Same with racism and nationalism imho.

If someone would accuse me of nationalism a d racism I wouldn't really be able to defend myself. Doesn't really mean that am either. Protectivism probably; if you call it sort of conservatism I wouldn't disagree. I can reverse this really easily, and call leftists coservatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

---

Racism is founded on demarcating differences. Nationalism is founded on finding common cause. I don't think British nationalism is better than any other nationalism. But I do think that believing in Britain as a nation, and working for it, will make the nation better for all. Other nations are free to do the same for theirs.

Here, nationalism is the feeling when you consider your nation above the rest, while patriotism is the "good" version, where you are just proud of your nationhood without simoultaneously underestimating the other nationalities.
I am not sure, of course, if there is the same difference in the English language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Here, nationalism is the feeling when you consider your nation above the rest, while patriotism is the "good" version, where you are just proud of your nationhood without simoultaneously underestimating the other nationalities.
I am not sure, of course, if there is the same difference in the English language.

---

Welcome to the backroom Crandar, I hope you enjoy your stay!! :2thumbsup:

As to your points, they are blatantly stupid.

Ok, really they are not. Just wanted to get you into the right atmosphere at once. Again, welcome :clown:

In racism you look at real or imagined physical and cultural differences.

In nationalism you look at cultural and political differences.

Both can result in one nation hating another they know basically nothing about.

Essentially I see no difference in the two.

You could make the case for any '-ism.
Calvinism, Catholicism, Marxism, almost any economic theory...etc.
A structure of beliefs, often deeply held, that are at root artificial intellectual constructs people hold with faith.
Very few have not led to blood in the streets at some point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

What makes Nationalism acceptable?

Racism is the feeling that you are superior to others because of their color or there looks.

Nationalism is the belief that your nation, usually of birth, is better than any other. How is this different from racism?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

In racism you look at real or imagined physical and cultural differences.

In nationalism you look at cultural and political differences.

Both can result in one nation hating another they know basically nothing about.

Essentially I see no difference in the two.

---

Essentially I see no worthwhile difference between your OP and your last post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Essentially I see no difference in the two.

---

They are both man-made social constructions.

There is no intrinsic nationality, it is merely a organisation we were born into which is allocated a portion of land. As Massimo d'Azeglio put it, "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians". Nationalism can be taken to the extremes which it has negative impacts upon people simply because they popped-out of a mother from another nation with no choice involved.

'Race' is taking minor genetic differences and trying to blow them out of proportion, this gets even more disturbing when the vast majority of the labels are inaccurate and leads to very unpleasant discrimination on factors that are not valid or even genetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

They are both man-made social constructions.

There is no intrinsic nationality, it is merely a organisation we were born into which is allocated a portion of land. As Massimo d'Azeglio put it, "We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians". Nationalism can be taken to the extremes which it has negative impacts upon people simply because they popped-out of a mother from another nation with no choice involved.

'Race' is taking minor genetic differences and trying to blow them out of proportion, this gets even more disturbing when the vast majority of the labels are inaccurate and leads to very unpleasant discrimination on factors that are not valid or even genetic.

---

And as far as I'm concerned, anyone can count themselves into Britishism. I've mentioned the guy whose son turned up in Syria. The father is as British as I can ask for, despite not being born here, because he sees himself as British. That's good enough for me. His son isn't British in my eyes despite being born here, because he doesn't see himself as British. That's also good enough for me. If you live in these isles and are willing to work towards making it a better place, that's all the Britishness you need. It's an inclusive definition and entirely reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

They are both man-made social constructions.

There is no intrinsic nationality, it is merely a organisation we were born into which is allocated a portion of land.

---

I would say that while no particular nationality is intrinsic, the concept of nationhood is. It is really just an extension of the tribe, which is in turn an extension of the family, which is the basic social unit.

To bind yourself together with people who share a common culture and common values is human nature. In this regard, I would say that nationalism is the basis of democracy - democratic institutions can never represent all their people unless they share a sense of common purpose or destiny.

Nationalism was also born out of necessity when it became obvious that nations were militarily superior to tribes. Weren't the first nations founded in areas where a lot of wars happened while other areas of the planet stuck to tribes until they were colonized and the nation system was forced upon them? How can it be in any way intrinsic if these people still don't really feel comfortable with the concept to a large degree? Personally I can just switch between identifying as German and identifying as European. I am absolutely convinced that there are just as many people in other European countries who I have common interests with than there are Germans for whom this is true.

A whole lot of my best friends are also not 100% Germans and have family from wlsewhere in Europe just like I have myself. It's not that I don't like Germany but I wouldn't mind if it became part of a bigger "nation" with even more friends and people I feel I have common goals with.

I usually find there is more of a divide along the lines of income and education than nationality.

Does it matter if nationality is a man made social construction, if it's working?

I feel closer related to Swedes than I do to Norwegians. I would rather be surrounded by Swedes in my day to day life, than I would be Norwegians.

Some nations characteristics I openly despise, Somalia as an example.

I know I'd feel rubbish being surrounded by Somalis in my day to day life.

Nationalism is about TOGETHER striving towards a goal for the nation at large. People not sharing this vision isn't welcomed in a nationalistic society.

All people in a nation helps influencing the nations will and goals. That's why it's on the positive side if people follow some pre-set ideas and goals.

As an example, Sweden's goals include healthcare for everyone and womens rights...

I for one absolutely despise some cultures, and don't want them to influence my nation. Gypsys comes to mind, so does Somalis... As their goals conflict with Swedens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Does it matter if nationality is a man made social construction, if it's working?

---

"Working" is very subjective.

I am sure if you started asking the Skanes or Sami people in Sweden you start hearing about a history of oppression by the Swedes and denial of cultural heritage and refusal of the state to be officially recognised as minorities until recently. There are other examples of it not working: Ukraine being a high profile one. The Kosovo question with Serbia and the breakaway regions of Georgia. You also have 'Britain' which is split up into English, Welsh and Scottish, with the Scots and Wales wanting devolution and independence, including Cornwall. Within England there is the North/South divide then there is even the Red-White rose divide between counties. I can start to continue to other areas such as Spain, France, Germany. I can start to point to the wars of nationalist imperialism in the 19th and 20th Century.

So with a great number of factors involved, on what level is it actually 'working' ?

As Rhy correctly said, you can talk how there is a need for better cooperation, we need to associate ourselves with our neighbours. So nations evolved and mostly played a big part with the rise of faster communications and transport, in the form of industrialisation and the rail-networks. With our present system where communication is almost instantaneous from one side of the world to another, we can in many respects go 'larger' and talk about global governance and conflict resolution. As seen with the pitfalls of nationalism, this would require a decentralised government, but the whole pretense of 'British' 'German' 'French' could simply be abandoned in the modern age and treat everyone equally as human beings.

How can you say nationality works and then bring up Somalia?

Isn't Somalia a great example for the fact that nationality does not always work?

Wasn't nationality forced on most Africans even though they never knew such a concept before? And might that not explain why it doesn't work as well there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

As seen with the pitfalls of nationalism, this would require a decentralised government, but the whole pretense of 'British' 'German' 'French' could simply be abandoned in the modern age and treat everyone equally as human beings.

---

No: The concept of abandoning national identities is simple, the reality is anything but, You do not overturn thousands of years of history and millions of years of human evolution, period. You can bend it, make a population think national differences aren’t worth fighting or even arguing over, but to eliminate the idea of nationalism is wishful thinking at best. Especially in an era where the effects of 3 massive wars dedicated to maintaining/advancing/eliminating those nationalities are still in living memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

No: The concept of abandoning national identities is simple, the reality is anything but, You do not overturn thousands of years of history and millions of years of human evolution, period. You can bend it, make a population think national differences aren’t worth fighting or even arguing over, but to eliminate the idea of nationalism is wishful thinking at best. Especially in an era where the effects of 3 massive wars dedicated to maintaining/advancing/eliminating those nationalities are still in living memory.

---

Nationalism is not that old! It is older in England and France than anywhere else but it is a few hundred years old and not thousands.

It is the product of strong centralized governments and not the reverse. Most countries didn’t come to it until the 19th century. Before it people were loyal to localities or regions. They had to be convinced by politicians or monarchs that they were members of a larger family. It is still much less of an issue in other parts of the world.


The big mistake is to assume that citizenship = nationality and therefore all citizens of a county form one nation, and any deviation of opinion is treasonous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

"Working" is very subjective.

I am sure if you started asking the Skanes or Sami people in Sweden you start hearing about a history of oppression by the Swedes and denial of cultural heritage and refusal of the state to be officially recognised as minorities until recently. There are other examples of it not working: Ukraine being a high profile one. The Kosovo question with Serbia and the breakaway regions of Georgia. You also have 'Britain' which is split up into English, Welsh and Scottish, with the Scots and Wales wanting devolution and independence, including Cornwall. Within England there is the North/South divide then there is even the Red-White rose divide between counties. I can start to continue to other areas such as Spain, France, Germany. I can start to point to the wars of nationalist imperialism in the 19th and 20th Century.

So with a great number of factors involved, on what level is it actually 'working' ?

As Rhy correctly said, you can talk how there is a need for better cooperation, we need to associate ourselves with our neighbours. So nations evolved and mostly played a big part with the rise of faster communications and transport, in the form of industrialisation and the rail-networks. With our present system where communication is almost instantaneous from one side of the world to another, we can in many respects go 'larger' and talk about global governance and conflict resolution. As seen with the pitfalls of nationalism, this would require a decentralised government, but the whole pretense of 'British' 'German' 'French' could simply be abandoned in the modern age and treat everyone equally as human beings.

---

Skåne and the Sami wasnt' strong enough ethnically to be nation builders, so they got swallowed up. I don't see that as a sign of nation building not working, on the contrary, it shows that nation building can work even with large minorities.

The sami and the people of Skåne, with all the whining about Sweden, still would prefer to be Swedish rather than, say, somali.

nations are "working", because they are. Heck, nation building in Europe has gone so far that even ethnical groups are now divided, even by language. Danes, Norwegians and Swedes had the same language. Nowadays I don't understand a thing when Danes speak.

How is nation building NOT working, when you see functional nations all over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

How can you say nationality works and then bring up Somalia?

Isn't Somalia a great example for the fact that nationality does not always work?

Wasn't nationality forced on most Africans even though they never knew such a concept before? And might that not explain why it doesn't work as well there?

---

Ah, Somalia... See "racism". I believe Africans are behind in the areas regarding nation building. They have understood the idea of "tribe", but the idea of "nation" is above their collective ability to understand.

This might be blamed on cultural reasons... But "culturism" isn't really a word, so racism is as close as you get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Nationalism is not that old! It is older in England and France than anywhere else but it is a few hundred years old and not thousands.

It is the product of strong centralized governments and not the reverse. Most countries didn’t come to it until the 19th century. Before it people were loyal to localities or regions. They had to be convinced by politicians or monarchs that they were members of a larger family. It is still much less of an issue in other parts of the world.


The big mistake is to assume that citizenship = nationality and therefore all citizens of a county form one nation, and any deviation of opinion is treasonous.

---

Kneejerk much? Can't exactly blame you considering I do it a lot but you might want to reread my statement: Nationalism is recent, I'm not arguing that, I never said otherwise, but national identity is old: China has existed in one form or another for at the very least a thousand years, France predates the turn of the first millenia, germany could be said to have been one nation in cvil war between 1000 and the 1800's and supposedly Japan has existed continuously under the unbroken line of emperors for over 2000 years. It might not have become a science until recently but national identity, of German, French, Chinese, Japanese has been around for millenia. The idea of making everyone think not in those terms of country/fief/tribe but as fellow human is idealistic and impossible as humanity is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Welcome to the backroom Crandar, I hope you enjoy your stay!! :2thumbsup:

As to your points, they are blatantly stupid.

Ok, really they are not. Just wanted to get you into the right atmosphere at once. Again, welcome :clown:

---

Don't worry, I had already lost my flower in the Iraqi and Ukrainian threads.
It was a thrilling experience, indeed!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Nationalism is not that old! It is older in England and France than anywhere else but it is a few hundred years old and not thousands.

It is the product of strong centralized governments and not the reverse. Most countries didn’t come to it until the 19th century. Before it people were loyal to localities or regions. They had to be convinced by politicians or monarchs that they were members of a larger family. It is still much less of an issue in other parts of the world.


The big mistake is to assume that citizenship = nationality and therefore all citizens of a county form one nation, and any deviation of opinion is treasonous.

---

I think you'll find that the oldest continuously running idea of nationhood that's still running today is the Chinese, which is 3000 years give or take a few centuries and counting. However, the idea of nationhood that's most relevant to me is the collection of tax payers. I and other tax payers pay into a kitty that collectively benefits a group which is represented by the state. Successively larger groups provide differing levels of benefit, paid for by this kitty. All of us have reasonably similar interests that are benefited by us being part of a larger entity than the individual. Where there are no great conflicts of interest, but a significant level of overlap that can be benefited by being organised into a greater whole, there I have no objections to defining a level of nationhood. I live in my area, within a county, within a region, within England, within Britain, within the EU. I can identify with all these levels of nationhood. Those who agree with my interests and want to count themselves with my group are welcome to do so. Those who are outside my group I will simply ignore. I won't persecute them, nor will I even want to interfere with them, unless they want to interfere with me.

Kadagar AV, I appreciate your canted honesty and consistency. Even if I don’t happen to agree your fearless non-PC commentary is welcome.

I am not a big fan of the Nation State. Its main purpose is war making, as which it uses as an excuse to further centralize. It accrues more and more power to its self at the expense of the population. It ignores the wants and needs of smaller groups and localities and forces a one size fits all on everyone. The larger the state, the greater the propensity for this to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I think you'll find that the oldest continuously running idea of nationhood that's still running today is the Chinese, which is 3000 years give or take a few centuries and counting. However, the idea of nationhood that's most relevant to me is the collection of tax payers. I and other tax payers pay into a kitty that collectively benefits a group which is represented by the state. Successively larger groups provide differing levels of benefit, paid for by this kitty. All of us have reasonably similar interests that are benefited by us being part of a larger entity than the individual. Where there are no great conflicts of interest, but a significant level of overlap that can be benefited by being organised into a greater whole, there I have no objections to defining a level of nationhood. I live in my area, within a county, within a region, within England, within Britain, within the EU. I can identify with all these levels of nationhood. Those who agree with my interests and want to count themselves with my group are welcome to do so. Those who are outside my group I will simply ignore. I won't persecute them, nor will I even want to interfere with them, unless they want to interfere with me.

---

China, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...roups_in_China many of the dialects are unintelligible other than the written word. Considering most of their major wars were one group warring with another I would not attribute nation hood to them any earlier than it occurred in Europe.

Other that, at least in theory, the more local the government and the less centralized the more responsive it should be to the will, and needs of its constituents. Would you disagree?

Quote:

---

as which it uses as an excuse to further centralize. It accrues more and more power to its self at the expense of the population. It ignores the wants and needs of smaller groups and localities and forces a one size fits all on everyone. The larger the state, the greater the propensity for this to happen.

---

Everything you have ever said about nation states goes doubly for the corporations that would take over without them. You know that checks and balances thing you americans are so proud of? Kill off your federal government and you kill the only thing keeping those coporations even remotely in check. those small governments would be nothing more than shallow bumps against the unshackeld psychopathic will of the same mega corps your deregulation have been breeding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

China, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...roups_in_China many of the dialects are unintelligible other than the written word. Considering most of their major wars were one group warring with another I would not attribute nation hood to them any earlier than it occurred in Europe.

---

Neither language, ethnicities or civil war stopped you, american.

Quote:

---

Other that, at least in theory, the more local the government and the less centralized the more responsive it should be to the will, and needs of its constituents. Would you disagree?

---

I think anyone with a working mind would disagree.

I joked a while back that you must be sean hannity in disguise.

I cannot joke anymore, the only way I can see someone spouting the levels of anti consumer/pro rich bullshit you are is either they are shills writing for a paycheck, they're the wannabe rich padding their future nest, or they just so brainwashed and deluded they're propping up the same people profiting in society's downfall. You know, I might even think you were one of the rich assholes who subscribe to randian crap in an effort to excuse thier psychpathy, but you are way too naiive to the workings of your own country to have actually made a fortune.
Also:

Quote:

---

Its main purpose is war making,

---

How the hell could you get on a total war website for 9 years and not know of pax romana?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Ah, Somalia... See "racism". I believe Africans are behind in the areas regarding nation building. They have understood the idea of "tribe", but the idea of "nation" is above their collective ability to understand.

This might be blamed on cultural reasons... But "culturism" isn't really a word, so racism is as close as you get.

---

They are also behind in destroying the environment so being behind does not always equate to being worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

They are also behind in destroying the environment so being behind does not always equate to being worse.

---

Correction: They haven't got to an industrial level where they can begin destroying the earth.

Once they get there, I am sure they will be as bad as the west or worse.

Non-industrial-ability does not equal caring about the planet. Geez, I already mentioned that "tribe" is as far as, say, Somalis take their brains. There are quite a few steps from there to: caring about nation - caring about ethnicity - caring about humanity - caring about the world at large.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

China, huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_China & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...roups_in_China many of the dialects are unintelligible other than the written word. Considering most of their major wars were one group warring with another I would not attribute nation hood to them any earlier than it occurred in Europe.

Other that, at least in theory, the more local the government and the less centralized the more responsive it should be to the will, and needs of its constituents. Would you disagree?

---

The dominant Chinese group had a sense of common identity as far back as the mythical past that Confucius regularly alludes to. Since Confucius lived around the 6th century BC, that puts the sense of Chinese nationhood at least a few centuries before that.

As for the locality of the identity being more responsive to the needs of its constituents, maybe, but I'm not going to theorise on that, as I have little interest in doing so. However, the other end of that argument is that, the larger the body, the more heft it has in making an argument. The relative decline and rise of the UK and US is evidence enough of this. Even if the most local body of identity is the most responsive of all to my demands, I'm not going to cut myself off from the larger body. I have no interest in brave last stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Everything you have ever said about nation states goes doubly for the corporations that would take over without them. You know that checks and balances thing you americans are so proud of? Kill off your federal government and you kill the only thing keeping those coporations even remotely in check. those small governments would be nothing more than shallow bumps against the unshackeld psychopathic will of the same mega corps your deregulation have been breeding.

Neither language, ethnicities or civil war stopped you, american.



I think anyone with a working mind would disagree.

I joked a while back that you must be sean hannity in disguise.

I cannot joke anymore, the only way I can see someone spouting the levels of anti consumer/pro rich bullshit you are is either they are shills writing for a paycheck, they're the wannabe rich padding their future nest, or they just so brainwashed and deluded they're propping up the same people profiting in society's downfall. You know, I might even think you were one of the rich assholes who subscribe to randian crap in an effort to excuse thier psychpathy, but you are way too naiive to the workings of your own country to have actually made a fortune.
Also:
How the hell could you get on a total war website for 9 years and not know of pax romana?

---

Sounds like your getting pretty personal there.:shrug:

I think you should explain how I have proposed some rightwing conspiracy for the rich to take over the world.

Pax Romana indeed! If you prefer to live under an emperor or dictator then I more understand your accusations of republican, as opposed to totalitarian.

How anti-authoritarian equates to right wing you will need to show us all.

Most people who would lecture you about nationalism would be lobbying for world government. A noble concept. World domination. Except if you dislike the form of government, where do you go?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Kneejerk much? Can't exactly blame you considering I do it a lot but you might want to reread my statement: Nationalism is recent, I'm not arguing that, I never said otherwise, but national identity is old: China has existed in one form or another for at the very least a thousand years, France predates the turn of the first millenia, germany could be said to have been one nation in cvil war between 1000 and the 1800's and supposedly Japan has existed continuously under the unbroken line of emperors for over 2000 years. It might not have become a science until recently but national identity, of German, French, Chinese, Japanese has been around for millenia. The idea of making everyone think not in those terms of country/fief/tribe but as fellow human is idealistic and impossible as humanity is now.

---

I didn’t see this post earlier. Sorry.

Not all my post was directed at you. Mostly just the age of nationalism. With the bold part here, I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The dominant Chinese group had a sense of common identity as far back as the mythical past that Confucius regularly alludes to. Since Confucius lived around the 6th century BC, that puts the sense of Chinese nationhood at least a few centuries before that.

As for the locality of the identity being more responsive to the needs of its constituents, maybe, but I'm not going to theorise on that, as I have little interest in doing so. However, the other end of that argument is that, the larger the body, the more heft it has in making an argument. The relative decline and rise of the UK and US is evidence enough of this. Even if the most local body of identity is the most responsive of all to my demands, I'm not going to cut myself off from the larger body. I have no interest in brave last stands.

---

Of course most of this is theory and depends upon the principle of nonaggression.

To no one in particular.

As I said, The modern Nation State is the perfect instrument for empire building and aggressive war.

If you like to fight by all means keep and expand the nation state, it is just it will leave nothing but slaves and leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Of course most of this is theory and depends upon the principle of nonaggression.

To no one in particular.

As I said, The modern Nation State is the perfect instrument for empire building and aggressive war.

If you like to fight by all means keep and expand the nation state, it is just it will leave nothing but slaves and leaders.

---

Actually, the next step of nationhood that I support, Europeanism, is based in my eyes on two non-aggressive founding pillars. Firstly, the common market means the EU bloc can stand as one against any outside competitor, giving the bloc far more say than any single European state or statelet. With the likes of China, Russia, etc. throwing their weight about without going as far as war, this is a good thing to have in our favour, and something Americans have taken for granted (I suspect American dislike of a European state may have something to do with not wanting a competitor). Secondly, there is cultural identity in the form of football, and specifically UEFA. Where war has been the Briton's geography lesson in the past, nowadays it is football, with teams from every corner of the continent competing in common competitions, and with the EU's employment laws resulting in talented players from everywhere being heroes in one league or another.

In response to the original question I would say: a big fat bloated tax-payer supported military. Now hush, and:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

to fill the ranks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Sounds like your getting pretty personal there.:shrug:

---

If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.

Quote:

---

I think you should explain how I have proposed some rightwing conspiracy for the rich to take over the world.

---

There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.

Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.

Quote:

---

Pax Romana indeed! If you prefer to live under an emperor or dictator then I more understand your accusations of republican, as opposed to totalitarian.

---

Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.

Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.

Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.

Quote:

---

How anti-authoritarian equates to right wing you will need to show us all.

---

...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.

There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.

Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.

Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.

Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.

Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.

...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.

---

It might have something to do with people seeing true Americanism as pro-freedom and anti-tyranny, which results in forever finding new definitions of freedom to fight for and tyranny to fight against. It also means anyone America is fighting against is by definition a tyrant, while America's friends are by definition pro-freedom. I prefer being me and trying to find common cause with people who think like me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

If I could rebuke the republican congress like I could you I would, right now all I have is one of the voters propping them up to fruitlessly argue with. Enjoy sigularly bearing the vitriol your entire political spectrum had induced.

There is no conspiracy, just hundreds of powerful people constantly trying to make a little more money or gain a little more power by whatever means necissary, there is no plan, no focus, no illuminati if you are so inclined just the greed of the powerful and the exploitation of those not lucky enough to make thier own fortune.

Oh, and the millions of misguided who keep their influence disporportionately powerful. As for taking over the world, even if I had advocated such a predicton, I wonder why you would be so unreceptive, after all, it's your own slippery slope argument just going in the opposite direction.

Pax romana, Rome's peace, for 206 years europe experienced nearly complete peace, all due to the actions of a nation state. A time of peace and prosperity that wouldnt never be seen on that scale again, the closest we ever got was the 100 years that we call the victorian age. Whatever you may think of it, this puts an undeniable dent to anyone saying nation states exists only for war.

Actually this annoys me a lot, right now we should be having a pax americana, one that is nearly world wide and liable to last a good while, but you keep buggering it up by invading people on the whims of oligarchs, god you spend so much time fighting the russians and now you've won you cant seem to keep it together for any reasonable length of time.

Hell sometimes I think we skipped it and you are already in decline, which sucks because if that happens your nation's idiocy will not only doom yourselves but drag us down with you. Even more than it already has.

...I'm not saying the the right wing is anti authoritarian, I'm saying its anti everyone-else's-authority, see your country's party of no which when presented with proposals it itself devised fights tooth and nail to sabotage them just because it is someone else's administtration trying to implement it. That any of your right wingers think it's a good thing confuses me.

---

I really don’t know what you are talking about. Do you mean that a republican form of government is a bad thing vs. direct pure democracy or are you just referring to political parties?

If you go by the Pax Romana then you could call this time a Pax Americana. Many client kingdoms lost their liberties to direct Roman rule and Britain was conquered. Seems to me things were not all that peaceful 27bc to 180ad. It seems the Americans are right on track.

The last thing is that you have sufficiently broadened the definition of right wing to include Noam Chomsky into the Republican Party.

Favoring decentralized weaker forms of government doesn’t make someone right wing.
Most would say it verges on anarchy. For my views on labor I have been called a communist. In business and trade I would outlaw corporations and revert to general partnerships leaving all owners liable for legal actions and debts under the law. My right wing view is that people should have the rights to property and not for the state to control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It might have something to do with people seeing true Americanism as pro-freedom and anti-tyranny, which results in forever finding new definitions of freedom to fight for and tyranny to fight against. It also means anyone America is fighting against is by definition a tyrant, while America's friends are by definition pro-freedom. I prefer being me and trying to find common cause with people who think like me.

---

No I am not trying to invent new freedoms, just recapture those we have lost. I don’t think the US government has a right to tell other governments what is best for their people and that invading someone else to bring them freedom is just conquest. The same as Roman intervention into Gaul led to the conquest of all Gaul and parts of Germany. How do you free people by killing them and taking over their county?

Nationalism usually amounts to the States excuse in acting in its own interests at the expense of both its people and the people it wishes to impose its will upon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Do you mean that a republican form of government is a bad thing vs. direct pure democracy or are you just referring to political parties?

---

Quote:

---

Favoring decentralized weaker forms of government doesn’t make someone right wing.

---

Considering your nation's political spectrum is completely right wing I would say it does. And I was reffering to the republican party. But that's not the problem, it's that half of you are favouring decentralized forms of government when it would just make it worse that I have a problem with. Your state governments are, frankly, embarrassing, only a few of them make west european standards and a lot of them put venezuela in a good light. Hell, some of them are a step away from going full mexico.

The US government is bad at it's job, fine: the government bailed out the banks but was too fearful of loosing it's campaign donations (or whatever the heck you are calling bribes these days) to punish the bankers. It sent 148000 men and women to kill and die halfway around the world on a lie and when they realized what happened it did nothing to the perpritrators. When it's people were dying on the street because they coundn't afford the exorberant medical costs it took years and a huge amount of infighting to get obamacare out of the gate, and even obamacare's proponants think it's not doing enough.

And yet as it is also the only thing keeping half your states from failing.

The whole point of big government in the societal sense is to regulate the people to keep them from screwing eachother over. Yes, your federal government is severely crippled in that respect but I cant see many of the states doing any better managing the abuses that are currently crippling the federal one. I cant see many of the states being better off without such a large federal government, in fact without the federal government's support most of them will become worse places to live for everyone not moneyed.

Every time someone says "decentralize" I hear: "This Oak pillar that's holding up the temple is weak and likely to fall, lets gut it and hope the plywood ones can take the strain!" And the worst thing is that most of the people saying that (in the terms of the previous metaphor metaphore) are the weevils.

Quote:

---

If you go by the Pax Romana then you could call this time a Pax Americana. Many client kingdoms lost their liberties to direct Roman rule and Britain was conquered. Seems to me things were not all that peaceful 27bc to 180ad. It seems the Americans are right on track.

---

Peace doesnt mean freedom it means not having nations fighting eachother every 10 years liek it is now. And liberty? Please, they changed from the complete authority of bunch of chieftans/kings to live under the complete authority of a bunch of roman emperors, they lost nothing because they didn't have anything in the first place and at least the roman's gave the conquered a chance to become rich enough to become a voter or even a senator.

Quote:

---

The last thing is that you have sufficiently broadened the definition of right wing to include Noam Chomsky into the Republican Party.

---

Who is noam chompsky?

Noam Chomsky:

http://www.chomsky.info/

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

I have read Manufacturing Consent and Culture of Terrorism; both interesting takes on American culture and social control.

Racism, nationalism and patriotism are all negative.

The only proper way to judge the worth of another human being is which team they support. Naturally, all scousers are scum no matter what else they do in life.

Well it's better than them at least because you can choose which team to support.

@Grayblades, I would say that you principally misunderstand politics and have a strong bigotry when it come to American Politics in particular.

You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.

Now, there are many points we agree upon. :shock: But I do not see government as benefactor, only as a necessary evil.

The American political parties voice different views in campaigns but are indistinguishable when in power. Both rule in support of the crony capitalism that they themselves created.

The bank bailouts were to help their own interests and ultimately of their own creation through regulation and privilege.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ln8...ga-PJm3_WuHXA2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lurker Below

In response to the original question I would say: a big fat bloated tax-payer supported military. Now hush, and:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

to fill the ranks.

---

Cute. Sounds like every other 19 year old virgin who tripped over whatever leftist their ap teacher had them read, but cute none the less

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

@Grayblades, I would say that you principally misunderstand politics and have a strong bigotry when it come to American Politics in particular.

---

Bigotry? Bigotry requiers undeserving target and I am pretty sure the Unites states political system is very deserving of an ire I share with most of it's inhabitants.

Quote:

---

You assume that what is, is and cannot be changed. Reform is futile. Yet you yourself see the need to reform.

---

No, I see a need for reform but I find your proposed changes to be inheritly counterproductive. Your system is blatantly corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional yes. But I'm under the impression that you think that everything would be better handled on the state level, or through private companies. To that I can only point at the amount of crap the private sector has pulled already, and how the states governments are equally corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional. Particularly of those red states who are currently reliant on federal funds to keep from driving themselves into the ground. Your government needs reform, you need to stop the gerrymandering, reduce the overwhelming influence of vested interests, undo the two party system etc. But I dont see how decentralization could be the reform needed when the alternatives to a centeralized state are worse, it most certainly doesnt help that most of the people calling for it are the same people who have caused the need for reform in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Bigotry? Bigotry implies something undeserving upon the recipient, whereas all my hate is on the intentional actions of the republicans.

No, I see a need for reform but I find your proposed changes to be inheritly counterproductive. Your system is blatantly corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional yes. But I'm under the impression that you think that everything would be better handled on the state level, or through private companies. To that I can only point at the amount of crap the private sector has pulled already, and how the states governments are equally corrupt, negligent and dysfuctional. Particularly of those red states who are currently reliant on federal funds to keep from driving themselves into the ground. Your government needs reform, you need to stop the gerrymandering, reduce the overwhelming influence of vested interests, undo the two party system etc. But I dont see how decentralization could be the reform needed when the alternatives to a centeralized state are worse, it most certainly doesnt help that most of the people calling for it are the same people who have caused the need for reform in the first place.

---

There you go assuming again. I see no role for business to be involved in government what so ever. It is the quickest way to corrupt them both. I have never said that and that is of your own invention, like much else you have written.

I am under no illusions as to the corruptibility of government at any level, only that less centralized governments have less powers and more local governments have less geographical reach. The more distant the government the more tolerant people are of its excesses

You misunderstand that fundamentally there is no difference in the ruling parties in the US. What they say is not what they do. They only differ in which corporate interests they promote.

The system is quite efferent in what it does. The only seeming dysfunctionality is in what it says vs. what it does. Laws are written by lobbyists or corporations and given to congress, given misleading bill names and garner public support for the titles, not what the bill or laws actually contain.

They mislead the people and lie at every turn yet the public will not see beyond the rhetoric.

Like the man said, “it is easy to fool people but it is damn near impossible to convince them they have been fooled”.

And if you see no need for governmental reform, well, guess where that leaves you. I see it was a waste of time to provide you with that link.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

There you go assuming again. I see no role for business to be involved in government what so ever. It is the quickest way to corrupt them both. I have never said that and that is of your own invention, like much else you have written.

---

Ah, but you see, you havent said anything for me to assume or know otherwise; You've spouted "authoritarianism, decentralization, liberty freedom and a hard boiled egg." But the issue you have come out and said "this is going too far": is vaccinations. It would be understandable if you were ultra libertarian but we've mentioned the patriot act and you've not so much as said "yeah that's bad, but lets keep it on topic guys".
You've come off selective. You focus upon something that is, quite frankly, irrational as much worse has been imposed yet ignored. It's textbook politicking with a right wing twist,what else am I supposed to assume?

Quote:

---

I am under no illusions as to the corruptibility of government at any level, only that less centralized governments have less powers and more local governments have less geographical reach. The more distant the government the more tolerant people are of its excesses

---

I cannot agree with that, as I feel if it was true we wouldnt be hearing a peep about southern or scottish seperatism.

Quote:

---

You misunderstand that fundamentally there is no difference in the ruling parties in the US. What they say is not what they do. They only differ in which corporate interests they promote.

---

Arguable, I find the main difference is their PR and that what the Republicans put out disturbs me, almost as much as the fact that it still gets them elected. I dont find the democrats' advertising very compelling but compared to the republicans they is saint like and with the uprising of the teaparty and the words of thier leaders, I find myself wondering if they themselves are starting to believe thier own propaganda. I find the possibility much more frightening than any slave to corporate interest.

Quote:

---

And if you see no need for governmental reform, well, guess where that leaves you. I see it was a waste of time to provide you with that link.:rolleyes:

---

Changing the 2 party system is not a government reform? Also you need to find better philosophors than Rand's groupies.

lol, Murray Rothbard linky.

If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

lol, Murray Rothbard linky.

If that's not batshit crazy, nothing is.

---

No, I don’t think so. Heard him talking about you.


edit: that is not fair. Most of his stuff is, but his view on the state and on war he does have a glimmer of light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

No, I don’t think so. Heard him talking about you.

---

When you believe Ludwig von Mises doesn't go far enough, it's a clear sign someone has lost their mind.

Also, Austrian school is complete BS by the simple fact that they completely disregard the scientific method, even going so far as to brag about their pseudoscientific ways. It's no wonder their conclusions are all unfounded ideological hogwash with no basis in actual reality.

Abolish all isms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Abolish all isms.

---

What's wrong with hedonism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

When you believe Ludwig von Mises doesn't go far enough, it's a clear sign someone has lost their mind.

Also, Austrian school is complete BS by the simple fact that they completely disregard the scientific method, even going so far as to brag about their pseudoscientific ways. It's no wonder their conclusions are all unfounded ideological hogwash with no basis in actual reality.

---

I haven’t read any of the Austrians on economics but had you said that about the scientific method a week ago I would have let it go and assumed you were right. I have only dabbled a bit into the topic.

Coincidentally however, on 4th a rather prestigious Political Economist, visiting from the states, happened to come over to watch the US team lose. Not a man that anyone of sense would associate with the right, nor libertarians for that matter. There was no discussion of Austrians but he brought up the scientific method ( as practiced in economics) himself and he dismissed it as rubbish. So apparently the Austrians can get away with calling the scientific method witchcraft because it is not just them who think this. It may actually be a minor point in their favor. At least among economists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Ah, but you see, you havent said anything for me to assume or know otherwise

---

Well, apparently you have missed it and I don’t feel the need to go through it all. Most of this is theoretical anyway, as I don’t see the US collapsing in the next couple of weeks.

But here is an idea. So far all you have done is disagree without offering any thing of substance.

Why don’t you demonstrate a little moral courage by telling us what you stand for and what you think is a better form of government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

What's wrong with hedonism?

---

Why do you hate hedons?

Quote:

---

So far all you have done is disagree without offering any thing of substance.

---

No substance is still a net gain over the use of that Murray Rothbard video.

Quote:

---

what you think is a better form of government?

---

If all it took to make a better government, than what 3000 years of human expermentation has produced, was one man listening to the works of a few wannabe philosophors attempting to justifying thier selfish elitism(oh, sorry, libertarians) we'd have found it from the start. What america has right now is in need of an overhaul and while I dont have the answer, you dont need to be a chef to know when the food sucks and I dont need to have my own plan to tell when your idea wont work and the attempts to make it work will most likely make things worse.

Let's start easy: Imagining you had a decentralized government like you wish and taking into consideration that a constitution and it's amendments (which overall are held in higher regard in thier country than god) wasnt enough to restrain a government from using power it wasnt supposed to have, how would you keep any government, centralized or not, from repeating what the last decentralized state with a heavenly constitution did: I.E. the United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Why do you hate hedons?

---

I see more problem with Catholicism. I believe we strayed from the teachings of Cathol and all he stood for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

I see more problem with Catholicism. I believe we strayed from the teachings of Cathol and all he stood for.

---

Teaching prejudice is even part of science classes. Every schoolkid remembers their science teacher doing "demonstrations" with a prism and light. These "prisms" even separate what is one and integral into separate categories, grouped by colour. Kids at that age need to learn that colour doesn't matter, whether you're yellow or indigo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I haven’t read any of the Austrians on economics

---

lol, you just linked a Murray Rothbard essay...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

So apparently the Austrians can get away with calling the scientific method witchcraft because it is not just them who think this. It may actually be a minor point in their favor. At least among economists.

---

lol, no.

Mathematical modelling and empirical data are absolutely fundamental to all sane economists. The Austrian school explicitly refuses to provide empirical data to back up their claims. As such, it is little more than wishful thinking. They want things to be true, therefore they must be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

What's wrong with hedonism?

---

It is a form of onanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

No substance is still a net gain over the use of that Murray Rothbard video.


If all it took to make a better government, than what 3000 years of human expermentation has produced, was one man listening to the works of a few wannabe philosophors attempting to justifying thier selfish elitism(oh, sorry, libertarians) we'd have found it from the start. What america has right now is in need of an overhaul and while I dont have the answer, you dont need to be a chef to know when the food sucks and I dont need to have my own plan to tell when your idea wont work and the attempts to make it work will most likely make things worse.

Let's start easy: Imagining you had a decentralized government like you wish and taking into consideration that a constitution and it's amendments (which overall are held in higher regard in thier country than god) wasnt enough to restrain a government from using power it wasnt supposed to have, how would you keep any government, centralized or not, from repeating what the last decentralized state with a heavenly constitution did: I.E. the United States.

---

Don't be angry Greyblades. You don't live in America so you don't understand that the goal of many in American politics is to infuriate until exhaustion. It's the easiest way to induce apathy. Take a break and think of the Queen and then remind yourself this too will end.

Patriotism builds your country up, nationalism knocks theirs down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It is a form of onanism.

---

You can calm down now sir, Onan the Barbarian is here. He's got everything in hand.

You guys are suffering from ismism.

Sad thing is it isn't even a made up term

Don't have to be all Papewaioist on us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You guys are suffering from ismism.

---

Oh I like, nothing is ever well defined. It's always more complicated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

lol, you just linked a Murray Rothbard essay...

---

Yes! On the State.

Quote:

---

lol, no.

Mathematical modelling and empirical data are absolutely fundamental to all sane economists. The Austrian school explicitly refuses to provide empirical data to back up their claims. As such, it is little more than wishful thinking. They want things to be true, therefore they must be true.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Your Arrogance is amazing!

The man has several PhDs from THE top universities and has worked and taught in the field for over 35 years.

I assume this is your internet persona speaking, or would you really presume to lecture the Dalai Lama on spiritual matters, or your surgeon on his procedural techniques?


He is not an Austrian but still thinks the method unreliable. I’ll let him know you disapprove. We’ll see if it changes his mind.:tomato2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Yes! On the State.

---

The Austrian school is heavily concerned with the role of the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Your Arrogance is amazing!

The man has several PhDs from THE top universities and has worked and taught in the field for over 35 years.

I assume this is your internet persona speaking, or would you really presume to lecture the Dalai Lama on spiritual matters, or your surgeon on his procedural techniques?

He is not an Austrian but still thinks the method unreliable. I’ll let him know you disapprove. We’ll see if it changes his mind.:tomato2:

---

So does Friedrich Hayek and Karl Marx, who I will not hesitate to call idiots.

Let me know when you have something other than an appeal to authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The Austrian school is heavily concerned with the role of the state.



So does Friedrich Hayek and Karl Marx, who I will not hesitate to call idiots.

Let me know when you have something other than an appeal to authority.

---

Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain

I guess we know where you stand. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Education: that which reveals to the wise,
and conceals from the stupid,
the vast limits of their knowledge.
Mark Twain

I guess we know where you stand. :laugh4:

---

Goebbels had a phd from a renowned university; I guess he was right then.

EDIT: Wikipedia has some solid writing for once, an excellent summary of the nonsense that is praxeology(from Rothbard's wiki page):

Quote:

---

Rothbard rejected the application of the scientific method to economics, and dismissed econometrics, empirical and statistical analysis, and other tools of mainstream social science as useless for the study of economics.[47] He instead embraced praxeology, the strictly a priori methodology of Ludwig von Mises. Praxeology conceives of economic laws as akin to geometric or mathematical axioms: fixed, unchanging, objective, and discernible through logical reasoning, without the use of any evidence.

---

Summed up in two words:

Wishful thinking.



The term "economic law" always makes me chuckle.

Oh dear, I appear to have broken Fisherking's mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Goebbels had a phd from a renowned university; I guess he was right then.

EDIT: Wikipedia has some solid writing for once, an excellent summary or the nonsense that is praxeology(from Rothbard's wiki page):



Summed up in two words:

Wishful thinking.



The term "economic law" always makes me chuckle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Oh dear, I appear to have broken Fisherking's mind.

---

I don’t think you have the depth in economics to say he is wrong. It is also something I know RL to be a fact and not internet posturing.

So far all I see Grayblades doing is criticizing what is said without saying anything else in particular. Only opinion.

As close as it comes to recommended government is the Roman Empire. For all that is revealed he could be a 20somthing with an inflated ego.

The forum is only diversion. Offering our opinions will not change the world. It is a ,mostly, pleasant diversion and while we disagree today we may make common cause tomorrow on a different topic.

It is just not something I take too seriously.

In the meantime I do like exploring different points of view, so how about telling about your opinions rather than only saying mine are wrong. Disagreement is not evidence of error.
:bow:

The world of economics certainly has the depth of knowledge to call Rothbard a tard; and it does. He has a grand total of zero published works, and he was relegated to an irrelevant institution(the glorious university of Nevada). The reason is simple; the world of economics does not consider his ideas to have any merit at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The world of economics certainly has the depth of knowledge to call Rothbard a tard; and it does. He has a grand total of zero published works, and he was relegated to an irrelevant institution(the glorious university of Nevada). The reason is simple; the world of economics does not consider his ideas to have any merit at all.

---

Not true. He has a large quantity of published works, just all published by the Austrians. lol

His economics were of little concern to me, however. It was primarily the essay on the State, which I find to be a truism, and one way to look at it. A very critical way, of course. Most of the rest I find fairly cracked. A small amount of what he say on war I can agree with.

I tend to weigh individual ideas by there own merit rather than looking at the man. At least initially.

Most anyone can have a flash of brilliance regardless of how pedestrian or even wrongheaded the rest of what they may say is.

One may adopt one principal without adopting the whole of an ideology.

I don’t fear being colored by the examination of a particular cause by looking at its parts. Pure democracy might prove very authoritarian but allowing someone choice and casting a vote is not tyrannical. Collectivism may be bad in some areas yet desirable in others. An enemy’s tactics may be sound even if you disagree on his philosophy and motives.

If you ever believe I except everything someone say because I link to it, you are very much mistaken. It is only the one idea I offer and who said it is immaterial to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Not true. He has a large quantity of published works, just all published by the Austrians.

---

....which means he is unpublished.

His 'contributions' on the role of the state follow the same methodology as his economic 'work', meaning it is nonsense.

The only reason you favour his essay is because he shares your ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....which means he is unpublished.

His 'contributions' on the role of the state follow the same methodology as his economic 'work', meaning it is nonsense.

The only reason you favour his essay is because he shares your ideology.

---

You seem to be very much a closed and narrow minded person HT.

Some people can see both sides of an argument. Some, you, cannot. Your loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

You seem to be very much a closed and narrow minded person HT.

Some people can see both sides of an argument. Some, you, cannot. Your loss.

---

Relevant linky.

I am perfectly open to all approaches following the scientific method. I discard any approach that does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Relevant linky.

I am perfectly open to all approaches following the scientific method. I discard any approach that does not.

---

LOL more arrogant close-mindedness.

Science for the most part is only theory. A best guess as to how things work. Close-minded intellectuals will hold on to a theory and not examine evidence that would upset their paradigm.

This has been demonstrated many times. Usually only after all the parties concerned are dead will one or two brave souls reexamine what has been rejected do they ever find their error

There are also the arts and the soft sciences. There is a great deal which cannot be proven mathematically. What a narrow world you live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

LOL more arrogant close-mindedness.

Science for the most part is only theory. A best guess as to how things work. Close-minded intellectuals will hold on to a theory and not examine evidence that would upset their paradigm.

This has been demonstrated many times. Usually only after all the parties concerned are dead will one or two brave souls reexamine what has been rejected do they ever find their error

There are also the arts and the soft sciences. There is a great deal which cannot be proven mathematically. What a narrow world you live in.

---

The bolded part is hilarious.

The Austrian school is founded on the principle that they should never even look for evidence supporting their theories, as they believe such evidence do not exist. This is the reason why I disregard their theories. I only pay attention to those who actually seek evidence, preferably seeking a theory after finding evidence and not the other way around.

Just how you managed to get the scientific method to mean only mathematical modelling is beyond me, the only explanation I can find is that you do not really understand what the scientific method actually is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

LOL more arrogant close-mindedness.

Science for the most part is only theory. A best guess as to how things work. Close-minded intellectuals will hold on to a theory and not examine evidence that would upset their paradigm.

This has been demonstrated many times. Usually only after all the parties concerned are dead will one or two brave souls reexamine what has been rejected do they ever find their error

There are also the arts and the soft sciences. There is a great deal which cannot be proven mathematically. What a narrow world you live in.

---

Scientific Method are a set of rules, methodology and analysis which aim to prevent misleading and biased results. It is used in Art, History, Sociology and many of the things you suggest it is not involved in. It concerns itself with things such as primarily and secondary sources (in History), the styles and authenticity in Art, Sociology whilst a 'soft science' follows the method as much as possible for validity in their statements. There are some limitations to its usage, as there is no need for a photographer to explain why his picture is 'good' unless he wanted to analyse it.

So HoreTore is actually discussing is how the Austrian School has no validity or evidence in their arguments and describing it as a jerk-circle of people who agree with each other but have nothing to back it up. He then says this is why they are rarely featured in any economic journals except mentioned in a criticism of their theory with people pointing out the flaws. Almost a cult/self-styled religion/ideology.

The way to counter him would to be to show studies with good methodology and sources.

Here is a quoted brief by what is meant by the Scientific Method.

Quote:

---

- Hypotheses should be falsifiable, that is, they should be presented in such a way that they can be tested. They are more acceptable as explanations to the extent that they survive repeated attempts to prove them false. Hypotheses are not expected to be proven true; they are inferences that simply have not yet been proved false though not through want of trying.

- Observations, including results of experiments, must be reproducible by other researchers.

- Theories and results of experiments must be openly published in sufficient detail to be testable.

- Theories and results of experiments must be free of obvious internal contradictions.

- Must be willing to follow the data where it leads, rather than bending the evidence to fit some preconceived rationale.

- Hypotheses should not include explanations that are unique to a particular event or factors that are not part of observed nature

---

Can I call myself a Kenyian if I support brken skull theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Scientific Method are a set of rules, methodology and analysis which aim to prevent misleading and biased results. It is used in Art, History, Sociology and many of the things you suggest it is not involved in. It concerns itself with things such as primarily and secondary sources (in History), the styles and authenticity in Art, Sociology whilst a 'soft science' follows the method as much as possible for validity in their statements. There are some limitations to its usage, as there is no need for a photographer to explain why his picture is 'good' unless he wanted to analyse it.

So HoreTore is actually discussing is how the Austrian School has no validity or evidence in their arguments and describing it as a jerk-circle of people who agree with each other but have nothing to back it up. He then says this is why they are rarely featured in any economic journals except mentioned in a criticism of their theory with people pointing out the flaws. Almost a cult/self-styled religion/ideology.

The way to counter him would to be to show studies with good methodology and sources.

Here is a quoted brief by what is meant by the Scientific Method.

---

I am perfectly aware of the scientific theory and how it works. I even use it. However, HT is prone to limiting himself with what he believes to be the whole truth and ignoring (refusing to examine) all else.

I have not defended Austrian theory. I have not looked into it. It is a red herring in this argument.

Concepts are much more difficult to cite studies or experimental data for. How does one scientifically quantify philosophy or a set of ideas.

It was also to challenge that only the consensus of scientific thought can be correct. Clearly it can hold beliefs that are wrong. Ridicule is their weapon of choice.

Examples of rejected theories which later gained acceptance: ulcers caused by bacteria, and not stress, neurogenesis, continental drift, and quark theory, just to name a few.

Would you believe that no currently rejected theories, or future rejected theories will gain wide acceptance?

Just to get back to HT’s assertion that Austrian economics can offer nothing because they don’t predict using the scientific method, therefore it is bunk. I have not looked into but their rejection of a particular tool for a particular reason does not invalidate everything else.

It is an argument akin to refusing to let a mechanic work on your car because he doesn’t use adjustable wrenches. He may have, and does, have valid reasons not to do so but in not understanding the why you would never know what they were.

The ready use of ridicule, to me, appears as a shield hiding ignorance of the specifics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

However, HT is prone to limiting himself with what he believes to be the whole truth and ignoring (refusing to examine) all else.

---

What an extreme, unfounded and ridiculous claim.


Though an extremely common one among conspiracy theorists, zealots and fanatics.

EDIT: Anyway, I have read through Rothbard's essay found here (learn to use text sources instead of videos, ye heretic). It is predictable in its content entirely in line with Austrian economics, and just as unfounded. In essence, it's page after page of "the state is a thief, wa wa wa"-whining. Of course written in Austrian school lingo, with terms like "predator", "taxation is a crime", "parasitic caste" and so.

While most of it is deeply obscurantist he does make some claims one can verify. Like this one:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lolbard

If the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were, in many countries of the West, times of accelerating social power, and a corollary increase in freedom, peace, and material welfare, the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which State power has been catching up?with a consequent reversion to slavery, war, and destruction.[43]

---

So, to take two points, he asserts that the start of the industrial revolution increased the general material welfare and that the 20th century has seen an increase in war.

Unfortunately for him, neither is true.

The start of the industrial revolution saw a marked decline in living standards and life expectancy, as people were bused from relatively good lives in the countryside, to overcrowded cities with enormous problems. It took quite a while for life expectancy to catch up to pre-17th century standards.

Wars, on the other hand, have decreased in the 20th century and are rarer now than they were in the 18th(or whatever) century. See for example Steven Pinker for this(though he deals with crime as well as war). Added to this is the fact that most of the wars of the 20th century have been caused by cleaning up the mess left by Rothbard's 'golden age of increasing freedom', colonization.



But don't let those silly fact-thingies get in the way of ideological blindness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What an extreme, unfounded and ridiculous claim.


Though an extremely common one among conspiracy theorists, zealots and fanatics.

---

Yes it is best to only listen to mainstream, always.

About a hundred years ago there were these two brothers who said they could fly!
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.