Sweden 2012

[Montmorency]

Define fanatic?

They weren't all like Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine.

Most people believed in it, powerfully. It wasn't a pragmatic scheme by the emperors if that's what you were getting at.

I doubt it wasn't at all one. But my point was that the power came before any elaborate justification, and that the subjects did not invent an attribution of divinity to justify their own servitude.

I think we can have large disagreements and productive arguments without people taking a quasi-religious attitude towards their political principles and beliefs.

What if one's political beliefs demand it? Would you say that such beliefs are probably misguided?

Like I said, there are large differences between Romney and Obama.

I thought you said neither are fanatics.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

They weren't all like Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine.

Without those types, it wouldn't have started. The boston mob, the newspaper propagandists, the rabble rousers, the radical ideology that sprung up all over. edit: when one of the loyalists died they followed his funeral procession around town jeering at the family.

Other people joined it once the ball had started rolling.

I doubt it wasn't at all one. But my point was that the power came before any elaborate justification, and that the subjects did not invent an attribution of divinity to justify their own servitude.

Did it? I thought it was more usual for there to be lots of fragmented chiefdoms. And women could often rule based on their being seen as part divine. But I don't know much of this part of history and I'm not sure how we started here.

What if one's political beliefs demand it? Would you say that such beliefs are probably misguided?

How could reasonable political beliefs demand fanatical political beliefs?

I thought you said neither are fanatics.

Yes

[Montmorency]

Other people joined it once the ball had started rolling.

There you go.

Did it? I thought it was more usual for there to be lots of fragmented chiefdoms.

Do we have a means of discovering what prehistoric peoples thought of their leaders? Not necessarily restricted to these, however...

How could reasonable political beliefs demand fanatical political beliefs?

Perhaps one shouldn't compromise over absolute truth. Whether it sounds reasonable or not may turn out to have no bearing on the validity.

The Revolutionary War was totally justified from a self-determination standpoint

Even geographically disparate minorities have a right to self-determination?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In the end it came down to self-determination. Do you support it? I do. And that's why I don't have a problem with the Revolutionary War. Think about what North America would look like if it had never happened. The Louisiana purchase surely would never had happened, the west coast would still belong to the Spanish, or Mexico, and surely the entire continent would have become a battleground between French, British, and Spanish colonial interests. The Revolutionary War was totally justified from a self-determination standpoint, especially when you consider that most of the colonists were here because they had been more or less forced out of the British Isles on religious or political grounds.

Why do you think that? Remember, texas became it's own state by people just moving there--it wasn't an official effort. They went to oregon as well when it was disputed territory. We would most likely have expanded just the same, or more with the backing of the British. I don't think anyone would have seriously been able to challenge us, it was pretty incredible that the British were even able to carry out the naval operations they did in the revolutionary war. Their navy ruled the waves anyway.

Our population would have equalled britain's by like 1850. We were growing much faster than them. He eventually got involved, but Benjamin Franklin thought that revolting was stupid because it was obvious that America would become independent with time.

But all that aside, the real losers were the Native Americans. They would probably have fared much better in the long run had the USA not become independent.

Quite possible.

I mean, I don't know how much good alternate history is, trying to figure out what would have happened etc. But if you look at the people of the time, read what they wrote and what they did, their actions are not respectable. "the ordeal of thomas hutchinson" is a great book on that subject, though the author (bernard bailyn) comes to conclusions more like yours.

Perhaps one shouldn't compromise over absolute truth. Whether it sounds reasonable or not may turn out to have no bearing on the validity.

We compromise over absolute truths every election. Approximately half the country accepts a candidate who they disagree with on what they consider an absolute truth.

I think all people have a right to self-determination and self-governance. According to Sasaki, that would probably be a fanatical position.

We had it to a large degree, and it was inevitable that we'd get more. Demanding it now, and in a pure form, is what's fanatical.