Monarchy anyone?

Apparently most of the US presidents are related to each other by blood. In fact Franklin D. Roosevelt was related to 11 other presidents either directly by blood or by marriage. So does this mean that we live in a monarchy? One family rules the rest of the population. But monarchy is usually associated by one ruler. Monarch. President. Operates just like a mafia. The power is passed down the generations from family to family. Very well structured and has many members.
Monarchs are sometimes called dictators. Does that mean it can be said that we live in a dictatorship? BOOM!

Other mafias/families/governments may try to overthrow them for power. This leads to wars, revolutions, assasinations etc. So right now the most powerful mafia/family/government is the US. THey bully all the others by threatening with their weapons. ANd why wouldnt they, the US spending on military is bigger than all their enemies combined. It is Half of the world's military spending. HOLY SHIT!!! Thats one strong mafia.

Now if you fuckers are going to say what about obama, hes black blah blah blah. Have a look at his family tree. His Motherss side. Stanley Armour Dunham barracks grandfather is related by blood to other 6 presidents. BOOM! Who are they? FUCKING BUSHES. These are the presidentsr James Madison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush and George W Bush. I got this straight out of wikipedia. Was pretty easy.

Bonus point : + Show Spoiler +

americans seem to have a thing for dynasties

I'm related to Bill Chen.

illuminati

Apparently I'm related to that whorish skank eve.

that's bullshit for several reasons.

1) In order to become president of US you need to be rich, you need to be a millionaire. And rich people come out of rich families so there is no surprise that you do not get a new John Random as a new president each selection.

2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to? You are 2 ^ 0 = 1, you have 2 ^ 1 = 2 parents, 2 ^ 2 = 4 grandparents, 2 ^ 3 = 8 grandgrandparents, 16 in the next generation, etc, you get it. Now go back 10 generations you have 2 ^ 10 = 1024 you descend from, now add siblings and marriages, holy shit, that's a lot.

3) Monarchs = Dictators that is crap. I won't put a big argument in here, but a dictator is a guy who is in charge without legitimation. A monarch draws his legitimation from god or other monarchs who elect him.

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: that's bullshit for several reasons. 1) In order to become president of US you need to be rich, you need to be a millionaire. And rich people come out of rich families so there is no surprise that you do not get a new John Random as a new president each selection. 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to? You are 2 ^ 0 = 1, you have 2 ^ 1 = 2 parents, 2 ^ 2 = 4 grandparents, 2 ^ 3 = 8 grandgrandparents, 16 in the next generation, etc, you get it. Now go back 10 generations you have 2 ^ 10 = 1024 you descend from, now add siblings and marriages, holy shit, that's a lot. 3) Monarchs = Dictators that is crap. I won't put a big argument in here, but a dictator is a guy who is in charge without legitimation. A monarch draws his legitimation from god or other monarchs who elect him.

that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least

also it's not just rich people buvt people who grow up in the political circles

how many politicians today went to georgetown university?

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: that's bullshit for several reasons. 1) In order to become president of US you need to be rich, you need to be a millionaire. And rich people come out of rich families so there is no surprise that you do not get a new John Random as a new president each selection.

Do you eralize you are not debunking his "theory", you are confirming it and explaining why...

Baal: I do not think so. OP continues to draw a line to the mafia and monarchy. If you are a king's first son you become automatically a king as well, that happens automatically. And something similar happens in the mafia.
I just was talking about probabilities. If you are rich you have a much higher chance of becoming president than a poor guy.

Steal City: In my opinion dictatorship is illegitimate. But that might be because I am no native speaker. In German "Diktator" is the same as "Tyrann". In English there might be a difference.
There not only has been a shift meaning since Rome, today it means something completely different in my opinion.

However, I won't get into long discussions in here because i am not into sociology or history.

On September 14 2009 04:31 Royal_Rumble wrote: Baal: I do not think so. OP continues to draw a line to the mafia and monarchy. If you are a king's first son you become automatically a king as well, that happens automatically. And something similar happens in the mafia. I just was talking about probabilities. If you are rich you have a much higher chance of becoming president than a poor guy. Steal City: In my opinion dictatorship is illegitimate. But that might be because I am no native speaker. In German "Diktator" is the same as "Tyrann". In English there might be a difference. There not only has been a shift meaning since Rome, today it means something completely different in my opinion. However, I won't get into long discussions in here because i am not into sociology or history.

Well nobody said it was exactly like middle age monarchy, its modern monarchy, where the direct son doesnt get it... oh wait... Bush family LOL, anyway, its about keeping the power in the same families, the same millionares have the power and only pass it among them so they can protect their own interests, if an stranger takes power who knows if he will fuck em up, so they better just keep the status quo as it is.

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to?

pretty much entirely this.

You cannot have Monarchy and Democracy at the same time. As a State Institution, Monarchy is actually superior to Democracy. Our congress, President, and Senators are only custodians and have no ownership, thus no incentive other than to maximize while they are in office (short term vs long term, legacy, etc.), while Monarchs have an incentive to increase the value of their kingdom, precisely because they have ownership and because no one wants to pass to their children a bankrupt kingdom. It goes even deeper, but I'm watching the Bills game so my focus isn't exactly on explaining this further in depth.

How does that make a monarchy superior?

"total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life.

On September 14 2009 18:30 Aegraen wrote: You cannot have Monarchy and Democracy at the same time. As a State Institution, Monarchy is actually superior to Democracy. Our congress, President, and Senators are only custodians and have no ownership, thus no incentive other than to maximize while they are in office (short term vs long term, legacy, etc.), while Monarchs have an incentive to increase the value of their kingdom, precisely because they have ownership and because no one wants to pass to their children a bankrupt kingdom. It goes even deeper, but I'm watching the Bills game so my focus isn't exactly on explaining this further in depth.

the thing is, what do they own or maximize? wealth, lands and personal belongings and maybe territorial extension of the kingdom... those things things we dont want them to look after, the monarchy never gave a flying fuck about the people (neither current governments sadly), they didnt give as heritage a well fed and educated population... no they left wealth, power and lands to their children.

The only upside of monarchy is the same a dictaroship has, absolute power can be very benfical (or detrimental) for a country depending of the goodness of the person in power, but while it can be really good, its just simply too dangerous to have such a thing, and not worth the risk.

On September 14 2009 09:14 Sicks Macks wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to? pretty much entirely this.

/thread

I'm related to 4 Presidents by blood, does that mean I got a shot of running for President when I get old and sell my soul to the devil?

On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life.

Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing.

Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression.

I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth.

On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth.

The thing is that kingdom wealth is not neccesarely in the best interest of everyone since its rounded up, what if you have a great GDP but you have a lot of slaves?... thats why standard of living must be the focus and not raw profits that can go in an unfair system to the top only.

I agree that democracy is very flawed, i also agree that monarchy can be really good with an exeptional king, but that is a hard thing to happen since its very rare to find somebody who wont be corrupted by greed and power.

On September 14 2009 20:04 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote:   On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth. The thing is that kingdom wealth is not neccesarely in the best interest of everyone since its rounded up, what if you have a great GDP but you have a lot of slaves?... thats why standard of living must be the focus and not raw profits that can go in an unfair system to the top only. I agree that democracy is very flawed, i also agree that monarchy can be really good with an exeptional king, but that is a hard thing to happen since its very rare to find somebody who wont be corrupted by greed and power.

Slavery is economically inferior, so no Monarch in today's age would ever use such a system. You have to feed, cloth, and provide for them healthcare where as with a Machine all you need is fuel and someone to do maintenance / run the machine. It is important to use economic realities in your arguements. Not only that, slavery is used for hard labor and anything that takes education (Such as every modern Economy) would falter if slavery was introduced. This is why pretty much all slavery was phased on during and after the Industrial Revolution, because it is not economically feasible. Morally, it is an abomination and rapes Natural Law.

Remember, the arguement here is which is better Monarchy or Democracy. If I had a gun to my head and had to choose, it wouldn't be a hard choice at all; Monarchy.

Text:
Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Democracy: The God That Failed
http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp

Audio:
http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3923


Remember, it's much easier to overthrow one person, than it is to overthrow the majority. The majority have little fear. The Monarch has much to fear.

im related to Houdini

On September 14 2009 03:08 Royal_Rumble wrote: 2) Do you realize to how many people you are related to?

So you're saying its accidental that most of the presidents are directly related to each other by blood? (plus being rich) In the world of billlions of people, i dont think so. Even if you go up to 20 000 that is still a very tiny number.

-----------------------------
I have another question. Anarchy, does anyone have any good videos to watch documentaries about it or how it works. Cos I have heard that anarchy is good but feel like throughout the school I have been brainwashed to think that it sucks. Got any links I can educate myself on?

Another topic is JFK assasination. I have seen lines drawn that JFK assasination was linked to government overthrowing. JFK was not part of the ruling "family" at teh time, so he was killed, along with most of his family. So thats like mafia wars. But Id like to know more on that topic.

On September 14 2009 20:26 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 20:04 Baal wrote:   On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote:   On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth. The thing is that kingdom wealth is not neccesarely in the best interest of everyone since its rounded up, what if you have a great GDP but you have a lot of slaves?... thats why standard of living must be the focus and not raw profits that can go in an unfair system to the top only. I agree that democracy is very flawed, i also agree that monarchy can be really good with an exeptional king, but that is a hard thing to happen since its very rare to find somebody who wont be corrupted by greed and power. Slavery is economically inferior, so no Monarch in today's age would ever use such a system. You have to feed, cloth, and provide for them healthcare where as with a Machine all you need is fuel and someone to do maintenance / run the machine. It is important to use economic realities in your arguements. Not only that, slavery is used for hard labor and anything that takes education (Such as every modern Economy) would falter if slavery was introduced. This is why pretty much all slavery was phased on during and after the Industrial Revolution, because it is not economically feasible. Morally, it is an abomination and rapes Natural Law. Remember, the arguement here is which is better Monarchy or Democracy. If I had a gun to my head and had to choose, it wouldn't be a hard choice at all; Monarchy. Text: Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Democracy: The God That Failed http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp Audio: http://mises.org/Controls/Media/MediaPlayer.aspx?Id=3923 Remember, it's much easier to overthrow one person, than it is to overthrow the majority. The majority have little fear. The Monarch has much to fear.

But on the current age is very hard to overthrow anything and what monarchs in history were just and cared about the people, very very few the overwhelming majority were cruel tyrants that werent even aware of their own wickedness.

Also the problem with democracy is not that the majority rules, but that the majority are retards and easily manipulated by the evil democratic government, well educated people wouldnt do that mistake

The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors.

On September 14 2009 22:12 Narious wrote: The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors.

well even if they are, that such an enormous power wont corrupt them, its almost an impossible thing.

I got this straight out of wikipedia.

Stopped reading! Too bad it was too late!

On September 14 2009 22:23 SfydjkLm wrote: Show nested quote + I got this straight out of wikipedia. Stopped reading! Too bad it was too late!

i know wikipedia sucks. But for such simple info as ancestry i dont think it can be that bad.

On September 14 2009 22:13 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 22:12 Narious wrote: The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors. well even if they are, that such an enormous power wont corrupt them, its almost an impossible thing.

Hobbes assertion would be it doesn't really matter. The monarch serves his own self interest. Since his interest lies in maintaining order and stability while growing his wealth and prosperity (Which can only be done by growing that of his empire) by following his self interest rationally and effectively the self interest of the populace is served. This actually makes a lot of sense right up untill the point you relize few people have the ability to relize how to serve there long term intererests best let alone the intellect and discipline to act on it. I assert the problem lies not in corruption but in a lack of intellect, reason, and patience.

On September 14 2009 22:46 Narious wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 22:13 Baal wrote:   On September 14 2009 22:12 Narious wrote: The failing of Thomas Hobbes argument is that it requires the assumption be made that people, at least, monarchs, are inherently rational and reasonably intellegent or at least willing to listen to intellegent advisors. well even if they are, that such an enormous power wont corrupt them, its almost an impossible thing. Hobbes assertion would be it doesn't really matter. The monarch serves his own self interest. Since his interest lies in maintaining order and stability while growing his wealth and prosperity (Which can only be done by growing that of his empire) by following his self interest rationally and effectively the self interest of the populace is served. This actually makes a lot of sense right up untill the point you relize few people have the ability to relize how to serve there long term intererests best let alone the intellect and discipline to act on it. I assert the problem lies not in corruption but in a lack of intellect, reason, and patience.

yes this is also a strong point, incompetence, usually democracy should choose a competent leader but well, didnt Bush Jr were president of USA?.

Also our main disagreement here is that i dont think the interests of the monarchy are directly the same as the people's interest, like the monarchy wants their own wealth and they over-taxate and other ridiculous stuff, also its not just incompetence that leads to a bad kingdom, its people who are not that concerned of their heritage, and will rake the max they can for themselves and mostly their children but not for 10 generations after.

Theres a Churchill quote I can't find but its pretty funny with respect to democracy. Something along the lines of "the greatest problem with democracy is the incompetent people who get to vote"

"Gentlemen, we have run out of money. Now we have to think." Saw this quote while I was trying to find the exact wording of the other one, thought it was funny.

It is difficult to imagine what a perfect system of government would look like. Democracy isn't perfect but it seems to be the best thing we've tried so far. It also works better in countries that have more than just two diametrically opposed parties. An example would be that Canada currently has 4 major parties and a 5th emerging. A good portion of the time there is a minority government and people are forced to work together to get things done. Monarchy has its incentives, but it has plenty of downsides just as Democracy does. There will probably never be a perfect form of government but there are certainly plenty of people working on trying to make what we use better.

One option with democracy might be to allow people to participate in extensive education about the current political issues facing the nation in the months leading up to an election. As a result of taking the time to educate yourself on the important issues your vote is worth more maybe counts as two, three, four who knows. Not really a well thought out thing to add to the democracy we already have but it's kind of a neat idea to toss around. It's not exclusive in that its available to everyone and it would allow those who were more educated about political issues to have their vote count for more.

Another thing you might add is that in order to be allowed to vote you have to take a non-biased online/phone questionnaire and get 100% of the questions correct. The questions would be about the current issues facing the country and each parties stance toward those issues. You are allowed to take the questionnaire as many times as you want and it tells you which ones you got wrong. It kind of forces people to know exactly what each party represents before being allowed to vote without excluding anyone from voting except those who are too lazy to educate themselves about the issues.

On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth.

since when is it in a monarch's best interest to protect all of our rights and freedoms?

I fail to see how Celtic Ireland is a historical example of Anarchy(or -ism or w/e).

On September 14 2009 03:24 Steal City wrote: that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least

in ancient greece when the title tyrant was created they were also legally appointed and it was considered a title of great honour, basically "you are the person in our society most capable of keeping us safe"

it just turned into a bad thing because tyrants started burning people alive in giant hollow metal animals and stuff like that.

god save the queen!

what the hell aegraen are you for real

europe during the age of monarchy was a shithole with constant wars and horrible standard of living for a vast majority of the population
while the standard of living can be attributed to it having been a different time and age - it wouldn't have been any better in a democracy, the constant wars could be (should be) directly attributed to the fact that the people had no say.

Every human... no wait, EVERY EXISTING ORGANISM ON EARTH...

Is your cousin.

Yes, when you took a shower this morning (those of you who do not play WoW) you killed trillions of your bacterial relatives.

Fifty thousand years ago, all your ancestors lived in Africa. As it turns out, we ALL have a birth certificate from Kenya.

On September 14 2009 22:23 SfydjkLm wrote: Show nested quote + I got this straight out of wikipedia. Stopped reading! Too bad it was too late!

Ah, the Wikipedia fallacy. "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", or "You quoted Wikipedia so I get to ignore the content of your argument."

Obama got millions of bros

On September 15 2009 13:53 vltava wrote: Every human... no wait, EVERY EXISTING ORGANISM ON EARTH... Is your cousin. Yes, when you took a shower this morning (those of you who do not play WoW) you killed trillions of your bacterial relatives. Fifty thousand years ago, all your ancestors lived in Africa. As it turns out, we ALL have a birth certificate from Kenya.

50thousand?

more like 200-400k

The time of the diaspora is in dispute, but it's not as long ago as 200k.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070011185812data_trunc_sys.shtml

On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 03:24 Steal City wrote: that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least in ancient greece when the title tyrant was created they were also legally appointed and it was considered a title of great honour, basically "you are the person in our society most capable of keeping us safe" it just turned into a bad thing because tyrants started burning people alive in giant hollow metal animals and stuff like that.

i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy.

On September 15 2009 04:35 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 14 2009 19:54 Aegraen wrote:   On September 14 2009 19:29 asdf2000 wrote: How does that make a monarchy superior? "total value" is not a primary concern of the general public. I have to think they are more concerned with quality of life. Really? The more production, the more wealth, the more commerce of a Nation the wealthier the Monarch is. Remember, Monarchy is not Fuedalism. You started with a dubious premise in the first place. Total value, or GDP is a corollary of quality of life. The better economic situation of a country the higher standards of living are. The bi-product of this, is that the Monarch in return is far wealthier. Think of this. What would be the relative wealth of a Monarch if he ruled with scrupulous economic tyranny such as if he ruled North Korea? Now, imagine if a Monarch ruled the United States? Who is wealthier? Who has a better standard of living? Another interesting issue of Monarchy is that it is not in the best interest of the Monarch to plunder his own wealth by starting needless wars. This is why Monarch's throughout history have tended towards alliances and fretted warfare, because it drains their coffers for no gain. What do weapons, put back in the economy? Nothing. Democracy is merely the rule of the majority. I'm quite curious where we got the notion that the majority know what is best? If you want examples of how the majority are destructive you have to look no further than the Iraq War. The majority were in favor at the time, so the Politicians wanted to get re-elected, and nation build so what did we do? There are even more disastrous tyrannous atrocities by Democracy. One such example is the War of Northern Aggression. I just posited that Monarchy is preferable over Democracy and Anarchy is preferable over both. If you want a look at the success of Anarchy look no further than Celtic Ireland which lasted 1000 years. It was the beacon of culture, scholarly, and liberty for a thousand years. Do not get entrenched with the Hobbesian Myth. since when is it in a monarch's best interest to protect all of our rights and freedoms?

Since when does any Government do this? There has never been such a Government and never will be. This is why if you truly believe in Liberty then you cannot be for a State. You must be a nonarchist (Posited by Rothbard, or in other words an Anarcho-Capitalist). So, knowing this, then your choices boil down to one of Economics. This is where Monarchy excels over Democracy. You can also posit, that because a Monarch is alone in his decisions, that the burden falls on himself, therefore decisions that are derisive and work against the people will lose the support. Ultimately this loss of support means the end of the Monarchy (French Revo, Russian Revo, etc.). This is in his self-interest to not unduly and incrediously lose the support of his people. Even then, in the end whether incrementaly or not you end up having much less Liberty eventually.

I should ask this, since when has Democracy not raped your Liberty? (Remember, Freedom and Liberty are not the same. We are all naturally free to do as we please, unless we do not have the power to do so (Born with defects, etc.). Freedom merely means the act of consciousness. Liberty is what Classical Liberalism and Anarcho-Capitalism is all about, and what every person should seek.)

On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On September 14 2009 03:24 Steal City wrote: that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least in ancient greece when the title tyrant was created they were also legally appointed and it was considered a title of great honour, basically "you are the person in our society most capable of keeping us safe" it just turned into a bad thing because tyrants started burning people alive in giant hollow metal animals and stuff like that. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy.

umm this is not correct,the title tyrrant didn't have a good or bad ethical meaning,it just meant someone who had obtained power through unconventional means, men in power that were not aristocrats. The bad meaning came much later (I've never seen something about hollow animals or something like that O_o)

On September 15 2009 13:06 Liquid`Drone wrote: what the hell aegraen are you for real europe during the age of monarchy was a shithole with constant wars and horrible standard of living for a vast majority of the population while the standard of living can be attributed to it having been a different time and age - it wouldn't have been any better in a democracy, the constant wars could be (should be) directly attributed to the fact that the people had no say.

And today this is any different? We have had more wars under Democracy in such short periods than Monarchy. Let me give you historical examples in the past one hundred and 50 years based SOLELY on the US.

Mexican War
Spanish War
Native American Wars (These were many)
WWI
WWII
War of Southern Independance
Vietnam War
Korean War
Iraq War
Afghanistan War
Granada

Now, you add in the CIA and it balloons to a massive amount of covert warfare. Bolivia, Chile, Iran, etc.

Now, if you can find me one example of a Monarchy who fought more wars within any 300 year period then I will educate myself further. Secondly, not all Monarchies existed in the Dark Ages. There were many even up until the 1800s and even some until the 1900s (Austria-Hungary for one).

Yes, Fuedalism creates a horrible standard of living, but Fuedalism is not Monarchy. Seperate the political institution from the economic institution (Even though they are connected, they are not one and the same). Mercantilism is one of the worst Economic Philosophies also, and one that is still widely practiced...

PS. We have no say in what Wars are fought today. Even though the majority are now against both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars we are still there and even increasing our presence in Afghanistan. Secondly, we are waging secret wars using the CIA, which we don't even know the full extent of.

On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On September 14 2009 03:24 Steal City wrote: that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least in ancient greece when the title tyrant was created they were also legally appointed and it was considered a title of great honour, basically "you are the person in our society most capable of keeping us safe" it just turned into a bad thing because tyrants started burning people alive in giant hollow metal animals and stuff like that. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy.

Monarchs are not appointed, and Monarchs pass their kingdoms down the family line. Greek Tyrants did not, and thus do not have the same self-interests. I'm not even sure why we are arguing what is worse than what, they are all abhorrent. Let us instead look at the past on our failures and move forward with better ideas founded on the backs of human history, philosophy, and economic philosophy/theory.

On September 15 2009 18:32 Aegraen wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote:   On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On September 14 2009 03:24 Steal City wrote: that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least in ancient greece when the title tyrant was created they were also legally appointed and it was considered a title of great honour, basically "you are the person in our society most capable of keeping us safe" it just turned into a bad thing because tyrants started burning people alive in giant hollow metal animals and stuff like that. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy. Monarchs are not appointed, and Monarchs pass their kingdoms down the family line. Greek Tyrants did not, and thus do not have the same self-interests. I'm not even sure why we are arguing what is worse than what, they are all abhorrent. Let us instead look at the past on our failures and move forward with better ideas founded on the backs of human history, philosophy, and economic philosophy/theory.

actually, greek tyrants attempted to pass their positions down their family lines, and this was often a significant reason for their downfall.. probably the most notable greek tyrants, Cypselus and Peisistratos (and these were "successes" - in many ways you can probably claim they both improved life for most of the inhabitants of their respective polises), were both succeeded by their sons. Cypselus' son was Periander - whom was later on used by aristotele as an example of the model "cruel tyrant".. Peisistratos' was followed by his sons Hippias and Hipparchus - and they initially tried to rule much like their father, but eventually paranoia of losing their power drove them into cruelty which eventually led to the murder of Hipparchus and the abolition of tyranny in athens (which instead led to the rise of democracy. )

most greek polises during that time were ruled either by an aristocracy (or monarchy), which sometimes became so bad that the lower ranks of the population appointed tyrants to solve the abuse they faced, these tyrants in turn tended to become as bad as what they had been put in place to fight off in the timespan of one or two generations..

I can see how your american background skewers your perception here, for several reasons
firstly usa is significantly less democratic than most western-european countries (money buys far more power and influence in usa than in europe, and your presidential elections and campaigns are likewise dictated by lobbies and money to a far greater degree than what is the case for europe. not that this is not a problem here, but there is something fundamentally wrong when a presidential election is greatly influenced based on the fund-raising of the candidates - which is obviously the case or it would not get as much attention.)

secondly because usa has never been a monarchy.
western europe has since the emergence of large-scale and developed democracy had one war. granted, this was a major one - but it was started by a dictatorship which allied with other dictatorships. (even if this dictatorship was initially semi-democratically elected)

post-WW2 and the emergence of democracy in all western european countries (with the exception of spain and portugal, which took a little longer), no western european country has been in war with another western european country.. there have been imperialistic wars waged by western countries since - most of them started by the usa, but also some started by great britain or france, largely to maintain some form of colonial pride or power / unwillingness to accept that their colonial period had ended.
but you need to realize how big of a difference this is compared to the previous state.. Europe was, from 1300 to 1814, pretty much in a state of perpetual war with occasional pauses caused by a balance of power. every time a monarch perceived an advantage above a neighbour or strategic opponent (for example with regards to colonies), they would wage war and the population would suffer.. ever since democracy has been installed, inter-democracy wars have virtually been absent.. you can't choose to interpret this in any other way than "democracy is better for peace than monarcy"..

democracy certainly has many notable flaws but so far the world has never seen a more stable form of government which wages less wars. if you compare usa with all their might and power today (or for the past 50 years) with monarchies of similar power, you will see that usa is considerably more peaceful. if you choose to compare the period in western europe the past 50 years with say, the period between 1814 and 1864, which with regards to western europe was a very peaceful period even if it was pre-democracy, you will also notice that this period had a much larger degree of imperialism and warfaring outside europe.

On September 15 2009 18:28 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On September 15 2009 17:49 Baal wrote:   On September 15 2009 10:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:   On September 14 2009 03:24 Steal City wrote: that's ironic, i think u mean a tyrant. Dictator only has a bad connotation these days. In ancient Rome where hte tittle was created, it was a thing of great honor and people were legally appointed... at first at least in ancient greece when the title tyrant was created they were also legally appointed and it was considered a title of great honour, basically "you are the person in our society most capable of keeping us safe" it just turned into a bad thing because tyrants started burning people alive in giant hollow metal animals and stuff like that. i didnt know this haha... this pretty much explains why monarchy is doomed to fail even worse than democracy. umm this is not correct,the title tyrrant didn't have a good or bad ethical meaning,it just meant someone who had obtained power through unconventional means, men in power that were not aristocrats. The bad meaning came much later (I've never seen something about hollow animals or something like that O_o)

ya actually my post was phrased wrongly in one area. they were _not_ legally appointed (but note that this was in a time period where discussing the legality of anything is optimistic at best, as laws were not even codified everywhere - and the laws that were codified would have been regarded as tyrranical by our standards today ) - but they did have the support of the majority of the population.
burning people alive in hollow animals was an example of how tyrants eventually got their bad reputation because you had one tyrant, cant remember his name, whom enjoyed torturing people that way.

http://www.blip.tv/file/2599144/

thats why I study computer science

Hi

moi

oui oui oui Je suis empereur

Lmao what dumb count made this post

Intelligent to me lol