Pants-of-dog wrote:This is true. You have not made a comparison. You just asked a bunch of leading questions.
You are correct, I am assuming how the comparison will turn out based on your answers to the questions I asked, which you failed to answer. So lets try this again.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Victoribus Spolia wrote:
1. Yeah, so what? How long did the oldest monarchy last and how long as the current running "democracy" lasted thus far?
You seem to be arguing that monarchies last longer and that this is due to the “fact” that monarchs look at long-term prosperity. If that is what you are arguing, please present evidence for this claim. Thank you.
These are questions, made in the interrogative mood, they are not in the declarative mood and are therefore not arguments to be addressed, but questions to be answered. Your assumptions and assertions in response are irrelevant.
Answer the question as asked, unless you are unable.
Pants-of-dog wrote:2. What was the tax-rate imposed by the Monarchy on the American colonialists (which was "oppressive" enough to lead to revolution) compared to the tax rate that Americans pay now?
You seem to be arguing that monarchies tax less, and that this means monarchies are better at something vague. If that is what you are arguing, please present evidence for this claim. Thank you. Also, the problem was taxation without representation, not high taxes.
These are questions, made in the interrogative mood, they are not in the declarative mood and are therefore not arguments to be addressed, but questions to be answered. Your assumptions and assertions in response are irrelevant.
Answer the question as asked, unless you are unable.
ALSO, they didn't have represenation for around 150 years prior to these events, so why did they wait to rebel into the 1770s?
Notice: this is also a question.
Pants-of-dog wrote:3. What were the levels of national debt and deficit under the monarchies in comparison to their democratic equivalents today?
You seem to be arguing that monarchies have less debt and deficit, and that this means monarchies are better at something vague. If that is what you are arguing, please present evidence for this claim. Thank you.
These are questions, made in the interrogative mood, they are not in the declarative mood and are therefore not arguments to be addressed, but questions to be answered. Your assumptions and assertions in response are irrelevant.
Answer the question as asked, unless you are unable.
Pants-of-dog wrote:4. Also, has the rate of internal regime change been higher or lower in democratic or monarchal states?
Please define “internal regime change”. If that means that another political party gets into power, this is actually a plus for the democracies, since it means that democracare more responsive to the needs of the populace.
These are questions, made in the interrogative mood, they are not in the declarative mood and are therefore not arguments to be addressed, but questions to be answered. Your assumptions and assertions in response are irrelevant.
Answer the question as asked, unless you are unable.
The answer to your clarification question: When I speak of internal regime change, I am referring to a violent change of actual regime or administration, or a preventing of a rightful party-take-over, that circumvents the electoral process, whether by coup, rigging the election directly, rebellion, revolution, or junta., etc. The monarchal equivalent would be a violent overthrow of the monarch to either establish a new one or new form of government. By internal, I only mean that this was not directly implemented by a conquering force. I am not speaking of an elected change via partisan politics.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, rights limit government.
The first amendment says that the government has no right to limit freedom of religion or speech. It specifically mentions Congress.
The reason these rights are recongnized in the constitution is because they are viewed as inalienable and endowed by God. The government is only self-limiting in the sense that it recongizes that these rights exist and cannot be alienated by anyone, including the body politik.
These are how
rights are defined in the U.S. Constitution. The bill of rights limits government only in the sense of recognizing what these rights ARE as previously defined.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, pigs do get eaten, so the right supposedly protecting them from other people does not exist.
WTF? Who said pigs didn't get eaten? The utilitarians of the Left in recent years, such as Peter Singer, have argued that animal rights do exist and that such rights even extend to the notion that such should not be eaten. My point in bringing this up, is that the limiting of government is a desired political consequence of rights. Thus, ethicists like Peter Singer BEGIN by establishing that such rights first exist and are required to be-believed-in, and THEN seek to reform govenment policty to recongnize these rights. Rights do not originate in government, they originate in moral philosophy. The U.S. constitution was based on Natural law theory specifically, natural law theory was not based on the U.S. constitution. Thats the point, you have it backwards.
Rights are what is believed to be inherent or inalienable, whether a government recongnizes such and attempts to restrain itself in regards to such does not validate or invalidate their actual validity. That is, whether you have a right to life is not affected by the government's opinion on the matter, if the right is inalienable, no government can take it away even if they want too.
Thus, why I say, that the recognition of rights is not a guaranteer of them, social conditions are more important to their being guaranteed.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And if monarchies do not even have this constitution, then they do not even have this limit.
No, monarchies do not have a piece of paper that alleges that such is to be the restraint. Whether people are secure in their rights more or less under monarchy, has little to do with such pieces of paper.
There is much in the U.S. Constitution that is not followed or is interpreted far away from its original meaning. The paper cannot prevent its not being followed.
If a people do not value life, it won't matter if they wrote down somewhere that it should be valued. This is my whole point, rights are retained in correct social conditions moreso than in constitutions, and monarchies exist in certain social conditions that are amiable to such rights.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And if you believe that kings have a divine power to rule, then one is less likely to see any rights as absolute and more likely to believe that they can be sacrificed for the ruler.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, the government empowers the people who make the regulations, but legislators and politicians do not make the regulations. Thank you for providing evidence that supports what i said.
Except the language quoted from the source contradicts your claim directly.
Note: a recommendation or suggestion by a panel of experts is not a regulation.Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, the Cato Institute is a right wing libertarian think tank that supports small or minimal government. So, it stands to reason that the people who compiled the list already took your criticisms into account. This thing where you assume that they are all progressives who hate personal liberty seems like a logical fallacy.
1. I am not a libertarian, so this is irrelevant.
2. Since I never critiqued the argument as being progressive in origin, you are guilty of the fallacy of presumption.
3. I specifically critiqued the criteria of determining freedom. You have not addressed this.
Pants-of-dog wrote:What exactly is the claim for which I am supposed to provide evidence?
That racist speech infringes upon the rights of others. Please demonstrate that this is true using evidence.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. When a white guys complains about how not being racist and sexist is a limit on everyone’s freedom, it is a classic example of generalising from his own experience, and clearly ignores the experience of people targeted by racism and sexism.
Please demonstrate how I generalized fomy my own experience, on this specific topic, from purely ancedotal evidence. Otherwise, you are not only guilty, AGAIN, of
the fallacy of presumption, but you are still guilty of
the genetic fallacy, for you are dismissing the claims of another on the basis of his origins, in this case, being white.
Also, I am starting to identify as Black because of my penis size, if you keep referring to me as white and dismissing my arguments, I will have to dismiss yours as being based based on cis-racial privelage and being trans-phobic against transracialists.
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is logically possible for me to be correct about how regulations came about, and for you to be incorrect about which system creates more laws.
Correct. So what?
Pants-of-dog wrote:So we agree that you are not discussing how monarchies actually work, and instead are arguing how an imaginary ideal monarchy would work.
And you think this is somehow logical and correct even though it is wrong when communists do it
I never claimed that its wrong when communists or socialists do it. I think its perfectly reasonable to discuss whether or not socialism or communism could actually work or whether it will work in the future in spite of its historical failings. I believe the same is true for monarchy.
I am just pointing out that you seem to disagree that we ought to discuss political theory and not merely policial history. Which i find perplexing. I also find it amusing that if you think only political history ought to be discussed that you genuinely believed that any political system will come out looking better than monarchy on a comparitive basis.
Pants-of-dog wrote:That is, if the merits of a system were merely evaluated on their historical logevity or the perfection of their rulers, there would be no comparison. Monarchies would be the supreme system.
Please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.
Sure.
The longest reiging democratic state, a federal constitutional republic, the United States of America, is 242 years.
If we state the origins of the English Monarchy began in the Norman Conquest of 1066, it has lasted almost a thousand years already.
If want to talk only about European
dynasties (just to give you a fighting chance, I will exclude monarchal dynasties in places like China); the Hapsburgs ruled in Europe for 645 years from 1273-1918. However, the Holy Roman Empire itself lasted 1,000 years.
if we want to throw in socialist states: The Soviet Union lasted 74 years. It was the longest lasting of all socialist states. The monarchy it replaced had lasted 370 years (if we exclude the Grand Duchy of Moscow).
How about Rome? This is the only place where you might make a case, where the monarchy is only estimated to have existed 250 years before it became a republic which lasted 500 years, but even it was replaced by a monarchal imperial rule which last close to 500 years itself.
Should I keep going?
Pants-of-dog wrote:When you say racist and sexist things, you are actively trying to limit the personal autonomy of others, so your own freedom also infringes upon the ability for individuals to do as one pleases. You seem to have this odd idea that only your rights and freedom matter, and that when you use them to take away the rights and fredoms of others, that this somehow makes more freedom. Again, this is white privilege in action.
I never made this argument, and you need to support this claim with evidence.
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Also, are you claiming that this is a causative relationship?
No.
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this have anything to do with personal liberty?
You had asked how the claim that the pater familias being upheld would guarantee liberties, which is part of the broader claim that social conditions that are anti-egalitarian are facilitators of personal liberty.
The argument and sources given demonstrate that the established doctrine that a man was the cardinal head of his own home and property ( a patriarchal concept) was the grounds for the belief that he had an inherent right to self-defense and gun-ownership as it pertains to the castle doctrine.
Thus, this proves my point that there is a relationship between the pater-familas and the social conditions of liberty.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This does not discuss personal liberty at all.
No, it discusses social conditions which is my argument. Multiculturalism creates social conditions where liberty fails to thrive, and for reasons, you would admit, in a multicultural society free-speech must be sacrificed, is that not your argument? Such conditions do not exist in homogenous societies that facilitate trust, companionship, charity, and community. Liberty thrives in an environment of homogeneity. Hence, in support of the point, you asked me to substantiate that a society that wants liberty will seek ethnocultural homogeneity. Such is facilitated by active monarchies and the nations in which they exist and have substantial power.
Pants-of-dog wrote:And since these things detract from personal liberty, and lack of voting supports these things, it actually contradicts your claim.
False. You just fail to make the proper distinctions under discussion.
You aren't following....shocker.