[Victoribus Spolia]

The complacency I speak of its forgetting how much of a struggle it was to get rights out of absolute monarchs in the first place. The barons managed to get some for themselves through coercion, but it took a revolution, a bloody civil war, and a dictatorship turned sour to make real progress. It was only then the crown was restored subject to conditions. It was only because the ultimatum was possible and given as part of restoring the monarchy that core rights were won. It took a few decades more until Magna Carta was enshrined in statute in 1297.

Do we really want to risk going backwards and then have to do all that again? seems crazy to me.

Your assuming that acquiring rights, and rights acquired, are somehow morally good. That is, your critique of a renewed monarchal absolutism is premised on the assumption that such an absolutism was immoral to begin with (since you assert the acquisition of rights as an "achievement" in the first place).

How is this not a redundant circularity in argument: "I Affirm That Renewing Absolutism is Wrong, Because I Know Absolutism is Wrong?"

Perhaps I am not understanding your point, but it seems crazy to me for you to criticize people who want a to get rid of rights in order to acquire an absolute monarch, by saying that "Well if you did that, you would be giving up the rights we worked so hard to get from absolute monarchs."

[Pants-of-dog]

I would say the notion of a hereditary monarchy has inherent self-limiting characteristics that are more concrete than, lets say, the public remaining loyal to a firm interpretation of a constitution (piece of paper). Such a "public belief" is really quite flimsy as a "safety valve" for preventing democracy from evolving into tyranny.

Can you give an example of these “inherent self-limiting characteristics“?

This assumes that Republicanism is an advancement over monarchy, which would be a point of contention.

Most people like to have human rights and civil rights.

Do you like your rights? If so, why are you proposing a system where you would not have them?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Can you give an example of these “inherent self-limiting characteristics“?

The desire to perpetuate patrilineal descent is incredibly limiting.

The desire to keep the "nation in the family." Prevents a monarch from just doing whatever he likes.

For instance,

I. In General, If you are trying to keep the land in the family and the family in a prosperous state of power, it is in the interest of the Monarch to (1) guarantee good marriages in the family and the securing of male heirs, (2) that the people are well disposed to the monarch as to prevent rebellions or the rise of rival families so as to secure continued rule, and (3) that the economy is well maintained so that wealth and security are preserved for one's own family and because of (2).

This "rationale" also explain why people tend to take better care of their homes if they own them, than apartments they rent that merely belong to someone else. Given that most of my contracting work was property management and remodeling, I saw this first hand.

II. The social values and conditions that would tend to perpetuate loyalist attitudes, are also of interest to a monarchy. A Christianity that elevates tradition, family values, and obedience to rulers (all which i posit as morally good), are usually protected and advanced by Monarchies.

Most people like to have human rights and civil rights.

Do you like your rights? If so, why are you proposing a system where you would not have them?

Depends on how you define such, one concern of the American founders was that if "rights" were defined into a bill of rights, that it would convey the idea that government had authority over all areas of one's life EXCEPT that which was codified into a bill of rights (thus, they felt that the defining of rights could be the greatest basis for their infrigement). Despite their best attempts to prevent against such a conception in the Constitution, it has come to prevail nonetheles.

My only point in that example is this: that codifying "rights" does not ensure their preservation," Indeed, many "rights" are really legal concepts without much social bearing anymore (free-speech for example).

Thus, the best determiner of legitimate rights is not so much their codification, but the social conditions in which they are acknowledged to exist. For this reason, living under a Monarchy can often be a more "libertarian" experience than living in a democracy (for reasons we have discussed much on this thread), for the conditions for a Pater Familias conception of the family is not only legally acknowledged but also practically and socially important. In contrast, "free speech" is legally protected, but is not strongly valued socially anymore, as people feel the need to censure each other and seek punishment for people (in non-legal ways) for expressing ideas they oppose.

Thus, I do NOT believe "having human and civil rights" in such a codified manner as anti-monarchal societies have purported to enshrine, increases the benefits allegedly resulting from having such.

I tend to believe, that given the interests of a hereditary ruling family, I will not only be freer but that the society will be healthier overall, all because of monarchal interests in a society.

[Pants-of-dog]

The desire to perpetuate patrilineal descent is incredibly limiting.

The desire to keep the "nation in the family." Prevents a monarch from just doing whatever he likes.

For instance,

I. In General, If you are trying to keep the land in the family and the family in a prosperous state of power, it is in the interest of the Monarch to (1) guarantee good marriages in the family and the securing of male heirs, (2) that the people are well disposed to the monarch as to prevent rebellions or the rise of rival families so as to secure continued rule, and (3) that the economy is well maintained so that wealth and security are preserved for one's own family and because of (2).

This "rationale" also explain why people tend to take better care of their homes if they own them, than apartments they rent that merely belong to someone else. Given that most of my contracting work was property management and remodeling, I saw this first hand.

II. The social values and conditions that would tend to perpetuate loyalist attitudes, are also of interest to a monarchy. A Christianity that elevates tradition, family values, and obedience to rulers (all which i posit as morally good), are usually protected and advanced by Monarchies.

This seems like mere musings, and not an actual argument. Especially the part about families.

All governments wish to avoid revolution. This is not specific to monarchies.

The support of religion to secure your own power base is not a limiting characteristic. It is actually a way to extend your power even further. Even your example of tradition, family values, and obedience to rulers is a limit to the power of the people, giving the crown more power.

As far as I can tell, you gave not mentioned a single limiting characteristic.

Depends on how you define such, one concern of the American founders was that if "rights" were defined into a bill of rights, that it would convey the idea that government had authority over all areas of one's life EXCEPT that which was codified into a bill of rights (thus, they felt that the defining of rights could be the greatest basis for their infrigement). Despite their best attempts to prevent against such a conception in the Constitution, it has come to prevail nonetheless.

No. The current idea is that if it is not mentioned in laws, we can do it.

For example, there is no law about cloth diapers versus disposable diapers, so people choose as they wish.

My only point in that example is this: that codifying "rights" does not ensure their preservation," Indeed, many "rights" are really legal concepts without much social bearing anymore (free-speech for example).

Thus, the best determiner of legitimate rights is not so much their codification, but the social conditions in which they are acknowledged to exist. For this reason, living under a Monarchy can often be a more "libertarian" experience than living in a democracy (for reasons we have discussed much on this thread), for the conditions for a Pater Familias conception of the family is not only legally acknowledged but also practically and socially important. In contrast, "free speech" is legally protected, but is not strongly valued socially anymore, as people feel the need to censure each other and seek punishment for people (in non-legal ways) for expressing ideas they oppose.

Yes, we did discuss this earlier in the thread and we laughed at the idea that people would allow a dictatorship in the form of monarchy because the monarch would not bother with actual regulations that actually protect workers, the environment, and consumers.

The free speech bit seems to just be a complaint that you are no longer allowed to say racist and sexist things without criticism, and seems irrelevant.

Most importantly, there is no reason to think that monarchies are a better social condition for allowing rights to exist. History actually shows the exact opposite.

Thus, I do NOT believe "having human and civil rights" in such a codified manner as anti-monarchal societies have purported to enshrine, increases the benefits allegedly resulting from having such.

I tend to believe, that given the interests of a hereditary ruling family, I will not only be freer but that the society will be healthier overall, all because of monarchal interests in a society.

These are merely your beliefs and do not seem supported by facts or logic.

In fact, Saudi Arabia seems to have less respect for human rights than most democracies, even in the developing world.

[Victoribus Spolia]

All governments wish to avoid revolution. This is not specific to monarchies.

This is not what is meant, but the maintaining of dynastic rule. If an unpopular royal family is deposed that does not necessarily mean that monarchy will end in the nation, but often just means a different family will take the helm. It is in the interest of a particular ruling family to maintain that rule, thus, they must act to not only keep them happy in the short term, but also in the long term.

Let us examine an example from democratic governments, in contrast, a ruling party, with term limits, is not necessarily interested in multi-generational financial solvency as much as it is in an immediately happy populace. Thus, as is often the case, expensive programs, stimulus, etc., are implemented to secure votes, but are rarely done out a look towards perpetual well-being for the nation because they are almost never affordable.

In the united states this results in debt because each party has won by making the people happy in two different ways: Democrats create "welfare" programs and reforms, Conservatives appeal to nostaglia and lower taxes. This creates a debt and deficiet cycle that will inevitable destroy the nation, but neither party will make the hard choices for the nation's well-being.

This is how a monarch is different, generally speaking, party control for the current round of elections is not the end-game, but securing power indefinitely for their particular lineage.

This requires a high approval from the people that must also be balanced by doing what is necessary. The exact opposite of what we see liberal democracies accross the world.

The free speech bit seems to just be a complaint that you are no longer allowed to say racist and sexist things without criticism, and seems irrelevant.

No, i'm merely discussing how the legal protection of rights in a consitution does not guarantee that you have the liberty to practice those rights socially speaking. Thus, to my point, that the values of republicanism and parliamentary rule (legalism) does not guarantee human and civic rights. Rather, as stated, this acutally supports the idea that such rights are best secured by favorable social conditions. I argued that these non-legal social conditions are created by monarchies.

This does not mean libertarianism or anarchy, only that an individual tends to have more autonomy under a monarchy because the monarchy has no vested interest in being unnecessarily intrusive.

No. The current idea is that if it is not mentioned in laws, we can do it.

That is not my point, you are referring to a psychological paradigm influenced by constitutionalism, not the actual development of constitutional systems.

For instance, the framers intended, that beyond the bill of rights and specific amendments to the constitution, TOTAL liberty would be observed beyond state laws that did not conflict with aforementioned amendments.

This, of course, is not the case and the American founders predicted this development. The administrative bureaucracy regarding the management of commerce, food, drugs, arms possession, child care, work requirements, healthcare, enivornmental regulations, etc., are all expansions of laws that limit or qualify the rights laid down in the bill of rights, this is because, these rights tend to be defined downward (minimalized instead of broadened).

That is why we do not see arguments as to ways we can expand free-speech, but are discussing the validity or invalidity of added limitations (hate speech laws), or in regards to gun-laws (banning silencers), or freedom of religion (banning beliefs or practices considered hateful or discriminatory), etc, etc, etc.

The movement of government, based on social conditions, is to limit rights or to qualifiy them, not uphold them as absolute. This is how democratic governments trend because they do not, nor can they, maintain the social conditions that are favorable to liberty. Monarchies do, because this is also in their interest.

This is why, the monarchy preserving the family and the church are not real "total power expansions." Now, of course, they exist to preserve monarchy (I admitted such), but in doing so, they also preserve social elements that guarantee broader liberties in other areas by creating favorable social conditions. The more irreligious a society, the less rights it tends to have, the less patriarchal a society, the less the belief in self-determination tends to exist. The higher rates of female participation of governance, the higher rates of regulation and welfare tend to exist.

Values such as: the dignity of human life via seeing man as a made in the Image of God, seeing a man's home as his castle in order to maintain the rule of the pater-familias, clearly defining citizenship and acceptable identity as to prevent identitarian conflict, restricting the powers of voting or having none at all, are all prima facia expansions of monarchal power, though they also create social conditions that tend to guaranteed broader liberty (which is always a limitation against tyranny).

Thus, I am agreeing with Kuhnheldt-Leiden that by sacrificing equality we are elevating liberty. Because egalitarianism creates social conditions unfavorable to liberty. Monarchy as a hierarchal system must reject equality and thus will prevent it from developing in society as a social condition and will thereby create favorable conditions for a general state of liberty.

Liberty and Equality are opposed.

Most importantly, there is no reason to think that monarchies are a better social condition for allowing rights to exist. History actually shows the exact opposite.

Once, again, this is not true. There were less laws and regulations under monarchy than under current democracies. That is a fact.

You did not deny this claim before, you only argued that it was a mere correlation and the development of regulations and laws under democratic governments had nothing to do the inherent nature of democracy but because of the evidence procured by science, or in response to capitalism, or whatever else you conjured up. All of which, begs the question.

Yes, we did discuss this earlier in the thread and we laughed at the idea that people would allow a dictatorship in the form of monarchy because the monarch would not bother with actual regulations that actually protect workers, the environment, and consumers.

We'll see on that I suppose. I promise i'll get the last laugh.

In fact, Saudi Arabia seems to have less respect for human rights than most democracies, even in the developing world.

I am not including Islamic monarchy, as it originates from a different political theory in Islamic theology. SO I will not defend such.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is not what is meant, but the maintaining of dynastic rule. If an unpopular royal family is deposed that does not necessarily mean that monarchy will end in the nation, but often just means a different family will take the helm. It is in the interest of a particular ruling family to maintain that rule, thus, they must act to not only keep them happy in the short term, but also in the long term.

Let us examine an example from democratic governments, in contrast, a ruling party, with term limits, is not necessarily interested in multi-generational financial solvency as much as it is in an immediately happy populace. Thus, as is often the case, expensive programs, stimulus, etc., are implemented to secure votes, but are rarely done out a look towards perpetual well-being for the nation because they are almost never affordable.

In the united states this results in debt because each party has won by making the people happy in two different ways: Democrats create "welfare" programs and reforms, Conservatives appeal to nostalgia and lower taxes. This creates a debt and deficit cycle that will inevitable destroy the nation, but neither party will make the hard choices for the nation's well-being.

This is how a monarch is different, generally speaking, party control for the current round of elections is not the end-game, but securing power indefinitely for their particular lineage.

This requires a high approval from the people that must also be balanced by doing what is necessary. The exact opposite of what we see liberal democracies accross the world.

First of all, you are still arguing that not wanting to lose power is an inherent limitation of monarchies, even though all governments deal with this. You are merely changing your argument slightly to argue that monarchies do this with a long term view in mind, while democracies do it in a short term view.

Secondly, this long term view is ahistorical. Kings would arbitrarily raise taxes when they needed cash, charge non-coastal counties for navies, arrest nobles, etc. for short term gain.

So as far as i can tell, you have still not mentioned a single inherent limitation to royal power.

No, i'm merely discussing how the legal protection of rights in a consitution does not guarantee that you have the liberty to practice those rights socially speaking. Thus, to my point, that the values of republicanism and parliamentary rule (legalism) does not guarantee human and civic rights. Rather, as stated, this acutally supports the idea that such rights are best secured by favorable social conditions. I argued that these non-legal social conditions are created by monarchies.

Yes. And you failed to support this argument. Instead, you tried very hard to convince me that sill framing is regulated to an excessive degree.

This does not mean libertarianism or anarchy, only that an individual tends to have more autonomy under a monarchy because the monarchy has no vested interest in being unnecessarily intrusive.

This is also ahistorical. Monarchs traditionally used their power to arbitrarily imprison people, take money, seize land, sleep with the wives of other men, ban religions, create new ones, etc.

And allowing people to be racist and sexist actually allows for less autonomy. Please note that the vast majority of people are not white men, so you cannot generalise from your own experience. From the perspective of a person of colour or a woman, a racist and sexist society is less likely to kead to more autonomy.

Though you arguing this is a great example of white privilege (and male privilege) in action.

That is not my point, you are referring to a psychological paradigm influenced by constitutionalism, not the actual development of constitutional systems.

For instance, the framers intended, that beyond the bill of rights and specific amendments to the constitution, TOTAL liberty would be observed beyond state laws that did not conflict with aforementioned amendments.

This, of course, is not the case and the American founders predicted this development. The administrative bureaucracy regarding the management of commerce, food, drugs, arms possession, child care, work requirements, healthcare, enivornmental regulations, etc., are all expansions of laws that limit or qualify the rights laid down in the bill of rights, this is because, these rights tend to be defined downward (minimalized instead of broadened).

That is why we do not see arguments as to ways we can expand free-speech, but are discussing the validity or invalidity of added limitations (hate speech laws), or in regards to gun-laws (banning silencers), or freedom of religion (banning beliefs or practices considered hateful or discriminatory), etc, etc, etc.

The movement of government, based on social conditions, is to limit rights or to qualifiy them, not uphold them as absolute. This is how democratic governments trend because they do not, nor can they, maintain the social conditions that are favorable to liberty. Monarchies do, because this is also in their interest.

I doubt any of this is true, as it sounds like a libertarian conspiracy theory that, as ususal, ignores what regulations are actually used for, and what constitutional rights are actually used for.

But if your argument was correct, you could explain how a regulation actually limits a constitutional right. I tend to use the example of how guardrails on balconies need to be 42” high. How does that limit a right?

Feel free to use another regulation.

You will find this impossible, I assume. This is because rights are there to limit the role of government, while regulations are there to protect laypeople from capitalism. They are two different things.

You are also incorrectly assuming that governments make regulations. They do not. They empower the people who make them, but the people who make them are not legislators or politicians. They are industry stakeholders.

This is why, the monarchy preserving the family and the church are not real "total power expansions." Now, of course, they exist to preserve monarchy (I admitted such), but in doing so, they also preserve social elements that guarantee broader liberties in other areas by creating favorable social conditions. The more irreligious a society, the less rights it tends to have, the less patriarchal a society, the less the belief in self-determination tends to exist. The higher rates of female participation of governance, the higher rates of regulation and welfare tend to exist.

Values such as: the dignity of human life via seeing man as a made in the Image of God, seeing a man's home as his castle in order to maintain the rule of the pater-familias, clearly defining citizenship and acceptable identity as to prevent identitarian conflict, restricting the powers of voting or having none at all, are all prima facia expansions of monarchal power, though they also create social conditions that tend to guaranteed broader liberty (which is always a limitation against tyranny).

Thus, I am agreeing with Kuhnheldt-Leiden that by sacrificing equality we are elevating liberty. Because egalitarianism creates social conditions unfavorable to liberty. Monarchy as a hierarchal system must reject equality and thus will prevent it from developing in society as a social condition and will thereby create favorable conditions for a general state of liberty.

Liberty and Equality are opposed.

Let is look at the first of your verifiable claims here (that you have not supported with any evidence): “The more irreligious a society, the less rights it tends to have”.

Here are the 17 freest countries in the world:

Switzerland
Hong Kong
New Zealand
Ireland
Australia
Finland
Norway
Denmark
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Canada
Austria
Sweden
Estonia
Luxembourg
Germany
United States

Source: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/ ... ndex-2.pdf (see page 11 of 397)

Here are the most religious countries in the world:

The 20 most religious countries

Ethiopia - 99% feel religious
Malawi - 99%
Niger - 99%
Sri Lanka - 99%
Yemen - 99%
Burundi - 98%
Djibouti - 98%
Mauritania - 98%
Somalia - 98%
Afghanistan - 97%
Comoros - 97%
Egypt - 97%
Guinea - 97%
Laos - 97%
Myanmar - 97%
Cambodia - 96%
Cameroon - 96%
Jordan - 96%
Senegal - 96%
Chad - 95% (six other countries - Ghana, Mali, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Zambia - also returned a result of 95%)

And the least religious:

The 20 least religious countries

China - 7% feel religious
Japan - 13%
Estonia - 16%
Sweden - 19%
Norway - 21%
Czech Republic - 23%
Hong Kong - 26%
Netherlands - 26%
Israel - 30%
United Kingdom - 30%
New Zealand - 33%
Australia - 34%
Azerbaijan - 34%
Belarus - 34%
Cuba - 34%
Germany - 34%
Vietnam - 34%
Spain - 37%
Switzerland - 38%
Albania - 39% (three other countries - Austria, Hungary and Luxembourg - also returned a result of 39%)

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps- ... the-world/

Please note that if your argument was correct, there would be a significant number of countries in both of the first two lists. Unfortunately for your argument, the only two lists that share a number of countries are the first list (freest countries) and the last one (least religious countries).

Your claim is clearly incorrect.

Seeing as how your assumptions are probably all incorrect, this argument of yours is wrong as it is based on faulty assumptions.

Feel free to provide evidence for the following claims:

1. the less patriarchal a society, the less the belief in self-determination tends to exist.
2. The higher rates of female participation of governance, the higher rates of regulation and welfare tend to exist.
3. seeing a man's home as his castle in order to maintain the rule of the pater-familias creates social conditions that tend to guarantee broader liberty.
4. clearly defining citizenship and acceptable identity as to prevent identitarian conflict creates social conditions that tend to guarantee broader liberty
5. restricting the powers of voting or having none at all, are all creates social conditions that tend to guaranteed broader liberty (which is always a limitation against tyranny).

It is absurd to claim that taking away voting will lead to more freedom.

Once, again, this is not true. There were less laws and regulations under monarchy than under current democracies. That is a fact.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

You did not deny this claim before, you only argued that it was a mere correlation and the development of regulations and laws under democratic governments had nothing to do the inherent nature of democracy but because of the evidence procured by science, or in response to capitalism, or whatever else you conjured up. All of which, begs the question.

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.

We'll see on that I suppose. I promise i'll get the last laugh.

This does not support your argument in any way.

Your argument is that people will ignore major infringements of their personal freedom because they will no longer have to deal with minor and insignificant infringements.

I hope you understand why this is illogical.

I am not including Islamic monarchy, as it originates from a different political theory in Islamic theology. SO I will not defend such.

You seem to be discussing an imaginary monarchy that does everything perfectly and never does wrong.

Yes, if you compare an unrealistic ideal with a reality, the unrealistic ideal will look better.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Kings would arbitrarily raise taxes when they needed cash, charge non-coastal counties for navies, arrest nobles, etc. for short term gain.

1. Yeah, so what? How long did the oldest monarchy last and how long has the current running "democracy" lasted thus far?

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?

3. What were the levels of national debt and deficit under the monarchies in comparison to their democratic equivalents today?

4. Also, has the rate of internal regime change been higher or lower in democratic or monarchal states?

There is no comparison.

Yes. And you failed to support this argument. Instead, you tried very hard to convince me that sill framing is regulated to an excessive degree.

No, that has nothing to do with what i'm talking about now.

You will find this impossible, I assume. This is because rights are there to limit the role of government, while regulations are there to protect laypeople from capitalism. They are two different things.

Rights are not existent in order to limit a government, that is progressive spin, that they do so is only a consequence of their independent existence. Rights are that which are morally retained by individuals over-and-against other individuals. In the U.S. Constitution, for instance, rights are said to be inalienable and endowed in man by their Creator. For example, does a pig have the right not to be eaten? Some utilitarian thinkers would say so, but that right is not a protection from government, but is a protection from other people and is merely enforced by the government.

This also why rights are more important in the context of social condition than constitutions. If a constitution is a government document and is at the same time a limit to its own power, such will only limit the power as long as government either (1) has the will to enforce its own limitation or (2) the people have the collective will to care whether such limitations exist.

This is also why, irreligion is an issue. If you do not believe that rights are inalienable because of their divine origin, than one is less likely to see any rights as absolute and more likely to believe that they can be sacrificed for the "greater good" or the "collective interest," or so on and so forth.

That my right to say what I wish is now restricted for the sake of others, whether they are minorities or not, is evidence that the right is no longer view as absolute. Rather, the right is viewed as a privelage bestowed by the government in its gracious attempt to self-limit. If there is no God, then rights cannot have a transcendent, absolute, and universal origin.

I will critique your claims on the "free nations" again, even though I did this before.

You are also incorrectly assuming that governments make regulations. They do not. They empower the people who make them, but the people who make them are not legislators or politicians. They are industry stakeholders.

You are wrong about this. For instance, the EPA does make regulations:

Congress passes the laws that govern the United States, but Congress has also authorized EPA and other federal agencies to help put those laws into effect by creating and enforcing regulations.

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ba ... ry-process

Please note that if your argument was correct, there would be a significant number of countries in both of the first two lists. Unfortunately for your argument, the only two lists that share a number of countries are the first list (freest countries) and the last one (least religious countries).

Your claim is clearly incorrect.

Seeing as how your assumptions are probably all incorrect, this argument of yours is wrong as it is based on faulty assumptions.

I had address this exact same argument and source material previously in this thread, and my response remains the same.

The criteria for evaluating freedom is essential to making such a determination. The size and scope of government is obviously, in my opinion, the biggest criteria. These bloated regimes in the west are the most intrusive of all. in most of those nations homeschooling is highly restricted or banned, gun ownership is highly restricted, zoning laws are absolutely oppressive, you cannot start your own business or build your own home without tons of turmol, and speaking your mind on social media about islamic immigration could get you arrested. That is not a free society.

Here is a good litmus test, if I was in trouble for a political assasination in the United States, where could i take my family and be least likely to be caught and extradicted and where I could most likely "disappear" and start over by building my own home, and do generally whatever I please.

It wouldn't be fucking sweden I can tell you that, or basically any of the "free" states on that list. That is just laughable.

Ironically, i'd probably go to one of the shithole countries you are now deriding for being religious and oppressive

And allowing people to be racist and sexist actually allows for less autonomy. Please note that the vast majority of people are not white men, so you cannot generalise from your own experience. From the perspective of a person of colour or a woman, a racist and sexist society is less likely to kead to more autonomy.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Though you arguing this is a great example of white privilege (and male privilege) in action.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

You actually conceded this earlier in the thread. Shall I remind you?

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.

No disagreement.

This does not support your argument in any way.

Never claimed that it did, just responded to an unsubstantiated claim with another.

You seem to be discussing an imaginary monarchy that does everything perfectly and never does wrong.

This is caricature, we are talking about the internal logic of a political theory. Its not like "ideal" socialist regimes are never discussed despite their AWFUL track record which makes the quite shitty record of liberal democracies look half-decent.

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.

However, I am not even making that argument, I am only arguing that monarchies are not of the same genus as modern dictatorships (which seems to be your allegation), and they were far smaller in adminstrative scope than the democracies that followed them. Thats all.

Likewise, I am arguing that equality is adverse to liberty, they are contraries.

Thus, when you discuss "rights" in terms of egalitarianism, please keep in mind that i find such inherently opposed to rights pertaining to individual liberty.

For instance, the de-establishment of religion, which made all religions "equal" before the law, and though having some liberties about it (especially if affixed to the free expression of religion) is still essentially an egalitarian law. Is in my opinion, contrary to true liberty in a nation. I would say this about women's rights, and to some degree a whole host of "equalizing rights."

These rights inherently infringe upon the ability for individuals to do as one pleases, if not immediately, than overtime. You more or less admitted this by your admitting that free-speech actually violates the rights of minorities. This is because a right that fundamentally pertains to liberty is clearly in contradiction to an alleged right to equality. We both agree that we can't have both, but you argue that this only means we need to restrict free-speech because it, supposedly, favors white people in white majority nations; whereas, i argue we need to eliminate the concept of equality that would require us to drop free speech. This also goes to monarchy itself. Monarchy acknowledges a system of heirachal parti-lineal and patriarchal rule for a landed aristorcracy and the Kingly head of state. Such may preserve liberties en masse, but is fundamentally opposed to equality.

Men are not equal, equality is a myth.

1. the less patriarchal a society, the less the belief in self-determination tends to exist.
2. The higher rates of female participation of governance, the higher rates of regulation and welfare tend to exist.
3. seeing a man's home as his castle in order to maintain the rule of the pater-familias creates social conditions that tend to guarantee broader liberty.
4. clearly defining citizenship and acceptable identity as to prevent identitarian conflict creates social conditions that tend to guarantee broader liberty
5. restricting the powers of voting or having none at all, are all creates social conditions that tend to guaranteed broader liberty (which is always a limitation against tyranny).

For #1 and #2.

The relationship between women's suffrage and the growth in government spending, especially on welfare, as well as female voting preferences for progressive policies in comparison to men, is well documented.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2517300948

3. seeing a man's home as his castle in order to maintain the rule of the pater-familias creates social conditions that tend to guarantee broader liberty.

Here is just one example regarding gun laws, the castle doctrine originated from concepts in both Roman Law and the Old Testament and became enshrined in early english common law, under the monarchy, and was an influence later for the United States. Note: these laws existed and thrived in a environment, and had their greatest extent, in nations and under regimes that upheld the doctrine of the pater familias. The decline of that legal concept has corresponded with the decline in the observance of the castle doctrine.

The legal concept of the inviolability of the home has been known in Western civilization since the age of the Roman Republic.[3] In English common law the term is derived from the dictum that "an Englishman's home is his castle" (see Semayne's case). This concept was established as English law by the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke, in his The Institutes of the Laws of England, 1628:[4]

For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge].[4]

English common law came with colonists to the New World, where it has become known as the castle doctrine.[4] The term has been used in England to imply a person's absolute right to exclude anyone from their home, although this has always had restrictions, such as bailiffs having increasing powers of entry since the late-20th century.[5]

According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Old Testament contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#History

4. clearly defining citizenship and acceptable identity as to prevent identitarian conflict creates social conditions that tend to guarantee broader liberty

Homogenous societies tend to be better than heterogenous ones given that they usually produce individuals that are more likely to trust and be trustworthy (both to the percieved in-group and towards strangers) as well as produce more sociable individuals. Numerous studies have shown this.

Homogenous societies correlate strongly with the more peaceful and successful societies in the world but it’s hard to tell how much of it is due to their homogeneity.

Homogenous societies are also some of the societies with the lowest overall crime rates.

In homogenous societies, individuals are more inclined to do volunteer work.

A more homogenous society means everyone will grow up to have the same moral values, and as a consequence they work better as a group.

(this quote is someone else's summary of the data linked below)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12015/full

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abs ... 11/2332107

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9X14001392

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publicat ... 201530.pdf

restricting the powers of voting or having none at all, are all creates social conditions that tend to guaranteed broader liberty (which is always a limitation against tyranny).

Assuming everything else that has been stated, prohibiting the vote merely aims to preserve the conditions that were clearly undermined by democracy, such as patriarchy, ethno-homogeneity, natural heirachy, religious establishmentarianism, etc.

[Pants-of-dog]

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no comparison.

This is true. You have not made a comparison. You just asked a bunch of leading questions.

Rights are not existent in order to limit a government, that is progressive spin, that they do so is only a consequence of their independent existence. Rights are that which are morally retained by individuals over-and-against other individuals. In the U.S. Constitution, for instance, rights are said to be inalienable and endowed in man by their Creator. For example, does a pig have the right not to be eaten? Some utilitarian thinkers would say so, but that right is not a protection from government, but is a protection from other people and is merely enforced by the government.

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. You are once again incorrect. Also, pigs do get eaten, so the right supposedly protecting them from other people does not exist.

This also why rights are more important in the context of social condition than constitutions. If a constitution is a government document and is at the same time a limit to its own power, such will only limit the power as long as government either (1) has the will to enforce its own limitation or (2) the people have the collective will to care whether such limitations exist.

And if monarchies do not even have this constitution, then they do not even have this limit.

Please note that you still have not mentioned a single example of an inherent limitation on monarchies.

This is also why, irreligion is an issue. If you do not believe that rights are inalienable because of their divine origin, than one is less likely to see any rights as absolute and more likely to believe that they can be sacrificed for the "greater good" or the "collective interest," or so on and so forth.

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.

Also, this has already been contradicted by the fact that less religious countries are more free.

Finally, you have not shown how a regulation limits someone’s rights. Again, I invite you to explain how having a 42” guardrail limits your constitutional rights. And if you do not like that regulation, please use another.

That my right to say what I wish is now restricted for the sake of others, whether they are minorities or not, is evidence that the right is no longer view as absolute. Rather, the right is viewed as a privelage bestowed by the government in its gracious attempt to self-limit. If there is no God, then rights cannot have a transcendent, absolute, and universal origin.

I will critique your claims on the "free nations" again, even though I did this before.

This does not, in any way, contradict my point that your racism and sexism actually makes people less free. So, you can talk about how the evil atheist progressives are oppressing you but that does not change the fact that this creates nations that are more supportive of personal autonomy.

You are wrong about this. For instance, the EPA does make regulations:

https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/ba ... ry-process

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.

I had address this exact same argument and source material previously in this thread, and my response remains the same.

The criteria for evaluating freedom is essential to making such a determination. The size and scope of government is obviously, in my opinion, the biggest criteria. These bloated regimes in the west are the most intrusive of all. in most of those nations homeschooling is highly restricted or banned, gun ownership is highly restricted, zoning laws are absolutely oppressive, you cannot start your own business or build your own home without tons of turmol, and speaking your mind on social media about islamic immigration could get you arrested. That is not a free society.

Here is a good litmus test, if I was in trouble for a political assasination in the United States, where could i take my family and be least likely to be caught and extradicted and where I could most likely "disappear" and start over by building my own home, and do generally whatever I please.

It wouldn't be fucking sweden I can tell you that, or basically any of the "free" states on that list. That is just laughable.

Ironically, i'd probably go to one of the shithole countries you are now deriding for being religious and oppressive

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.

I provided a link to the source, and the source clearly discusses its methodology. Please quote the text that supports your claim.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

What exactly is the claim for which I am supposed to provide evidence?

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.

You actually conceded this earlier in the thread. Shall I remind you?

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.

So please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Never claimed that it did, just responded to an unsubstantiated claim with another.

Your argument is that people will ignore major infringements of their personal freedom because they will no longer have to deal with minor and insignificant infringements.

I hope you understand why this is illogical.

This is caricature, we are talking about the internal logic of a political theory. Its not like "ideal" socialist regimes are never discussed despite their AWFUL track record which makes the quite shitty record of liberal democracies look half-decent.

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.

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.

However, I am not even making that argument, I am only arguing that monarchies are not of the same genus as modern dictatorships (which seems to be your allegation), and they were far smaller in adminstrative scope than the democracies that followed them. Thats all.

Likewise, I am arguing that equality is adverse to liberty, they are contraries.

Thus, when you discuss "rights" in terms of egalitarianism, please keep in mind that i find such inherently opposed to rights pertaining to individual liberty.

For instance, the de-establishment of religion, which made all religions "equal" before the law, and though having some liberties about it (especially if affixed to the free expression of religion) is still essentially an egalitarian law. Is in my opinion, contrary to true liberty in a nation. I would say this about women's rights, and to some degree a whole host of "equalizing rights."

And now that we have discussed your personal beliefs again, it would be good to get to actual arguments with evidence and logic and stuff.

These rights inherently infringe upon the ability for individuals to do as one pleases, if not immediately, than overtime. You more or less admitted this by your admitting that free-speech actually violates the rights of minorities. This is because a right that fundamentally pertains to liberty is clearly in contradiction to an alleged right to equality. We both agree that we can't have both, but you argue that this only means we need to restrict free-speech because it, supposedly, favors white people in white majority nations; whereas, i argue we need to eliminate the concept of equality that would require us to drop free speech. This also goes to monarchy itself. Monarchy acknowledges a system of hierarchal patrilineal and patriarchal rule for a landed aristorcracy and the Kingly head of state. Such may preserve liberties en masse, but is fundamentally opposed to equality.

Men are not equal, equality is a myth.

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.

For #1 and #2.

The relationship between women's suffrage and the growth in government spending, especially on welfare, as well as female voting preferences for progressive policies in comparison to men, is well documented.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2517300948

Please quote the text that supports your claim.

Also, are you claiming that this is a causative relationship?

Here is just one example regarding gun laws, the castle doctrine originated from concepts in both Roman Law and the Old Testament and became enshrined in early english common law, under the monarchy, and was an influence later for the United States. Note: these laws existed and thrived in a environment, and had their greatest extent, in nations and under regimes that upheld the doctrine of the pater familias. The decline of that legal concept has corresponded with the decline in the observance of the castle doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#History

How does this have anything to do with personal liberty?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... x/abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12015/full

https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abs ... 11/2332107

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9X14001392

https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publicat ... 201530.pdf

This does not discuss personal liberty at all.

Assuming everything else that has been stated, prohibiting the vote merely aims to preserve the conditions that were clearly undermined by democracy, such as patriarchy, ethno-homogeneity, natural heirachy, religious establishmentarianism, etc.

And since these things detract from personal liberty, and lack of voting supports these things, it actually contradicts your claim.

[Victoribus Spolia]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Also, are you claiming that this is a causative relationship?

No.

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.

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.

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.

[Pants-of-dog]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No. If the answers to these questions are part of an argument, simply make the argument.

Please note that there is no incentive for me to answer these questions.

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.

Thanks.

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.

This does not contradict my point that constitutional rights are there to limit government interference in people’s lives, and are not designed to limit private behaviour. This is why the USA government cannot censor you but private forums such as this can do so.

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.

You said pigs do not get eaten. It seemed like you were using this as an example of how rights limit people.

The only way that rights limit people is that other people cannot take away my rights without consent. You cannot deprive me of life and property, and PoFo cannot censor you unless you agree to the terms and conditions of this site.

Finally, rights come from the hard work of those who have been oppressed and who have then fought for their rights. They do not come from god or moral philosophers.

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.

As far as I can tell, you have not mentioned a single inherent limitation to the power of a monarch.

Also, you have not shown how a regulation limits someone’s rights. Again, I invite you to explain how having a 42” guardrail limits your constitutional rights. And if you do not like that regulation, please use another.

Please note the Holocaust against Jews by the Nazis, the pogroms against Jews throughout European history, the forced conversions of indigenous people in the Americas, burning heretics at the stake, current Islamophobic tendencies by Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamists, and many other historical and modern examples of people using religion as a pretext for depriving other people of rights.

Your unverifiable assumption that religiosity is inherently supportive of rights is contradicted by the historical data.

And claiming that religion can be used as a pretext for depriving people of their rights is not a slippery slope argument.

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.

Yes, a regulation is not actually a regulation unless it is empowered by the body politic. Again, this supports my position.

Please note that the EPA is not a legislative body, nor is it a political party or group. Nor does the EPA act alone when making regulations, because if it did, then the world would be a much better place.

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.

If your criticism is that the method by which freedom was determined is incorrect, please quote the text that supports this claim from the given link. Please note that the study has a methodology section which will help.

That racist speech infringes upon the rights of others. Please demonstrate that this is true using evidence.

My claim was that allowing people to be racist and sexist actually allows for less autonomy, and that from the perspective of a person of colour or a woman, a racist and sexist society is less likely to lead to more autonomy.

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.

If you assume that everyone’s rights are limited because people are allowed to criticise your racist and sexist remarks and you then have to deal with consequences, then you are ignoring the experience of people who are targeted by racism and sexism (i.e. women and people of colour). Their rights are not limited at all by such criticism.

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.

Correct. So what?

Please provide evidence for this claim that monarchies had less laws.

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.

As long as we agree that you are discussing some ahistorical ideal and not how monarchies actually operate or have operated.

Sure.

The longest reiging democratic state, a federal constitutional republic, the United States of America, is 242 years.

I can think of two older democracies that are still going. The Haudenosaunee, and the Icelandic Althing. The latter is 1087 years old.

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?

Please note that the Althing has had more longevity than all of these.

I never made this argument, and you need to support this claim with evidence.

As long as we agree that the inly limit to your rights is that they cannot interfere in the rights of others. To claim that your rights are being limited because others want the same rights is not an argument that rights are limited. It is just a way of complaining that others also want rights.

No.

So you are not claiming that extending suffrage to women led to more regulation, laws, and government spending.

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.

And yet this concept was often disregarded by monarchs. It also curtails and limits the liberties of women.

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.

1. It does not support your claim that multiculturalism creates social conditions where liberty fails to thrive.

2. I am not arguing that in a multicultural society free-speech must be sacrificed. That is a strawman.

3. These conditions do exist in homogeneous societies, or else Poland would have ideal social conditions for liberty, which they do not as the amount of personal liberty in Poland is not as high as places such as Canada which are more heterogeneous.

False. You just fail to make the proper distinctions under discussion.

You aren't following....shocker.

Please explain how I failed to make the proper distinctions. Thank you.

[Potemkin]

Wow, you two guys have way too much time on your hands.

[Pants-of-dog]

I must admit that i was lucky enough to have both babies napping at the same time.

[Potemkin]

I must admit that i was lucky enough to have both babies napping at the same time.

Saint Marx must have blessed you, PoD!

[Rugoz]

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.

I'm not sure medieval kingdoms even qualify as "states".

The Roman empire wasn't a hereditary monarchy. It's better described as a military dictatorship. Roman emperors also had a rather short life expectancy.

[SolarCross]

I'm not sure medieval kingdoms even qualify as "states".

Why not?

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. If the answers to these questions are part of an argument, simply make the argument.

Please note that there is no incentive for me to answer these questions.

Your feelings of incentive are irrelevant. The questions are not rhetorical and require an answer.

This does not contradict my point that constitutional rights are there to limit government interference in people’s lives, and are not designed to limit private behaviour. This is why the USA government cannot censor you but private forums such as this can do so.

It wasn't mean as a contradiction, it just pointed out that rights do not originate in government's self-limitation.

Finally, rights come from the hard work of those who have been oppressed and who have then fought for their rights. They do not come from god or moral philosophers.

Fallacy: Begging the Question.

Likewise, this only proves my point that rights do not come from government's self-limiting, which was your argument.

Also, did these people "create" rights, or fight for rights they already believed they had or were entitled to?

Also, you have not shown how a regulation limits someone’s rights. Again, I invite you to explain how having a 42” guardrail limits your constitutional rights. And if you do not like that regulation, please use another.

We are discussing rights as they pertain to liberty, if I have to have guardrails at 42 inches it means I cannot have them at 39 inches if I would like, which is against liberty (doing what one pleases).

Please note the Holocaust against Jews by the Nazis, the pogroms against Jews throughout European history, the forced conversions of indigenous people in the Americas, burning heretics at the stake, current Islamophobic tendencies by Christian fundamentalist groups, Islamists, and many other historical and modern examples of people using religion as a pretext for depriving other people of rights.

Your unverifiable assumption that religiosity is inherently supportive of rights is contradicted by the historical data.

And claiming that religion can be used as a pretext for depriving people of their rights is not a slippery slope argument.

Thats not why you are guilty of a slippery slope, you are guilty of a slippery slope because you argued that if A then B will definitely follow as a negative consequence.

Please note that the EPA is not a legislative body, nor is it a political party or group. Nor does the EPA act alone when making regulations, because if it did, then the world would be a much better place.

No, but it is a government agency (as opposed to a private entity) that is empowered to make regulations, the fact that it makes regulations contradicts your point that government does not make regulations. This was contradicted by the quotations from the EPA's own charter.

If your criticism is that the method by which freedom was determined is incorrect, please quote the text that supports this claim from the given link. Please note that the study has a methodology section which will help.

Its pretty obvious.

My claim was that allowing people to be racist and sexist actually allows for less autonomy, and that from the perspective of a person of colour or a woman, a racist and sexist society is less likely to lead to more autonomy.

Yes this is a repetition of your claim.

Note: you still have no provided evidence for this claim.

If you assume that everyone’s rights are limited because people are allowed to criticise your racist and sexist remarks and you then have to deal with consequences, then you are ignoring the experience of people who are targeted by racism and sexism (i.e. women and people of colour). Their rights are not limited at all by such criticism.

This is not my position, this is a strawman. Besides limiting speech is limiting speech in general even if supposedly critiquing only a certain aspect of speech for it, by definition, qualifies the otherwise universal right with conditions.

Please note that the Althing has had more longevity than all of these.

Please Note that Iceland was ruled by monarchies contemporaneously with the existence of the Althing for most of its history. So this example is a load of crap.

Also Note that the existence of the English parliament does not count as an independent republic over-and-against the monarchy for the same obvious reasons.

Which means, the historical reality of my position's claim on longevity have been substantiated and you have failed to refute such.

As long as we agree that the inly limit to your rights is that they cannot interfere in the rights of others. To claim that your rights are being limited because others want the same rights is not an argument that rights are limited. It is just a way of complaining that others also want rights.

What? This word-salad needs clarified. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

So you are not claiming that extending suffrage to women led to more regulation, laws, and government spending.

No, I'm not claiming that such is logically necessary or causal (which was what you asked), that does not mean there is no correlation. I have demonstrated that already.

And yet this concept was often disregarded by monarchs. It also curtails and limits the liberties of women.

This is why I said you fail to make the proper distinction, civic equality and every day liberty are not the same thing.

1. It does not support your claim that multiculturalism creates social conditions where liberty fails to thrive.

2. I am not arguing that in a multicultural society free-speech must be sacrificed. That is a strawman.

3. These conditions do exist in homogeneous societies, or else Poland would have ideal social conditions for liberty, which they do not as the amount of personal liberty in Poland is not as high as places such as Canada which are more heterogeneous.

1. Yes it does.

2. Sure looks like it, explain how I am wrong.

3. Thats thing with correlations, they do not necessarily have universal application. Poland could likely be explained by the same metric as many other slavic countries with similar issues: they were all once under strongly statist communist regimes and they inherited much from those systems even if not communist anymore

Please explain how I failed to make the proper distinctions. Thank you.

Because you are equating liberty and equality.

Equality is civic enfranchisement of all in the political processes, liberty is the ability for one to do as he/she please independent of government.

I believe the limiting of the former improves the latter, generally, and in the few cases where the two overlap, equality must be squashed. I gave the examples of which cases I believe apply already.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your feelings of incentive are irrelevant. The questions are not rhetorical and require an answer.

Then answer them. Your desire to get me to do stuff for you is irrelevant. If you do not answer your questions, whatever argument associated with these questions is not being made. Which is fine by me.

It wasn't mean as a contradiction, it just pointed out that rights do not originate in government's self-limitation.

As long as we agree that rights limit government and not necessarily each other.

Fallacy: Begging the Question.

Likewise, this only proves my point that rights do not come from government's self-limiting, which was your argument.

Also, did these people "create" rights, or fight for rights they already believed they had or were entitled to?

Strawman. I never argued that rights originate from government desire to limit their own power.

We are discussing rights as they pertain to liberty, if I have to have guardrails at 42 inches it means I cannot have them at 39 inches if I would like, which is against liberty (doing what one pleases).

Actually, you can. Just not in a public building. Of you did, you would risk the lives and safety of the people using the building. Also, please note that having a 39” railing is not a constitutional right. And if I recall correctly, that was your argument.

Thats not why you are guilty of a slippery slope, you are guilty of a slippery slope because you argued that if A then B will definitely follow as a negative consequence.

Again, claiming that religion can be used as a pretext for depriving people of their rights is not a slippery slope argument. Claiming that religion will inevitably lead to depriving people of rights would be a slippery slope argument, which I did not argue.

Please note that you have ignored historical and modern examples of how religiousness has not prevented human rights abuses, and have instead abetted in these violations.

These contradict your claim that religiousness will somehow act as an inherent limitation to the power of monarchy.

No, but it is a government agency (as opposed to a private entity) that is empowered to make regulations, the fact that it makes regulations contradicts your point that government does not make regulations. This was contradicted by the quotations from the EPA's own charter.

You did not actually quote the charter.

You have changed your argument from politicans and legislatirs making regulations to any political body doing so.

Also, you are ignoring the very real possibility that the EPA, like the NRC here in Canada, may be empowered to make regulations, butbthey atill consult with industry stakeholders when doing so, and that this consultation effectively contradicts any claim that regulations are a mere power grab for politicans and legislators.

Its pretty obvious.

Then you have no evidence or argument to supoort your criticism that the Cato Institute defined freedom in a weird way. Since you have no support for your criticism, I will simply dismiss it.

Yes this is a repetition of your claim.

Note: you still have no provided evidence for this claim.

Okay, and since this is different from the claim you said i made, I will not provide evidence for that other claim.

This is not my position, this is a strawman. Besides limiting speech is limiting speech in general even if supposedly critiquing only a certain aspect of speech for it, by definition, qualifies the otherwise universal right with conditions.

Since no one is limiting your right to racist speech, this is an imaginary victim narrative.

If your criticism is that people criticise you for making such comments, then welcome to free speech.

Please Note that Iceland was ruled by monarchies contemporaneously with the existence of the Althing for most of its history. So this example is a load of crap.

Also Note that the existence of the English parliament does not count as an independent republic over-and-against the monarchy for the same obvious reasons.

Which means, the historical reality of my position's claim on longevity have been substantiated and you have failed to refute such.

No, since that would mean that constitutional monarchies are not democracies, which is stupid.

What? This word-salad needs clarified. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Your rights end where the rights of other begins. Your freedom of movement, for example, does not allow,you to trespass since that would biolate the privacy rights of others.

No, I'm not claiming that such is logically necessary or causal (which was what you asked), that does not mean there is no correlation. I have demonstrated that already.

What excatly is this correlation qnd how does it impact liberty?

This is why I said you fail to make the proper distinction, civic equality and every day liberty are not the same thing.

Sometimes liberty and equality are the same thing. For example, extending suffrage to women and people of colour not only increases equality but also increases liberty.

So the claim that one is opposed to the other is often incorrect.

1. Yes it does.

2. Sure looks like it, explain how I am wrong.

3. Thats thing with correlations, they do not necessarily have universal application. Poland could likely be explained by the same metric as many other slavic countries with similar issues: they were all once under strongly statist communist regimes and they inherited much from those systems even if not communist anymore

1. No.

2. It is not what i am claiming. You are mistaken. That was easy.

3. Please present evidence that homogeneous countries have more liberty.

Because you are equating liberty and equality.

Equality is civic enfranchisement of all in the political processes, liberty is the ability for one to do as he/she please independent of government.

I believe the limiting of the former improves the latter, generally, and in the few cases where the two overlap, equality must be squashed. I gave the examples of which cases I believe apply already.

Since I did not equate the two, i will simply ignore this.

Most importantly, you have failed to mention a single example of an inherent limitation to the power of monarchy.

[Nonsense]

In my honest opinion,from my own experience of life in this country,I have adopted the following views;-

1/ 'Democracy' is a sham,no matter what flavour it appears to be.
2/ 'Monarchy' as a form of control to frustrate the dictatorial urges of 'democratic' politicians is false.
3/ 'Religion' should be expunged from all areas of public life,including parliament,the law & the armed services.


Parliament has no effect in bridling these urges of political parties to excercise abusive power against certain groups within society,groups that have no power of influence themselves,even though they may be a substantial portion of the population.

The exponential growth in the immediate family of the 'Head-of-State', a family with a mega sized sense-of-entitlement for which the public are deemed liable to support the lifestyle to which their parents had become accustomed , must be pruned back to the bone period & the Head-of-State's' freedom to afford ridiculous 'Title's' to those whom she produced must be stopped for good.
The 'established' church is based on 'faith', the belief in 'tooth-fairies', de-establish the C of E.

The armed services, of which the 'Head-of-State' is the 'Head' of, are constitutionally for the defence of the nation-NOT-to be used by politicians to declare war on rogue or dictatorial nations.
The 'Law' is another instrument undermined by excessive law-making by parliament.

The difference between,for example the UK or America is that our 'Head-of-State cannot declare war without the say so of parliament, whereas in America, the President acts as 'judge'-'jury' & 'excecutioner'.

Where else in the world can an 'elected' Head-of-State' declare war on another nation without a vote of endorcement,but in America?

'Monarchy', like 'religion' as expressed by the Church of England, have long surpassed their sale-by-date & should be abolished.
All 'States' require a 'Head', that should not include a whole tribe kept at public expense.