North Carolina, a voting rights hellhole.

[Islam Imamate]

No, I purposefully avoided using "assault rifle".

So what were you referring to?

Yeah, so the freedom to participate in government was never there. Not sure why you're missing this.

Okay but freedom to participate in government does not mean freedom IMO. Iranians can participate in their government, are they free? An extreme example to be sure but one that hints at what I'm getting at.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

#2. A political right.

I am not saying there aren't different definitions dude, chill the fuck out. But this is the one that is applicable to your original error. If you do not have the political right to choose your government you are not free. If you want to talk about it in different senses, fine, but this is the definition as it pertains to governance (and how Jack used it, which you objected to).

Speaking of Jack, even he admitted that on its own its not truly freedom is no constrained by other rights.

 

[kpt018]

So what were you referring to?

I am referring to any weapon that goes beyond self defense. Doesn't matter, like I said not a big issue for me.

Okay but freedom to participate in government does not mean freedom IMO. Iranians can participate in their government, are they free? An extreme example to be sure but one that hints at what I'm getting at.

Ok, but like I showed you that is one of the freaking definitions. You're simply saying an actual definition of the word doesn't "mean freedom to you". I'm not saying your wrong that there are other definitions, but you're ignoring the one.

Speaking of Jack, even he admitted that on its own its not truly freedom is no constrained by other rights.

I agree with you guys on that. The example of free speech was perfect.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I am referring to any weapon that goes beyond self defense. Doesn't matter, like I said not a big issue for me.

What weapon qualifies as one that goes beyond self defense? You mentioned a rifle before, which rifle?

Ok, but like I showed you that is one of the freaking definitions. You're simply saying an actual definition of the word doesn't "mean freedom to you". I'm not saying your wrong that there are other definitions, but you're ignoring the one.

The definition you cited was "a political right", a political right to what? That is general enough to include many different rights.

 

[T-BoneCorleone]

Many of those people in the blue zones don't even deserve to vote. They contribute nothing to Society for the most part.

 

[Denter]

That can't really be a "right," though. But the whole idea of rights presumes a liberal framework, which I thought you rejected. Do you just mean that ensuring physical security is the most-important function of gov't?

Definitely in the top ten. It definitely has the obligation to do so.

It isn't a right because there are no human rights, but it is an obligation of sovereignty to provide this as a basic demonstration of sovereignty.

 

[Denter]

Sounds like you should do the rest of us a favor and stop voting then. Sounds like you can't handle the responsibility.

But its so much fun to elect reality tv stars that entertain me every day.

 

[Denter]

Why? I understand skepticism of a system that's too democratic in the sense that it might empower mob rule but I don't think that skepticism need lead to the conclusion that any sort of voting is bad.

.

Its a bit flippant, because all political structures are democratic to some degree- even if the "voice" of the people is armed insurrection. A regime that has no support from the populace will simply not last long. And all political regimes are also essentially undemocratic- they operate through representatives who make decisions and wield power without consulting the people on every decision.

But yes, the actual universal franchise is a terrible idea.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Its a bit flippant, because all political structures are democratic to some degree- even if the "voice" of the people is armed insurrection. A regime that has no support from the populace will simply not last long. And all political regimes are also essentially undemocratic- they operate through representatives who make decisions and wield power without consulting the people on every decision.

But yes, the actual universal franchise is a terrible idea.

Why do you think more-democratic countries are so much more successful than less-democratic ones across all measures?

 

[Grok]

But its so much fun to elect reality tv stars that entertain me every day.

 

[Denter]

Why do you think more-democratic countries are so much more successful than less-democratic ones across all measures?

You mean the countries that still have monarchs? Those tend to have the highest standard of living.

A realistic answer is that its a racial and cultural phenomenon within Europe, and a few other places made possible by the extreme cultural consensus in those countries, that itself was a result of years of metaphorical slavery. These countries are burning the fuel they've accumulated over the centuries. Other nations are still in the "slavery" phase. None of this is permanent or demonstrates ideological superiority.

 

[HomerThompson]

You mean the countries that still have monarchs? Those tend to have the highest standard of living.

A realistic answer is that its a racial and cultural phenomenon within Europe, and a few other places made possible by the extreme cultural consensus in those countries, that itself was a result of years of metaphorical slavery. These countries are burning the fuel they've accumulated over the centuries. Other nations are still in the "slavery" phase. None of this is permanent or demonstrates ideological superiority.

 

[Denter]

You really aren't thinking this through.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You really aren't thinking this through.

I've used this analogy before, but I think that failing to notice that liberal nations are more successful than illiberal ones (and that the divergence coincides in time with the rise of liberalism) is like failing to notice that NBA players tend to be taller than average people. Racialist explanations seem contrived. I see this as a 100% settled issue.

 

[Denter]

I've used this analogy before, but I think that failing to notice that liberal nations are more successful than illiberal ones (and that the divergence coincides in time with the rise of liberalism) is like failing to notice that NBA players tend to be taller than average people. Racialist explanations seem contrived. I see this as a 100% settled issue.

You really can't see any common causation leading to liberalism?

Many countries in South America had been liberal Republics longer than most states in Europe, yet they were, and in many cases, continue to be basket cases. Racial, cultural and military reasons for the spread of democracy abound, but their advocates are so caught up in moralizing that they cannot see them. Look at the levee en masse, for example.

 

[Limbo Pete]

You mean the countries that still have monarchs? Those tend to have the highest standard of living.

A realistic answer is that its a racial and cultural phenomenon within Europe, and a few other places made possible by the extreme cultural consensus in those countries, that itself was a result of years of metaphorical slavery. These countries are burning the fuel they've accumulated over the centuries. Other nations are still in the "slavery" phase. None of this is permanent or demonstrates ideological superiority.

Just spit tea on the counter lolling

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Why do you think more-democratic countries are so much more successful than less-democratic ones across all measures?

Case-in-point Switzerland, which is arguably the most directly democratic, and it is by all intents and purposes a near-utopia.

 

[panamaican]

You really can't see any common causation leading to liberalism?

Many countries in South America had been liberal Republics longer than most states in Europe, yet they were, and in many cases, continue to be basket cases. Racial, cultural and military reasons for the spread of democracy abound, but their advocates are so caught up in moralizing that they cannot see them. Look at the levee en masse, for example.

I don't know about that, which South American countries are you referring to?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

You mean the countries that still have monarchs? Those tend to have the highest standard of living.

A realistic answer is that its a racial and cultural phenomenon within Europe, and a few other places made possible by the extreme cultural consensus in those countries, that itself was a result of years of metaphorical slavery. These countries are burning the fuel they've accumulated over the centuries. Other nations are still in the "slavery" phase. None of this is permanent or demonstrates ideological superiority.

Monarchies have the highest standard of living?

 

[Limbo Pete]

I don't know about that, which South American countries are you referring to?

Imo modern south/central American history is one of the more grossly misunderstood history topics that commonly float around

I'm not a scholar of those regions specifically, but as an Americanist it causes no small amount of anguish whenever they come up

 

[Limbo Pete]

Monarchies have the highest standard of living?

Inb4 he uses the UAE as his example