Right Wing Discussion Thread V - Emperor's Holy Inquisition

[Diopolis]

Some sort of hierarchy is a natural and necessary thing for any society containing more than 150 people to operate. There must always be those above to be obeyed and those below to be commanded in any society that hopes to save itself from savagery.
However, those who seek exceptional power are generally not suited to wield it. Thus, democracy must be limited. Ditto for most forms of "meritocracy"- it's a nice idea, but doesn't work very well in theory.
Thus, we must ensure that the most powerful individuals in any given society are those who do not seek after power. Monarchy and certain forms of theocracy are the only government types which accomplish this. In the latter case, it is not a sure thing. Therefore, monarchy must exist in some form as a necessary check on careerism and ambition.
As for whether I want an absolute monarch, no I do not. I support a government type that splits power between a monarchy, an elected legislature of bourgeoisie, and an unelected legislature of aristocrats. Voting should be by male property owners above a certain age and with a clean criminal record. The age should not be too low, so as to have inexperienced people voting, nor should it be too high, so as to prevent a forwards looking orientation to the legislature. Neither legislature should meet more often than once every other year, and should be unpaid. Thus, elected service should actually hurt people trying to get ahead in the world in order to discourage ambition.

Putting the bourgeoisie in charge in any capacity is the beginning of the end of any form of decency in administration. Most people just need paternal guidance. The bourgeoisie need a heavy boot to their throats at all times lest their greed rip society to shreds.

The bourgeoisie fills an important function, and they need some amount of power in order to ensure that function continues to be filled, because anyone else is probably hopeless at it.
We're not talking about silk merchants here. We're talking about farmers and shopkeepers and whatnot.
I would support net worth limitations for those running for the bourgeoisie house of legislature- in some extent. I don't want to penalize thrift- and regulation to ensure that they are drawn from reputable enterprises.

[Sanctissima]

Non-material aspect of existence?

You can discuss ideas and ways to live, but if you're implying that theology, philosophy or metaphysics even holds a candle to science in determining how the universe actually works, then you don't know what you're talking about.

You know, it wouldnt hurt to be a bit more diplomatic about things. But yes, non material, things like the soul, and other supernatural entities. I personally have had encounters with such events that cant be explained by science, and I know im not alone.

Science only explains basics, It does not explain the whys, which are the greatest questions and the ones most relevant to mans understanding of them. Knowing raw knowledge is meaningless if we dont have a greater purpose to them or greater understanding they fall into. Fall in the trap of rationalism and you become blind to all the irrational aspects of life and the world, you in science are the natural philosophies for a reason, you are but a field for the easiest to understand, the field for those who can only understand what is obvious. If anything it is scientists (natural philosophers) who lack the wisdom and intelligence of other philosophers.

You're telling that to an occultist who believes in souls, ghosts and demons, amongst other things.

Yeah, I believe in some crazy shit too, that's not the point. The point is that I recognize dualism is a load of horse shit, and that even a supernatural entity like a soul or spirit needs a physical form in order to be real. That's entirely within the realm of science, and is something that science can measure. It's just that science isn't capable of measuring it yet. Yet being the key word.

What you're saying is that just because science has a habit of being averse to these kinds of topics, that means the two concepts are totally incompatible. You're basically saying that because the man with the lab and particle accelerator thinks the supernatural is a load of hocus pocus, the philosopher with his mind games is far more apt to explain them. That's hogwash.

[Uiiop]

And people wonder why anti-intellectualism is growing? Its this arrogance right here.

Buddy thats nice and all, but empiricism falls flat when it has to explain any non material aspect of existence.

Anti-intellectualism vs. pseudo-intellectualism: FIGHT

Come to the pseudo-side we're pretty chill:

[The Princes of the Universe]

Putting the bourgeoisie in charge in any capacity is the beginning of the end of any form of decency in administration. Most people just need paternal guidance. The bourgeoisie need a heavy boot to their throats at all times lest their greed rip society to shreds.

The bourgeoisie fills an important function, and they need some amount of power in order to ensure that function continues to be filled, because anyone else is probably hopeless at it.
We're not talking about silk merchants here. We're talking about farmers and shopkeepers and whatnot.
I would support net worth limitations for those running for the bourgeoisie house of legislature- in some extent. I don't want to penalize thrift- and regulation to ensure that they are drawn from reputable enterprises.

I don't consider farmers part of the bourgeoisie. They actually produce something.

[Sanctissima]

The bourgeoisie fills an important function, and they need some amount of power in order to ensure that function continues to be filled, because anyone else is probably hopeless at it.
We're not talking about silk merchants here. We're talking about farmers and shopkeepers and whatnot.
I would support net worth limitations for those running for the bourgeoisie house of legislature- in some extent. I don't want to penalize thrift- and regulation to ensure that they are drawn from reputable enterprises.

I don't consider farmers part of the bourgeoisie. They actually produce something.

Like it or not, you do need some kind of middle-class. Someone needs to handle the commerce side of things.

And besides, the peasants don't offer much in terms of taxation.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

The bourgeoisie fills an important function, and they need some amount of power in order to ensure that function continues to be filled, because anyone else is probably hopeless at it.
We're not talking about silk merchants here. We're talking about farmers and shopkeepers and whatnot.
I would support net worth limitations for those running for the bourgeoisie house of legislature- in some extent. I don't want to penalize thrift- and regulation to ensure that they are drawn from reputable enterprises.

I don't consider farmers part of the bourgeoisie. They actually produce something.

Then who, pray tell, is the bourgeoisie?

[Isyrannaea]

And people wonder why anti-intellectualism is growing? Its this arrogance right here.

Buddy thats nice and all, but empiricism falls flat when it has to explain any non material aspect of existence.

Anti-intellectualism vs. pseudo-intellectualism: FIGHT

I much prefer anti-intellectualism to pseudo-intellectualism.

[Isyrannaea]

I don't consider farmers part of the bourgeoisie. They actually produce something.

Then who, pray tell, is the bourgeoisie?

The Jews.

[Conserative Morality]

Then who, pray tell, is the bourgeoisie?

People who the aristocracy think are too uppity.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Like it or not, you do need some kind of middle-class. Someone needs to handle the commerce side of things.

And they need a boot to their throats at all times to make sure that's all they get up to.

Then who, pray tell, is the bourgeoisie?

People who make money without actually producing anything themselves.

[The Portland Territory]

In the past the Right used to stand for individual liberty, but sadly no more. Today's Right is totally bankrupt, theocratic, tyrannical, warmongering, a deadly cancer on all nations and the entire humanity.

[Diopolis]

The bourgeoisie fills an important function, and they need some amount of power in order to ensure that function continues to be filled, because anyone else is probably hopeless at it.
We're not talking about silk merchants here. We're talking about farmers and shopkeepers and whatnot.
I would support net worth limitations for those running for the bourgeoisie house of legislature- in some extent. I don't want to penalize thrift- and regulation to ensure that they are drawn from reputable enterprises.

I don't consider farmers part of the bourgeoisie. They actually produce something.

It appears that the difference may be due to a different definition of the bourgeoisie. So, I'd like to know if the following are bourgeoisie:
-Commercial farmer
-Owner/operator of a heavy truck
-Restaurant owner, not absentee
-Landlord, not absentee
-Landlord, absentee
-Owner of a small trucking company. Doesn't currently go on runs very often, but he used to.
-Owner/manager of a janitorial company.
-Lawyer
-Doctor
-Spice/other low-quantity high end good importer, like for diamonds or expensive wine.
-Salesman, industrial lubricant
-The owner of the factory for the above
For all of them, assume that the owner is also the founder and manager.

[Sanctissima]

Like it or not, you do need some kind of middle-class. Someone needs to handle the commerce side of things.

And they need a boot to their throats at all times to make sure that's all they get up to.

Via a monarch?

That seems rather... excessive. What kind of monarch do you propose? An absolutist? Feudalist? Diarchist?

[Isyrannaea]

People who make money without actually producing anything themselves.

So Jews ARE bourgeoisie.

I knew it.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Then who, pray tell, is the bourgeoisie?

People who the aristocracy think are too uppity.

Ah, lovely.

Like it or not, you do need some kind of middle-class. Someone needs to handle the commerce side of things.

And they need a boot to their throats at all times to make sure that's all they get up to.

Then who, pray tell, is the bourgeoisie?

People who make money without actually producing anything themselves.

Oookay.
I mean, hedge funds aren't going to be making money for anyone but their investors, who will then do whatever with it.
I rather dislike the underlying notion of parasitism.

[Diopolis]

Like it or not, you do need some kind of middle-class. Someone needs to handle the commerce side of things.

And they need a boot to their throats at all times to make sure that's all they get up to.

Then who, pray tell, is the bourgeoisie?

People who make money without actually producing anything themselves.

Does this include, say, elderly people who need a source of income but are retired?
Does it include aristocrats collecting the dues and rents from their lands that they are entitled to?

[Conserative Morality]

The problem is that capitalism is inherently inefficient and need all sorts of brokers and middlemen to work at anything resembling efficiency.

The other problem is that markets are simultaneously the most efficient means of distribution possible with something as complex as the human economy.

So basically, you're stuck with those of us who don't hammer steel for a living.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

The problem is that capitalism is inherently inefficient and need all sorts of brokers and middlemen to work at anything resembling efficiency.

The other problem is that markets are simultaneously the most efficient means of distribution possible with something as complex as the human economy.

So basically, you're stuck with those of us who don't hammer steel for a living.

Hey, they could always kill and enslave us.

[Sanctissima]

The problem is that capitalism is inherently inefficient and need all sorts of brokers and middlemen to work at anything resembling efficiency.

The other problem is that markets are simultaneously the most efficient means of distribution possible with something as complex as the human economy.

So basically, you're stuck with those of us who don't hammer steel for a living.

Hey, they could always kill and enslave us.

Joke's on them, we have contingency plans for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Hey, they could always kill and enslave us.

Joke's on them, we have contingency plans for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Feel the hunger.

[Novjistrania]

Hey, they could always kill and enslave us.

Joke's on them, we have contingency plans for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Revisionist liberal propaganda.

[Germanic Templars]

Hey, they could always kill and enslave us.

Joke's on them, we have contingency plans for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Oh-no, you mentioned Holodomor....

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Joke's on them, we have contingency plans for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Revisionist liberal propaganda.

So if idiocy caused by having peasants with zero fucking education manage food production during poor growing seasons didn't cause or exacerbate famines, what did? Or do you deny they ever happened?

[Isyrannaea]

Joke's on them, we have contingency plans for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Revisionist liberal propaganda.

Stop.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Joke's on them, we have contingency plans for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Oh-no, you mentioned Holodomor....

"KULAK REVISIONIST LIES"