NSG Senate (OLD THREAD, DO NOT POST)

[Vietnam]

Honourable senator, I demand a source for your statement.

History, French revolution, 1917 Russia etc all claimed to bring freedom but instead brought tyranny. The behavior of America around the world. Need i say more.

France after the revolution was actually much more progressive than the monarchy, and Russia after the revolution was although still bad, nonetheless better than the oppressive and reactionary czars.

Don't you know anything about Nicholas II, Alexander III, the Meiji Emperor, the early period of the Showa Emperor's reign, or when it was illegal for a foreigner to step foot in Japan, or to leave the place, on penalty of death? Don't you know about Imperial China and medieval Korea? Do you really think the German Empire was really all that free? Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Oman are such great, free places, right?

[Vietnam]

Because they're republics? That's absolutely ridiculous. What points of a republic make it more like to trample on the rights of its people and others?

See above. History shows that they are more likely to trample on the accepted rights of individuals for the time period they are in.

Haha, no. The French Republic was much freer than the previous French monarchy, and Russia after the revolution was freer than Russia under the reactionary rule of Czars Alexander III and Nicholas II. What freedoms that people had under British rule did the American revolution take away? Does France today trample on the rights of others, moreso than Saudi Arabia or Bhutan does?

[Radiatia]

Because they're republics? That's absolutely ridiculous. What points of a republic make it more like to trample on the rights of its people and others?

See above. History shows that they are more likely to trample on the accepted rights of individuals for the time period they are in.

I'm gonna have to stop you there, mate.

You might want to take a more careful look at what a republic is. The idea of a republic is essentially to provide limitations to prevent mob rule, that is the idea that there are certain inalienable and inviolable rights.

The only reason that (some) constitutional monarchies have been successful in protecting the rights of the individual have been successful is because they have taken on republican ideas.

[Imperiatom]

History, French revolution, 1917 Russia etc all claimed to bring freedom but instead brought tyranny. The behavior of America around the world. Need i say more.

France after the revolution was actually much more progressive than the monarchy, and Russia after the revolution was although still bad, nonetheless better than the oppressive and reactionary czars.

Don't you know anything about Nicholas II, Alexander III, the Meiji Emperor, the early period of the Showa Emperor's reign, or when it was illegal for a foreigner to step foot in Japan, or to leave the place, on penalty of death? Don't you know about Imperial China and medieval Korea? Do you really think the German Empire was really all that free? Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Oman are such great, free places, right?

If you call the execution of at least 40,000 men and women progressive i guess that explains why you support communism. I am defiantly not in favor of that kind of progression. It is Tyranny by terror.

[Vietnam]

France after the revolution was actually much more progressive than the monarchy, and Russia after the revolution was although still bad, nonetheless better than the oppressive and reactionary czars.

Don't you know anything about Nicholas II, Alexander III, the Meiji Emperor, the early period of the Showa Emperor's reign, or when it was illegal for a foreigner to step foot in Japan, or to leave the place, on penalty of death? Don't you know about Imperial China and medieval Korea? Do you really think the German Empire was really all that free? Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Oman are such great, free places, right?

If you call the execution of at least 40,000 men and women progressive i guess that explains why you support communism. I am defiantly not in favor of that kind of progression. It is Tyranny by terror.

The French Revolution established a secular democratic republic which temporarily abolished slavery and destroyed the absolute monarchy and the powers of the aristocracy. Would you have preferred starving to death with literally zero political power or worth under an uncaring king?

Or did you miss that, and think revolutions are only about killing people?

Your statement only shows your ignorance of what communism is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you call the execution of at least 40,000 men and women progressive i guess that explains why you support communism. I am defiantly not in favor of that kind of progression. It is Tyranny by terror.

The French Revolution established a secular democratic republic which temporarily abolished slavery and destroyed the absolute monarchy and the powers of the aristocracy. Would you have preferred starving to death with literally zero political power or worth under an uncaring king?

Or did you miss that, and think revolutions are only about killing people?

Your statement only shows your ignorance of what communism is.

You fail to mention how short-lived said Republic under Revolutionaries was, the Reign of Terror, the paranoia of the Sans-Culottes destroying and killing all political rivals and subsequent defeat at the hands of Napoleon, who then made his form of government akin to an emperor's rule.

Also you neglect to mention the fact that if it wasn't for the Prussians and the English we would have a united Europe under Napoleonic rule.

Really now, your French argument seems rather weak.

[Imperiatom]

See above. History shows that they are more likely to trample on the accepted rights of individuals for the time period they are in.

I'm gonna have to stop you there, mate.

You might want to take a more careful look at what a republic is. The idea of a republic is essentially to provide limitations to prevent mob rule, that is the idea that there are certain inalienable and inviolable rights.

The only reason that (some) constitutional monarchies have been successful in protecting the rights of the individual have been successful is because they have taken on republican ideas.

It comes from the Latin res publica which means the state republic or commonwealth(and also sometimes translate as public matter). Any state that claims the people own everything and or believes that the people should elect the head of state and the executive body is a republican. This is the only idea that can be claimed to be exclusivity republican. The rest is just good humanity.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm gonna have to stop you there, mate.

You might want to take a more careful look at what a republic is. The idea of a republic is essentially to provide limitations to prevent mob rule, that is the idea that there are certain inalienable and inviolable rights.

The only reason that (some) constitutional monarchies have been successful in protecting the rights of the individual have been successful is because they have taken on republican ideas.

It comes from the Latin res publica which means the state republic or commonwealth(and also sometimes translate as public matter). Any state that claims the people own everything and or believes that the people should elect the head of state and the executive body is a republican. This is the only idea that can be claimed to be exclusivity republican. The rest is just good humanity.

res publica = the people's matter.

[Vietnam]

The French Revolution established a secular democratic republic which temporarily abolished slavery and destroyed the absolute monarchy and the powers of the aristocracy. Would you have preferred starving to death with literally zero political power or worth under an uncaring king?

Or did you miss that, and think revolutions are only about killing people?

Your statement only shows your ignorance of what communism is.

You fail to mention how short-lived said Republic under Revolutionaries was, the Reign of Terror, the paranoia of the Sans-Culottes destroying and killing all political allies and subsequent defeat at the hands of Napoleon.

Really now, your French argument seems rather weak.

The Reign of Terror was an unfortunate short period which lasted less than a year. To suggest that the revolution was wholly dominated by the Reign of Terror is a ridiculous notion. At the time, the reactionary monarchs of Europe saw the French Revolution as a threat to their own absolute power. Why would they ever want to support that? And if Napoleon won, then what?

You mean where I said the French Republic is preferable to the aristocratic and tyrannical Ancien Régime?

[Vietnam]

The French Revolution established a secular democratic republic which temporarily abolished slavery and destroyed the absolute monarchy and the powers of the aristocracy. Would you have preferred starving to death with literally zero political power or worth under an uncaring king?

Or did you miss that, and think revolutions are only about killing people?

Your statement only shows your ignorance of what communism is.

You fail to mention how short-lived said Republic under Revolutionaries was, the Reign of Terror, the paranoia of the Sans-Culottes destroying and killing all political rivals and subsequent defeat at the hands of Napoleon, who then made his form of government akin to an emperor's rule.

Also you neglect to mention the fact that if it wasn't for the Prussians and the English we would have a united Europe under Napoleonic rule.

Really now, your French argument seems rather weak.

What does a Napoleonic Europe have to do with the French Republic being preferable to the Ancien Régime again? Oh right, nothing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You fail to mention how short-lived said Republic under Revolutionaries was, the Reign of Terror, the paranoia of the Sans-Culottes destroying and killing all political rivals and subsequent defeat at the hands of Napoleon, who then made his form of government akin to an emperor's rule.

Also you neglect to mention the fact that if it wasn't for the Prussians and the English we would have a united Europe under Napoleonic rule.

Really now, your French argument seems rather weak.

What does a Napoleonic Europe have to do with the French Republic being preferable to the Ancien Régime again? Oh right, nothing.

Oh just the fact that the French Republic were a bunch of wusses who could not hold out on their own against their own general, and that the French Republic under the Sans Culottes is a perfect example of politics gone wrong (they, in fact, were paranoid shitless about losing power, so they were more restrictive than even the old regime). I would see a better example in the post-Napoleonic France, but not in that phase of French history.

And your precious republic lasted 4 years before Napoleon's coup d'etat.

[Maklohi Vai]

I'm gonna have to stop you there, mate.

You might want to take a more careful look at what a republic is. The idea of a republic is essentially to provide limitations to prevent mob rule, that is the idea that there are certain inalienable and inviolable rights.

The only reason that (some) constitutional monarchies have been successful in protecting the rights of the individual have been successful is because they have taken on republican ideas.

It comes from the Latin res publica which means the state republic or commonwealth(and also sometimes translate as public matter). Any state that claims the people own everything and or believes that the people should elect the head of state and the executive body is a republican. This is the only idea that can be claimed to be exclusivity republican. The rest is just good humanity.

Your grasp of republicanism is so weak, senator, that it's even hard for me to respond. But, I digress. Sir, republicanism is giving the people a voice. It is giving them rights, freedoms, and liberties so that they can thrive. It may or may not give them economic control, that is irrelevant. There are socialist republics and laissez-faire capitalist republics. Does republicanism advocate that the people elect the head of state? Yes, it does, but it is not the only system to do so. I hope I do not have to emphasize further that republicanism is much more broad than you make it seem.

[Vietnam]

What does a Napoleonic Europe have to do with the French Republic being preferable to the Ancien Régime again? Oh right, nothing.

Oh just the fact that the French Republic were a bunch of wusses who could not hold out on their own against their own general,

A military strongman taking power suddenly makes an entire government wusses?

and that the French Republic under the Sans Culottes is a bad example of politics gone wrong. I would see a better example in the post-Napoleonic France, but not in that phase of French history.

And France was still better as a republic than under the Ancien Régime nonetheless, providing more social equality, freedom, and other things. Did the King not ever do anything wrong?

And your precious republic lasted 4 years before Napoleon's coup d'etat.

If you'd read the full conversation, you'd noticed that I was only saying that the First French Republic was preferable to the preceding Ancien Régime, not that I thought it was the best thing ever.

[Imperiatom]

It comes from the Latin res publica which means the state republic or commonwealth(and also sometimes translate as public matter). Any state that claims the people own everything and or believes that the people should elect the head of state and the executive body is a republican. This is the only idea that can be claimed to be exclusivity republican. The rest is just good humanity.

Your grasp of republicanism is so weak, senator, that it's even hard for me to respond. But, I digress. Sir, republicanism is giving the people a voice. It is giving them rights, freedoms, and liberties so that they can thrive. It may or may not give them economic control, that is irrelevant. There are socialist republics and laissez-faire capitalist republics. Does republicanism advocate that the people elect the head of state? Yes, it does, but it is not the only system to do so. I hope I do not have to emphasize further that republicanism is much more broad than you make it seem.

I know republicanism is lots of things but this to me is the only exclusively republican idea.

[Imperiatom]

Oh just the fact that the French Republic were a bunch of wusses who could not hold out on their own against their own general,

A military strongman taking power suddenly makes an entire government wusses?

and that the French Republic under the Sans Culottes is a bad example of politics gone wrong. I would see a better example in the post-Napoleonic France, but not in that phase of French history.

And France was still better as a republic than under the Ancien Régime nonetheless, providing more social equality, freedom, and other things. Did the King not ever do anything wrong?

And your precious republic lasted 4 years before Napoleon's coup d'etat.

If you'd read the full conversation, you'd noticed that I was only saying that the First French Republic was preferable to the preceding Ancien Régime, not that I thought it was the best thing ever.

vote for the first french republic we just killed 40,000 people for no reason by hey your now all free! Great advert wouldn't you say.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh just the fact that the French Republic were a bunch of wusses who could not hold out on their own against their own general,

A military strongman taking power suddenly makes an entire government wusses?

and that the French Republic under the Sans Culottes is a bad example of politics gone wrong. I would see a better example in the post-Napoleonic France, but not in that phase of French history.

And France was still better as a republic than under the Ancien Régime nonetheless, providing more social equality, freedom, and other things. Did the King not ever do anything wrong?

And your precious republic lasted 4 years before Napoleon's coup d'etat.

If you'd read the full conversation, you'd noticed that I was only saying that the First French Republic was preferable to the preceding Ancien Régime, not that I thought it was the best thing ever.

If by "more social equality" you mean the regime under the Sans-Culottes using draconian measures and rigging elections. As well as changing their calendar to a stupid one, and the abolition of the church and expulsion of all dissenters, as well as people generally distrusting the Directory then yes, they sure had a hell of freedoms.

And yes, I will admit the First French Republic tried to be better than Louis's reign, but ultimately failed because of their paranoia which ultimately led them to be defeated by one of their generals.

And yes, if a government cannot keep in check their military it means the government is weak.

[Vietnam]

A military strongman taking power suddenly makes an entire government wusses?


And France was still better as a republic than under the Ancien Régime nonetheless, providing more social equality, freedom, and other things. Did the King not ever do anything wrong?


If you'd read the full conversation, you'd noticed that I was only saying that the First French Republic was preferable to the preceding Ancien Régime, not that I thought it was the best thing ever.

vote for the first french republic we just killed 40,000 people for no reason by hey your now all free! Great advert wouldn't you say.

And the Ancien Régime was just sooo much better, not even thinking about abolishing slavery, no democracy, and having your rights determined by your birth. Or do you think that the Ancien Régime didn't kill anyone and was the best thing ever? And you really think they all died for no reason? Although we may not see it as a good enough reason, many were outright reactionaries who hampered the progress of liberty, equality, and democratic ideals who many thought deserved to die.

[Maklohi Vai]

Your grasp of republicanism is so weak, senator, that it's even hard for me to respond. But, I digress. Sir, republicanism is giving the people a voice. It is giving them rights, freedoms, and liberties so that they can thrive. It may or may not give them economic control, that is irrelevant. There are socialist republics and laissez-faire capitalist republics. Does republicanism advocate that the people elect the head of state? Yes, it does, but it is not the only system to do so. I hope I do not have to emphasize further that republicanism is much more broad than you make it seem.

I know republicanism is lots of things but this to me is the only exclusively republican idea.

Really... Look, senator, you don't get to decide what the definition of republicanism is. You think that a combination of socialism and elections only exists in republics? I would like to point you to Sweden, a socialist country that is a constitutional monarchy. It has some of the freest and fairest elections in the world. There are several other examples as well.

Now if you mean communistic control combined with fair elections, that does not exist. But these states are not republics in spirit, they are communist states. Republicanism does not include these states. Communism is not republicanism, senator, I hope you know that.

[Vietnam]

A military strongman taking power suddenly makes an entire government wusses?


And France was still better as a republic than under the Ancien Régime nonetheless, providing more social equality, freedom, and other things. Did the King not ever do anything wrong?


If you'd read the full conversation, you'd noticed that I was only saying that the First French Republic was preferable to the preceding Ancien Régime, not that I thought it was the best thing ever.

If by "more social equality" you mean the regime under the Sans-Culottes using draconian measures and rigging elections.

Rather, I meant that your rights wouldn't be determined by your birth. Or have you never heard of the aristocracy and the monarchy?

As well as changing their calendar to a stupid one, and the abolition of the church and expulsion of all dissenters, as well as people generally distrusting the Directory then yes, they sure had a hell of freedoms.

And yes, I will admit the First French Republic tried to be better than Louis's reign, but ultimately failed because of their paranoia which ultimately led them to be defeated by one of their generals.

When did I claim that they had a hell lot of freedoms? I said that the First French Republic was better than the reign of Louis XVI. How was the Ancien Régime better?

[Evraim]

And the Ancien Régime was just sooo much better, not even thinking about abolishing slavery, no democracy, and having your rights determined by your birth. Or do you think that the Ancien Régime didn't kill anyone and was the best thing ever?

How does this pertain to the current Monarchist resolution? I thought they had agreed to accept a constitutional monarchy if their resolution passed. Such a system of government would be quite divorced from the regime of the Sun King. The best comparison would be the modern United Kingdom. I would encourage everybody to focus on the text of the resolutions and the principles behind those.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

vote for the first french republic we just killed 40,000 people for no reason by hey your now all free! Great advert wouldn't you say.

And the Ancien Régime was just sooo much better, not even thinking about abolishing slavery, no democracy, and having your rights determined by your birth. Or do you think that the Ancien Régime didn't kill anyone and was the best thing ever? And you really think they all died for no reason? Although we may not see it as a good enough reason, many were outright reactionaries who hampered the progress of liberty, equality, and democratic ideals who many thought deserved to die.

1 - They abolished slavery because well, they thought it was wrong to have freemen who are black dominating slaves who are black. Don't make them sound so perfect. As for democracy, the republic was a joke at establishing democracy.

[Vietnam]

I know republicanism is lots of things but this to me is the only exclusively republican idea.

Really... Look, senator, you don't get to decide what the definition of republicanism is. You think that a combination of socialism and elections only exists in republics? I would like to point you to Sweden, a socialist country that is a constitutional monarchy. It has some of the freest and fairest elections in the world. There are several other examples as well.

Now if you mean communistic control combined with fair elections, that does not exist. But these states are not republics in spirit, they are communist states. Republicanism does not include these states. Communism is not republicanism, senator, I hope you know that.

Sweden isn't remotely socialist, and communist state is an oxymoron, as stateless is a must in communism.

[Vietnam]

And the Ancien Régime was just sooo much better, not even thinking about abolishing slavery, no democracy, and having your rights determined by your birth. Or do you think that the Ancien Régime didn't kill anyone and was the best thing ever? And you really think they all died for no reason? Although we may not see it as a good enough reason, many were outright reactionaries who hampered the progress of liberty, equality, and democratic ideals who many thought deserved to die.

1 - They abolished slavery because well, they thought it was wrong to have freemen who are black dominating slaves who are black. Don't make them sound so perfect.

Is maintaining slavery preferable?

As for democracy, the republic was a joke at establishing democracy.

Was no democracy and your power being determined by birthright any better?

[Maklohi Vai]

Really... Look, senator, you don't get to decide what the definition of republicanism is. You think that a combination of socialism and elections only exists in republics? I would like to point you to Sweden, a socialist country that is a constitutional monarchy. It has some of the freest and fairest elections in the world. There are several other examples as well.

Now if you mean communistic control combined with fair elections, that does not exist. But these states are not republics in spirit, they are communist states. Republicanism does not include these states. Communism is not republicanism, senator, I hope you know that.

Sweden isn't remotely socialist, and communist state is an oxymoron, as stateless is a must in communism.

In pure Marxist communism, yes. But the real world has never experienced that, so I'm trying to put it in terms that Imperi would be able to connect to.

As for Sweden, I think social democratic would be more appropriate. Socialist was a bit over the top.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If by "more social equality" you mean the regime under the Sans-Culottes using draconian measures and rigging elections.

Rather, I meant that your rights wouldn't be determined by your birth. Or have you never heard of the aristocracy and the monarchy?

As well as changing their calendar to a stupid one, and the abolition of the church and expulsion of all dissenters, as well as people generally distrusting the Directory then yes, they sure had a hell of freedoms.

And yes, I will admit the First French Republic tried to be better than Louis's reign, but ultimately failed because of their paranoia which ultimately led them to be defeated by one of their generals.

When did I claim that they had a hell lot of freedoms? I said that the First French Republic was better than the reign of Louis XVI. How was the Ancien Régime better?

They both were failures in my opinion. Louis's reign for being too lavish (which was the real trigger of the civil war) and the republic for being too paranoid that it crushed everyone with even a iota of a different ideology than their own.

The other countries around them did not see the "freedoms", they saw the tyranny with which these "Revolutionaries" treated their subjects, which is why they decided to not legitimize their government.

And you are talking with someone who had to take classes on this, so I know what you are talking about. The Republic was still an utter failure at providing the stability and freedoms it preached.