Theocracy Discussion Thread

[Dogmeat]

A problem most religious people, similar to most Socialists, share. Of course, it's more a function of the ideology than a problem (as it has to keep trying until it's ruined the world or finally succeeded)

Gee, wonder which one will happen first...

Well, I mean, what actually tends to happen first is that the religious state steadily declines, and gets overshadowed by more sensible competition. When empires start turning to piety and dogmatism to restore themselves, it's usually a sign of their imminent demise (well, that or someone is trying to purge the opposition.)

Of course, now we have apocalyptic weaponry, so that's fun and new...

[Flawless Walruses]

1. What are negative consequences of not charging interest then? How is it just that in return for
me giving you a small ammount of money for a short time I have to give you a larger ammount of money forever?

Negative consequnce of not charging interest? None. Negative consequence of banning people from charging interest? No one gives loans. Interest is the motivation for banks to give out money, that they might not get back. Why else are they going to do it?

I detest theocracy in theory and in practise, but the prohibition on interest is something I've been warming to ever since the bailouts, and I realised how much risk (and more so, fragility) the government-backed "financial industry" externalizes onto the people.

Mohammed was a merchant before he entered the government business, and a free market fanatic even by modern American standards ("prices rise and fall in accordance with the will of God"), but he drew the line at state-subsidised usury.

If you're an entrepreneur in need of capital, find investors willing to take shares, was his system. If you can't find investors, your business probably sucks. Yes, Arabia and East Africa were doing the whole share-market thing a millennium before the West.

If you have capital to invest, find a business to take a share in (risks as well as rewards). If you're not willing to wear some of the risks, you don't deserve the rewards.

Either way, don't come howling to the government asking for a taxpayer-funded service, be it a bailout after a popular loss of confidence, or state-violence-backed enforcement on a compound-interest scam gone wrong.

Interest-bearing financial instruments make money and pay taxes in the short term, but the medium-term costs in enforcement costs, economic instability and political instability are not worth it (similiar to gambling and pyramid selling schemes). The only reason usury was legalised in early modern Europe (and its imitators since) is a combination of lack of foresight with massive political corruption.

[Right wing humour squad]

Doing acid in a secular nation: gets butterfly face painting, listens to some music and counsels their depressed light bulb.

Doing Acid in a theocratic nation: a terrifying incident where some hopeful young woman looses her face.

/thread

Where does the Quran condone acid attacks?
A pre-meditated misogynistic acid attack is hirabah("Making war on Allah and the messenger") and the attacker islamically would have their hand and foot cut off on opposite sides or be executed.

Yeah it’s almost like the koran is a propaganda piece designed to hide the evil reality of Islam.

[Isvataan]

Eh, I think we already tried the theocracy thing and it honestly doesn't work in the favor for Humanity. Only for an invisible wizard and bunch of peeps in higher power awhile the common man suffers. It can be seen after the fall of Rome and lasted nearly a thousand of years with little progress.

Still, if people want to believe in a deity, then they can. However, keep things separate so mankind keeps moving forward without worrying the restraits of a religious state.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Where does the Quran condone acid attacks?
A pre-meditated misogynistic acid attack is hirabah("Making war on Allah and the messenger") and the attacker islamically would have their hand and foot cut off on opposite sides or be executed.

Seriously, people. Learn the difference between theory and practice.

While talking about theory, talk about theory. While taking about practice, talk about practice.

Where does the Quran condone acid attacks?
A pre-meditated misogynistic acid attack is hirabah("Making war on Allah and the messenger") and the attacker islamically would have their hand and foot cut off on opposite sides or be executed.

Yeah it’s almost like the koran is a propaganda piece designed to hide the evil reality of Islam.

This doesn't even make sense. The Holy Qur'an is the foundation of Al-Islam.

[Kowani]

Seriously, people. Learn the difference between theory and practice.

While talking about theory, talk about theory. While taking about practice, talk about practice.

Oh, god, no. And when talking about theory, talk about how it intertwines with practice. Neither one exists in a bubble.

[Saranidia]

1. What are negative consequences of not charging interest then? How is it just that in return for
me giving you a small ammount of money for a short time I have to give you a larger ammount of money forever?

Negative consequnce of not charging interest? None. Negative consequence of banning people from charging interest? No one gives loans. Interest is the motivation for banks to give out money, that they might not get back. Why else are they going to do it?

People do give loans just different people, if charging interest is banned money will be in the hands of more generous,chivalrous people instead who will then give loans without interest.

[Frievolk]

Negative consequnce of not charging interest? None. Negative consequence of banning people from charging interest? No one gives loans. Interest is the motivation for banks to give out money, that they might not get back. Why else are they going to do it?

People do give loans just different people, if charging interest is banned money will be in the hands of more generous,chivalrous people instead who will then give loans without interest.

You... do realize that literally nobody gives loans without an interest, right? "lending" money is different than loaning, and loans, especially at an industrial stage, are meaningless if there's no profit motive.

[Saranidia]

People do give loans just different people, if charging interest is banned money will be in the hands of more generous,chivalrous people instead who will then give loans without interest.

You... do realize that literally nobody gives loans without an interest, right? "lending" money is different than loaning, and loans, especially at an industrial stage, are meaningless if there's no profit motive.

Well give loans as such are not necessary if people would just lend money without interest which members of the nobility and clerics of many countries have for a number of reasons.

[Saranidia]

By the way Frievolk why is it bad for Muslims to be against alcohol if they don't ban it for non-Muslims in their own homes?
Surely freedom of thought includes freedom to disapprove of people?
Also do you think prostitution should be legal?

[Frievolk]

You... do realize that literally nobody gives loans without an interest, right? "lending" money is different than loaning, and loans, especially at an industrial stage, are meaningless if there's no profit motive.

Well give loans as such are not necessary if people would just lend money without interest which members of the nobility and clerics of many countries have for a number of reasons.

Because when the amount of money in question is large enough, lending it without a risk, especially considering the shakiness of how much a currency is worth, will necessarily make you lose money if you can't make something out of it. You need to realize, loans (and other similar banking activities) are how people make money. It's not "I have more money, you need money. Here, take this and give it back when you can : )", it's "You need money, I make money out of giving people money. I pay you this now, two years later, you'll give it back to me with added interest" (That added interest is part of that guy's income).
It's all about risk and reward. Banks don't work on good will. This is doubly true in Islamic Countries (where, ironically, the actual interest number is like, higher than any non-Islamic bank)

By the way Frievolk why is it bad for Muslims to be against alcohol if they don't ban it for non-Muslims in their own homes?
Surely freedom of thought includes freedom to disapprove of people?
Also do you think prostitution should be legal?

It's bad for A State to be against alcohol. An Islamic Country bans any form of purchase or alcohol (for Muslim or non-Muslim, actually), which is not only a retarded idea but also against the very idea of freedom (because, you know, I don't give a fuck about Islam and want to get drunk. Who the fuck are you (figurative) to tell me I can't?)

"Disapproving" something is different than legislation about it. Similar to that being prostitution. It's perfectly a-ok for you to disapprove of it, it's not OK for you to legislate for or against it. (Unless it is about regulation, etc.)

[Flawless Walruses]

Well give loans as such are not necessary if people would just lend money without interest which members of the nobility and clerics of many countries have for a number of reasons.

Because when the amount of money in question is large enough, lending it without a risk, especially considering the shakiness of how much a currency is worth, will necessarily make you lose money if you can't make something out of it. You need to realize, loans (and other similar banking activities) are how people make money. It's not "I have more money, you need money. Here, take this and give it back when you can : )", it's "You need money, I make money out of giving people money. I pay you this now, two years later, you'll give it back to me with added interest" (That added interest is part of that guy's income).
It's all about risk and reward. Banks don't work on good will. This is doubly true in Islamic Countries (where, ironically, the actual interest number is like, higher than any non-Islamic bank)

History shows it is perfectly possible to have free-market capitalism without state-violence-backed compound interest. It requires investors to actively invest in shares and partnerships, and not have the government preach the illusion of "risk free" investment. Investment is never risk free, and banking-as-actually-practised is just a scam whereby the non-systemic risk is pushed down onto entrepreneurs and the systemic risk up onto the government and taxpayers. The existence of banks - state-subsidised financing - tends to crowd out more socially useful forms of financing. Mohammed had that right. I'm not suggesting a government should spend money to oppose usury, just decline to use state power to enforce such contracts when they go wrong - "ex turpi cause non oritur actio" "from an improper activity no action shall arise".

The rest of your post, though, I'm in full agreement with. Theocracy sucks - but its not the only predator in the forest

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Negative consequnce of not charging interest? None. Negative consequence of banning people from charging interest? No one gives loans. Interest is the motivation for banks to give out money, that they might not get back. Why else are they going to do it?

People do give loans just different people, if charging interest is banned money will be in the hands of more generous,chivalrous people instead who will then give loans without interest.

Think of a loan as renting someone else's money, and interest as being the equivalent of paying rent.

[Kubumba Tribe]

People do give loans just different people, if charging interest is banned money will be in the hands of more generous,chivalrous people instead who will then give loans without interest.

Think of a loan as renting someone else's money, and interest as being the equivalent of paying rent.

Except a Muslim shouldn't be doing that. We don't give nor take interest.

[Frievolk]

Think of a loan as renting someone else's money, and interest as being the equivalent of paying rent.

Except a Muslim shouldn't be doing that. We don't give nor take interest.

But that means you won't have a functioning economy.

[Wakatitinga]

no

[Frievolk]

no

/thread

[Wakatitinga]

no

/thread

sorry was so disgusted by the thought of theocracy that "no" was my only reply.I shall take my leave

[Saranidia]

Well give loans as such are not necessary if people would just lend money without interest which members of the nobility and clerics of many countries have for a number of reasons.

Because when the amount of money in question is large enough, lending it without a risk, especially considering the shakiness of how much a currency is worth, will necessarily make you lose money if you can't make something out of it. You need to realize, loans (and other similar banking activities) are how people make money. It's not "I have more money, you need money. Here, take this and give it back when you can : )", it's "You need money, I make money out of giving people money. I pay you this now, two years later, you'll give it back to me with added interest" (That added interest is part of that guy's income).
It's all about risk and reward. Banks don't work on good will. This is doubly true in Islamic Countries (where, ironically, the actual interest number is like, higher than any non-Islamic bank)

By the way Frievolk why is it bad for Muslims to be against alcohol if they don't ban it for non-Muslims in their own homes?
Surely freedom of thought includes freedom to disapprove of people?
Also do you think prostitution should be legal?

It's bad for A State to be against alcohol. An Islamic Country bans any form of purchase or alcohol (for Muslim or non-Muslim, actually), which is not only a retarded idea but also against the very idea of freedom (because, you know, I don't give a fuck about Islam and want to get drunk. Who the fuck are you (figurative) to tell me I can't?)

"Disapproving" something is different than legislation about it. Similar to that being prostitution. It's perfectly a-ok for you to disapprove of it, it's not OK for you to legislate for or against it. (Unless it is about regulation, etc.)

What about legislating against it to protect other women from the consequences of a culture that views women as disposable(like prostitution does)?

[Frievolk]

What about legislating against it to protect other women from the consequences of a culture that views women as disposable(like prostitution does)?

except it doesn't.

[Saranidia]

What about legislating against it to protect other women from the consequences of a culture that views women as disposable(like prostitution does)?

except it doesn't.

You probably wouldn't want your sister/mother/daughter to be a prostitute in any country because you care about her.


Also it does by saying that women have no sanctity or honour and all that is needed to gain access to their body is pay them.
I claims they can be rented even if consensually.

[Genivaria]

By the way Frievolk why is it bad for Muslims to be against alcohol if they don't ban it for non-Muslims in their own homes?
Surely freedom of thought includes freedom to disapprove of people?
Also do you think prostitution should be legal?

Considering that the thread is about Theocracy I don't believe for a second that non-Muslims would be allowed such.

[Genivaria]

except it doesn't.

You probably wouldn't want your sister/mother/daughter to be a prostitute in any country because you care about her.


Also it does by saying that women have no sanctity or honour and all that is needed to gain access to their body is pay them.
I claims they can be rented even if consensually.

I don't know what 'sanctity' or 'honor' has to do with having sex.
Or do you think that having sex is somehow immoral?

[Saranidia]

By the way Frievolk why is it bad for Muslims to be against alcohol if they don't ban it for non-Muslims in their own homes?
Surely freedom of thought includes freedom to disapprove of people?
Also do you think prostitution should be legal?

Considering that the thread is about Theocracy I don't believe for a second that non-Muslims would be allowed such.

Basing laws on religion does mean requiring people to follow religious obligations by force neccesarily. the religion might distinguish between criminal laws and religious laws not neccesarily criminal.
As far as I know the Quran and hadiths have no penalty for private alcohol use by non-Muslims.

[Genivaria]

Considering that the thread is about Theocracy I don't believe for a second that non-Muslims would be allowed such.

Basing laws on religion does mean requiring people to follow religious obligations by force neccesarily. the religion might distinguish between criminal laws and religious laws not neccesarily criminal.
As far as I know the Quran and hadiths have no penalty for private alcohol use by non-Muslims.

Are they required to for them to enforce it on non-Muslims?
When you've already crossed the line of putting religion into the law it's not a large step to apply it to ALL who live there and it's certainly not uncommon for Muslim rulers to do so.