Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Internationalist Bastard]

First of all you literally said new
Second what you’ve advocated is not a larger embrace of your morals but rather a systematic ostracization of all who do not conform and hope that people crawl into your views

New as in different from now. And no, the hope is is that people embrace Christianity. But if they don't, ostracization should be expected.

So what I said
So youod rather a bunch of people live on the fringe of society then what we have now, where Christianity is literally not oppressed at all and is no danger of fading away

[Mardla]

Christianity. Not as a silent minority, but as the vocal majority.

That’s not new and has the crucial flaw of not being accepted by a large chunk of the population

But virtually all policy has the same flaw.

[Joohan]

New as in different from now. And no, the hope is is that people embrace Christianity. But if they don't, ostracization should be expected.

So what I said
So youod rather a bunch of people live on the fringe of society then what we have now, where Christianity is literally not oppressed at all and is no danger of fading away

I do not desire it to be just some oft branch found somewhere in society - I want it to define our society.

[Mardla]

So what I said
So youod rather a bunch of people live on the fringe of society then what we have now, where Christianity is literally not oppressed at all and is no danger of fading away

I do not desire it to be just some oft branch found somewhere in society - I want it to define our society.

Not possible atm. When the pulpit was the major source of national media, religion of course defined our society. But with the advent of the newspaper and later more advanced stuff, the primary sources of national media all became secular and for profit.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'm gonna pull a massive "You know I had to do it to 'em" and state upfront that organized religion in politics is a degenerate affair of its own.

No better way of ruining God's credibility than its followers thinking they supposedly rule "in the name of God" (almost always in their own selfish wordly interests, in fact) saying that an ancient book written not by God (I stress this point heavily due to my belief that God is an abstract entity, not a human-like Sky Daddy), but by humans (i.e. certainly tainted by human bias) should be the law of the land and "unchanging".

[Mardla]

I'm gonna pull a massive "You know I had to do it to 'em" and state upfront that organized religion in politics is a degenerate affair of its own.

No better way of ruining God's credibility than its followers thinking they supposedly rule "in the name of God" (almost always in their own selfish wordly interests, in fact) saying that an ancient book written not by God (I stress this point heavily due to my belief that God is an abstract entity, not a human-like Sky Daddy), but by humans (i.e. certainly tainted by human bias) should be the law of the land and "unchanging".

There is nothing else to rule in the name of.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'm gonna pull a massive "You know I had to do it to 'em" and state upfront that organized religion in politics is a degenerate affair of its own.

No better way of ruining God's credibility than its followers thinking they supposedly rule "in the name of God" (almost always in their own selfish wordly interests, in fact) saying that an ancient book written not by God (I stress this point heavily due to my belief that God is an abstract entity, not a human-like Sky Daddy), but by humans (i.e. certainly tainted by human bias) should be the law of the land and "unchanging".

There is nothing else to rule in the name of.

How about "in the name of the nation"?

'Cause I think it's best we left God out of politics for goddamn once.

[Mardla]

There is nothing else to rule in the name of.

How about "in the name of the nation"?

'Cause I think it's best we left God out of politics for goddamn once.

The nation (which is distinct from the state, which is distinct from the government) is not defined here. What do you mean?

Furthermore it is very hard to say there is a national will.

[Mardla]

Dictatorships can very quickly affect change.

There is no such thing as property rights, see eminent domain, see property taxes.

No mechanism for you though. Because in most extreme ideologies you are naught but a cog in the regime's machinery. A soldier to die, a worker to produce, a household to tax the arse off. You have no rights enshrined for you. There are no courts that challenge the executive and the police may break down your door on their whim.

They can do that anyway as long as the judge wills it. All you're saying is that judges should be the supreme arbiter instead of the king.

[Reikoku]

Obv I agree with Stuart jurisprudence. Law is nothing but proclaiming someone's will, a legislator's, or a judge's. There is no "rule of law", law expresses the will of who rules.

Okay, Uncle Fred. You can go back to hugging abused horses now.

[Mardla]

Obv I agree with Stuart jurisprudence. Law is nothing but proclaiming someone's will, a legislator's, or a judge's. There is no "rule of law", law expresses the will of who rules.

Okay, Uncle Fred. You can go back to hugging abused horses now.

King James and Friedrich Nietzsche both had a kinship with horses, but in very different ways.

[Reikoku]

Taiwan is the real China, to be clear.

Red China has resisted Americanization, unfortunately.

My opinion is that the Democratic Progressive Party is too liberal and pro-American. They even made it illegal to eat dog meat! Too bad the Kuomintang is no longer in government.

... how is this a bad thing?

I would prefer that China remain china - not an American knock off. Cultural Diversity is an important factor too often trampled upon by liberals and globalists.

Diversity for diversity's sake is pointless. Confucianism is better felled by individualism.

t. Yang Zhu

[Izandai]

I'm gonna pull a massive "You know I had to do it to 'em" and state upfront that organized religion in politics is a degenerate affair of its own.

No better way of ruining God's credibility than its followers thinking they supposedly rule "in the name of God" (almost always in their own selfish wordly interests, in fact) saying that an ancient book written not by God (I stress this point heavily due to my belief that God is an abstract entity, not a human-like Sky Daddy), but by humans (i.e. certainly tainted by human bias) should be the law of the land and "unchanging".

There is nothing else to rule in the name of.

Justice, equality, liberty, human welfare...

[Reikoku]

They might try, but it's a futile struggle.

They should. America is for Americans, just as Japan is for the Japanese, Russia is for Russians, etc. etc.

Russia has around 115 recognized ethnic groups that live inside it, iirc. What even is a generic "Russian."

[Kubra]

They should. America is for Americans, just as Japan is for the Japanese, Russia is for Russians, etc. etc.

Russia has around 115 recognized ethnic groups that live inside it, iirc. What even is a generic "Russian."

In general, what constitutes a unified national culture is less ethnicity and more general preference towards particular alcoholic drinks and seasoning for roasted meats. That's way more reliable.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They should. America is for Americans, just as Japan is for the Japanese, Russia is for Russians, etc. etc.

Russia has around 115 recognized ethnic groups that live inside it, iirc. What even is a generic "Russian."

[Mardla]

There is nothing else to rule in the name of.

Justice, equality, liberty, human welfare...

To rule is subjugation, ruling in the name of liberty is an oxymoron. Ruling is precisely needed to the extent that a people are not fit for liberty.

Justice is conceived in a radically different way by the left than the right. Derrida's deconstruction of justice for example basically ignores Hobbes altogether and presumes a liberal conception of justice, but decisionism would easily get around the problem. In short, authority makes justice, justice doesn't make authority.

Equality doesn't exist. If you say you can't rule in the name of God because he doesn't exist, surely you would say the same about something which OBVIOUSLY and SELF EVIDENTLY doesn't exist?

"Human welfare" meaning hedonic calculus here?

[Reikoku]

I-it's tempting...

Luxurious food and drinks, in no way protect you from harm. Wealth beyond what is natural, is no more use than an overflowing container. Real value is not generated by theaters, and baths, perfumes or ointments, but by philosophy.

The desire to eat good food, to wear good clothes, to live in a good house, to have money, to be respected by others, and to live a long life is part of everybody’s true feelings. And yet everybody says that these are not good things, and that not to possess these desires is quite admirable. The fact that there are so many people in the world who pretend to be free from these desires and not to be asking for them is simply an annoying lie.

[Mardla]

The desire to eat good food, to wear good clothes, to live in a good house, to have money, to be respected by others, and to live a long life is part of everybody’s true feelings. And yet everybody says that these are not good things, and that not to possess these desires is quite admirable. The fact that there are so many people in the world who pretend to be free from these desires and not to be asking for them is simply an annoying lie.

n-word can't into Spartans.

[Izandai]

Justice, equality, liberty, human welfare...

To rule is subjugation, ruling in the name of liberty is an oxymoron. Ruling is precisely needed to the extent that a people are not fit for liberty.

Oftimes a bit of restriction in one group's liberty allows for a greater gain in another group's liberty. This is often the case with regards to discriminated populations. Abolishing slavery abridged some people's liberty by barring them from owning slaves, but granted the former slaves much more liberty.

Justice is conceived in a radically different way by the left than the right. Derrida's deconstruction of justice for example basically ignores Hobbes altogether and presumes a liberal conception of justice, but decisionism would easily get around the problem. In short, authority makes justice, justice doesn't make authority.

Just because that's how societies have worked historically doesn't mean that's the only or best way they can work.

Equality doesn't exist.

And before the 20th century airplanes didn't exist. But then some people decided it would be a very nice thing to have flying machines, and now they do.

If you say you can't rule in the name of God because he doesn't exist,

I didn't say that.

surely you would say the same about something which OBVIOUSLY and SELF EVIDENTLY doesn't exist?

No, because ruling in the name of an ideal isn't the same as ruling in the name of a person. In the case of the latter, it means ruling in accordance with their desires or commands. In the case of the former, it means ruling with the aim of bringing about that ideal.

"Human welfare" meaning hedonic calculus here?

Not sure why you have a problem with people being happy.

[Conserative Morality]

The desire to eat good food, to wear good clothes, to live in a good house, to have money, to be respected by others, and to live a long life is part of everybody’s true feelings. And yet everybody says that these are not good things, and that not to possess these desires is quite admirable. The fact that there are so many people in the world who pretend to be free from these desires and not to be asking for them is simply an annoying lie.

Sounds like Motoori just can't appreciate the simple things in life because he lacks philosophical inclinations. =^)

t. am eating cheese right now

[Kubra]

Sounds like Motoori just can't appreciate the simple things in life because he lacks philosophical inclinations. =^)

t. am eating cheese right now

Was about to bring up the aristocratic decadence of cheese every day

[Mardla]

Oftimes a bit of restriction in one group's liberty allows for a greater gain in another group's liberty. This is often the case with regards to discriminated populations. Abolishing slavery abridged some people's liberty by barring them from owning slaves, but granted the former slaves much more liberty.

Slaves who weren't citizens and who came from a people who considered slavery normal. Ruling in the name of such liberty is very iffy if it leads to some sort of global responsibility to liberate all peoples...for example, the British Empire saw the abolition of slavery in Africa as justifying imperialism.

Just because that's how societies have worked historically doesn't mean that's the only or best way they can work.

It is the only way they can work. Justice always presumes a judge.

And before the 20th century airplanes didn't exist. But then some people decided it would be a very nice thing to have flying machines, and now they do.

Yes but even if we genetically engineered everyone to be identical clones, it wouldn't exist.

No, because ruling in the name of an ideal isn't the same as ruling in the name of a person. In the case of the latter, it means ruling in accordance with their desires or commands. In the case of the former, it means ruling with the aim of bringing about that ideal.

I would classify it as a fancy more than an ideal. There are airplanes, then there is a perpetual motion machine.

Not sure why you have a problem with people being happy.

I know neither how you're defining nor measuring happiness, nor whether you think it is fungible, nor how the ratio of sacrificing to atonement works. If you rule in the name of happiness, that is very bad, because then being unhappy becomes the greatest dissent. I would rather live under a hellish regime that granted me the "right to be unhappy", as Dostoevsky calls it, than live under a Candyland where expression of unhappiness was classified as a mental illness.

[Izandai]

Oftimes a bit of restriction in one group's liberty allows for a greater gain in another group's liberty. This is often the case with regards to discriminated populations. Abolishing slavery abridged some people's liberty by barring them from owning slaves, but granted the former slaves much more liberty.

Slaves who weren't citizens and who came from a people who considered slavery normal. Ruling in the name of such liberty is very iffy if it leads to some sort of global responsibility to liberate all peoples...for example, the British Empire saw the abolition of slavery in Africa as justifying imperialism.

A global responsibility to liberate all peoples is exactly what we have. What everybody has. We're all people, and all people have a right to liberty.

Just because that's how societies have worked historically doesn't mean that's the only or best way they can work.

It is the only way they can work. Justice always presumes a judge.

In a functional justice system, judges are expected to rule on cases in accordance with the law, and when they do not, there are mechanisms in place to revoke their power.

And before the 20th century airplanes didn't exist. But then some people decided it would be a very nice thing to have flying machines, and now they do.

Yes but even if we genetically engineered everyone to be identical clones, it wouldn't exist.

No, because ruling in the name of an ideal isn't the same as ruling in the name of a person. In the case of the latter, it means ruling in accordance with their desires or commands. In the case of the former, it means ruling with the aim of bringing about that ideal.

I would classify it as a fancy more than an ideal. There are airplanes, then there is a perpetual motion machine.

The political ideal of equality is not that everyone is exactly the same in every way and lives exactly the same lives. It means that no one has any advantage over anyone else due to some accident of birth and any inequality is solely the result of the free choices people make.

Not sure why you have a problem with people being happy.

I know neither how you're defining nor measuring happiness, nor whether you think it is fungible, nor how the ratio of sacrificing to atonement works. If you rule in the name of happiness, that is very bad, because then being unhappy becomes the greatest dissent. I would rather live under a hellish regime that granted me the "right to be unhappy", as Dostoevsky calls it, than live under a Candyland where expression of unhappiness was classified as a mental illness.

I have scarcely seen someone misunderstand something so fundamentally. Under a government that rules in the name of happiness, unhappiness is not dissent, it's a result of the government failing to live up to its stated ideal. It's of course also inevitable as long as we're talking about humans, but just because a goal is impossible to achieve doesn't mean that it's not still worthwhile to strive for it.

[Mardla]

A global responsibility to liberate all peoples is exactly what we have. What everybody has. We're all people, and all people have a right to liberty.

Nah, the neocon enterprise failed.

In a functional justice system, judges are expected to rule on cases in accordance with the law, and when they do not, there are mechanisms in place to revoke their power.

No there aren't, because it is PRECISELY THE JUDGE who decides what is "in accordance with the law".

The political ideal of equality is not that everyone is exactly the same in every way and lives exactly the same lives. It means that no one has any advantage over anyone else due to some accident of birth and any inequality is solely the result of the free choices people make.

Impossible because genetics aren't a choice. Now you can outlaw inheritance, but you are still not going to get what you want, and saying that someone's reward for their efforts can't be a better situation for their child is stupid. Your descendants are often your greatest incentive.

I have scarcely seen someone misunderstand something so fundamentally. Under a government that rules in the name of happiness, unhappiness is not dissent, it's a result of the government failing to live up to its stated ideal.

Yes, it means the government is failing. And when the government bases its legitimacy on providing happiness, failing to do so impeaches its very legitimacy, so it will be forced to prescribe narcotics or say you have "depression" or anything else that will prevent your sadness from calling the government's legitimacy into question.