This article explores the legacies of past empires and how they shape the world today. The Roman, Islamic, Spanish, Central American, French and British empires all left a deep and identifiable footprint on modern society and politics. The social institutions that built these empires shape the way we interact with our fellow man. It is my hope that a sound historical perspective will inform the causes of our great failures and successes and encourage us to face up to the challenges and threats that continue to stalk modern civilisation.

Below, I present a brief groundwork of ancient history, a recently developed tool for measuring civilisation, some maps of what may be the less familiar but still very relevant Roman and Islamic Empires, a discussion of the ultimate causes of their rise and fall, Islam’s legacy, context to the European dark ages, the decline of slavery, Rome’s political legacy, and how the more recent European and native American empires have shaped the modern world.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/heavy-legacies-our-past.html


The cradle of civilisation
Measuring civilisation
Cold, rich and powerful
The glory of Rome
The Islamic juggernaut
Islam’s legacy and the myth of the golden age
The myth of the Islamic scientific revolution
Dark Ages
Slavery
Rome’s legacy – the return to democracy
France’s legacy – liberty by blood
Britain’s legacy – Romanising the world

I can't find a reference in there, FD. Who wrote this?

I am glad its ANCIENT HISTORY... its dark and show the only thing groups had in those times was CONTROL...

replaced today by weapons....

it is all about control of one group over another after all said and done.....and in times of yore it was mainly by fear followed by war and death...they fed the Christians to the Lions through fear after all.....

the fear from what little I see..   has never really gone away....and along with the need for certain men to have complete control...it manifests itself in all sort of way.......the world is still exactly the same as it was in Roman times....thinking has become more "modern"..but its still with the same greed and Power hunger as it ever was...well thats how I see it...

not a whole lot has changed really..

No no, dear, the writer is saying the West is superior to Islam because Rome was "inclusive". He then shows how Muslims were corrupted by inbreeding, which is not very inclusive.

He hasn’t gone with the Arab/Negroid sub-breed thesis, preferring to.stay mum on such plausible theories. Still, he’s included the modern inbred map, which proves once and for all that Muhammed was a dirty little invert.

You can read more on various old threads here, or read Why the West Rules for Now, which says something completely different.

I think the author’s looking for a publisher, he just nerds to come up with the right name.

Rome was more politically inclusive than its competitors Karnal. Do you concede that?

How does the article contradict Ian Morris' views?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 5:58pm:

Rome was more politically inclusive than its competitors Karnal. Do you concede that? How does the article contradict Ian Morris' views?

The article doesn’t reference Morris, FD. I can’t see a quote or page number in there, despite my query.

How was Rome more inclusive than, say, the caliphate? I do feel that’s the dichotomy the author is trying to pose, aside from.the inbreeding thesis.

Bread and circuses? Better treatment of slaves? More gods?

The Eastern Roman Empire (the Byzantines) brought the modern world to Central Asia and the middle east. The caliphate is railing against it to this very day.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 7:02pm:

freediver wrote on May 1st, 2016 at 5:58pm: Rome was more politically inclusive than its competitors Karnal. Do you concede that? How does the article contradict Ian Morris' views? The article doesn’t reference Morris, FD. I can’t see a quote or page number in there, despite my query. How was Rome more inclusive than, say, the caliphate? I do feel that’s the dichotomy the author is trying to pose, aside from.the inbreeding thesis. Bread and circuses? Better treatment of slaves? More gods?

Elections.

It was also more politically inclusive than its contemporaries, which is the main thesis, as well as most large states throughout history until fairly recently. The original Roman Empire never competed directly against the Caliphate.

The article makes several references to Morris. The first plot in the article is from Morris' book.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 5:58pm:

Rome was more politically inclusive than its competitors Karnal. Do you concede that? How does the article contradict Ian Morris' views?

I don't see Rome that way at all. It was Rome's way or the highway genocide. What do you mean politically inclusive? We'll adopt some of your gods, align them with ours?

I will say, Rome didn't care about ethnicity at all but it did care about obedience and anyone jacking up was dealt with harshly, no matter how long it took.

Edit: I haven't read your links yet. I will.

Elections.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 10:15pm:

Elections.

This July apparently. :-?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 10:15pm:

Elections.

Those Caesars must have campaigned hard, eh?

Who got to vote in "elections"?

Would you mind getting to the point Karnal, if you have one?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 9:42am:

Would you mind getting to the point Karnal, if you have one?

Sometimes a question is just a question, FD. Who voted in Roman erections?

I'm curious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrNVTOXE7IU

Karnal, much of the details are lost to history, the the political institutions changed multiple times throughout the history of the Roman Empire, which is over 1000 years if you count the bits on each end.

What we do know is more than enough to set Rome apart and explain its relative strength.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 10:21am:

Karnal, much of the details are lost to history,

No, they're not. A number of Roman historians wrote about it. It's the subject of books, paintings, plays. Shakespeare even wrote one. The rise and fall of the Roman republic is one of the most documented phenomena in history.

If you don't know the answer to this, why are you posting on it?

Good point Karnal. The details that are not lost to history are not lost to history. They are even documented. But still, I am unable to give you simple answer when there are multiple completely different answers spanning Rome's history. Nor am I going to give you the complete answer, nor pick one at random, given your tendency to miss the wood for the trees.

The reason I am writing on it is because it supports the theory that political and economic inclusiveness are a source of modern wealth and power. The details are not necessary for this. Rome was not competing against a number of other regimes that had their own elections. Thus, the use of elections alone is sufficient to set it apart and explain its wealth.

That is, after all, the point of the article, which you seem remarkably dedicated to missing.

If you have a point to make, make it. If, as you imply, you merely want the details, you will have to google it, or open any of those books you mentioned.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 10:33am:

Good point Karnal. The details that are not lost to history are not lost to history. They are even documented. But still, I am unable to give you simple answer when there are multiple completely different answers spanning Rome's history.

No, FD, there are two distinct periods of Roman history; the Republic, from 509 BCE to 27 BCE, and the Roman Empire, which spanned from 27 BCE to the 600s.

In Rome, people were divided into two categories; citizens and non-citizens. There were three classes; patricians, plebeians, and slaves. During the period of the republic, slaves did not get to vote, and plebians did not get to run for the Senate or curiate assembly (until 336 BCE, anyway). Women didn't vote at all.

During the republic, the patricians ran things. Patricians were the descendants of the original Roman families. Plebians were subject to the powers of the patricians, a "client/patronage" relationship similar to the way serfs were later subject to aristocratic power in European monarchies.

Power became more and more centralized in the later republic, culminating in "first triumvirate" with Pompey the Great, Marcus Crassus and Julius Caesar. Caesar prevailed. The republic ended.

With the decline of the Roman Empire, Europe loosely transferred the power of the Caesars to kings. The church was pivotal in enshrining this model, even coming up with a metaphysical basis for this power, the Divine Right of Kings.

This model was unquestioned until the Enlightenment, who turned back to the Roman republic. After its revolution, France loosely based its new republic on the Roman republic. There was a lot of talk about the division of power between plebians and patricians, but in the end, everyone called themselves, "citizens". The first French republic ended with the rise of Napoleon, and later re-emerged in the aftermath of the second French revolution in 1848. The 1848 revolutions in Europe marked the transition to what we now call democracy. Even then, most countries only granted the vote to landholders, the equivalent of the Roman patricians. Women and working class men did not get the vote until the late 19th/early 20th century.

The Roman republic is not known as a democracy, but a republic. The differences between democracies and republics has also been well documented. Machiavelli's the Discourses is a good place to start. Rousseau's early essays are another.

So there you have it: the West had no democracy for nearly 2000 years. It also had little "inclusiveness", if any.

I'll ask you again, FD, how was the distribution of power in Western Europe any more inclusive than, say, the Islamic caliphate?

I'll give you a clue. "Elections" is not the right answer.

Are you saying there were no elections, or that they did not constitute a difference in the distribution of power?

What do you think the correct answer is?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:28pm:

Are you saying there were no elections, or that they did not constitute a difference in the distribution of power? What do you think the correct answer is?

It's your turn to answer, FD.

My answer is still the same Karnal - elections. Do you have a different answer?

Is there anything in the article you actually disagree with? Or do you simply not like it? Would you be more comfortable if it contained endless detail?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:40pm:

My answer is still the same Karnal - elections. Do you have a different answer? Is there anything in the article you actually disagree with? Or do you simply not like it? Would you be more comfortable if it contained endless detail?

Which elections, FD? Please show me where, from 27 BCE to the French Revolution, Western Europe had popular elections.

And by popular, I mean citizens (or subjects) voting for their governments.

A clue: in some places, they existed. Here's your chance to show where.

Real examples, please. A motherhood statement won't substantiate your argument.

Why are you trying to restrict me to after 27 BC? On Morris' index the Roman Empire was steady and then declining after then. Is there any particular reason why you want to exclude the dramatic rise in living standards?

Again, is there anything in the article you actually disagree with? Is there a point to this? Or do you just want to have a details competition because you don't like the substance?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 1:50pm:

Why are you trying to restrict me to after 27 BC? On Morris' index the Roman Empire was steady and then declining after then. Is there any particular reason why you want to exclude the dramatic rise in living standards?

We're not talking about living standards, we're discussing the difference between the West and other empires. Your argument is that the Roman Empire (not the Republic) is superior to other empires, such as the Islamic caliphate. The reason?

"Elections".

Unfortunately, you can't substantiate this with any evidence of elections. Nor can you show how past Western models of power are any more inclusive than any other.

No worries. But can I ask, FD - have you read the Ian Morris book? There must be examples in there, shurely.


Quote:

Are you saying there were no elections, or that they did not constitute a difference in the distribution of power?

Both. In much of Europe, elections have been held for local councils for centuries - way before the French Revolution. This is an old Angle tradition going back to the Norse, and has little to do with Roman republican or Athenian democratic models.

As for democracy, Alexander the Great is generally held to have done that in. With the rise of empires, city states could no longer defend themselves and manage their affairs. Power had to go to those who could mobilize and pay armies. The past two millennia of European history is about just this: who had the best armies and how much of the map they shaped.

Popular elections do not need to influence the distribution of power, and in many cases, they don't. Elections were used in the Roman republic to prevent people from overthrowing their leaders. They create a sense of order based on the illusion that the people have a say in their rulers. This was Machiavelli's argument, and when you look at countries like Thailand today, it makes sense. Elections are a tool used by generals to consolidate their coups.

So yes, elections in themselves mean little. Elections are, at best, a tool used by democracies. They are not the be-all and end-all of popular representation. In modern democracies, the biggest fundraisers generally get elected. In republics like Amerika, politicians represent their lobbyists and donors in office, not the people who voted them in.

This is not some new discovery, it goes back to the early theorists on government and the social contract - people like Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. What we tentatively call democracy today is, at best, a concession to the ideal of democracy. Citizens almost never get direct representation. At the same time, the corporate interests and political backers don't always get their demands either. Citizens (plebeians and patricians) are forced to compromise.


Quote:

Again, is there anything in the article you actually disagree with? Is there a point to this? Or do you just want to have a details competition because you don't like the substance?

it's not so much that I don't like the substance. I think the article is incredibly well-written. Good use of plain English, a very easy read, point by point. Good timing, good pacing.

I'm getting to its substance, which from what you've just shown, does not exist. Asking for evidence of elections is not a details competition when it's your only argument. If you don't have any evidence of what you're saying, why say it? Someone like me is inevitably going to come along and point this out. That's why we post on a discussion board, not a blog.

Presumably, we're trying to uncover a form of truth here, not just spew out our views and expect them to be blindly swallowed. This, remember, is what the internet is supposed to deliver: interactive discussion and peer-review. It's meant to be an evolution of one-way mass media like radio - a propaganda tool.

At its core, the "substance" of the article is ludicrous: the West is better than Islam because we have elections and they have inbreeding.

But the West did not have elections for 2000 years, and the Roman empire had far more inbreeding than the caliphate. And how do we know?

According to Matty's IQ article, the Arabs interbred with African slaves - slaves who, as you've said - could gain their freedom by converting to Islam.

So there, in a nutshell, is why the caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman republic and empire: slaves could become citizens. This could never happen in Rome, a province where the vast majority of those within its borders were slaves and non-citizens.

And remember, in neither of these empires did citizens get to vote for their leaders.

Quote:

We're not talking about living standards, we're discussing the difference between the West and other empires. Your argument is that the Roman Empire (not the Republic) is superior to other empires, such as the Islamic caliphate. The reason?

I see. I'm glad you finally got to the point, sort of. I will change it to the republic, or a broader term if I can find one. It would actually support my argument if it was limited to the republic period.


Quote:

Nor can you show how past Western models of power are any more inclusive than any other.

What period are you trying to restrict me to now?


Quote:

No worries. But can I ask, FD - have you read the Ian Morris book? There must be examples in there, shurely.

This is Acemoglu's theory. Rome and Venice are his earliest examples that I recall. Yes I have read both. If you follow the links I present reviews of their content.


Quote:

Elections were used in the Roman republic to prevent people from overthrowing their leaders.

Yes, that is one of the benefits, even today. Or rather, they enable the overthrow, without bloodshed.


Quote:

They create a sense of order based on the illusion that the people have a say in their rulers. This was Machiavelli's argument, and when you look at countries like Thailand today, it makes sense. Elections are a tool used by generals to consolidate their coups.

Is that what the elections in Rome were? Or is this just another version of "it's not pure democracy, therefor it doesn't count"?


Quote:

They are not the be-all and end-all of popular representation. In modern democracies, the biggest fundraisers generally get elected.

Is this a correlation or a causation? Or does it not matter so long as you can poke a hole?


Quote:

This is not some new discovery, it goes back to the early theorists on government and the social contract - people like Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. What we tentatively call democracy today is, at best, a concession to the ideal of democracy. Citizens almost never get direct representation. At the same time, the corporate interests and political backers don't always get their demands either. Citizens (plebeians and patricians) are forced to compromise.

Still a lot better than dictatorship don't you think? And more likely to produce a higher living standard, among other things?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 2:54pm:

Quote: We're not talking about living standards, we're discussing the difference between the West and other empires. Your argument is that the Roman Empire (not the Republic) is superior to other empires, such as the Islamic caliphate. The reason? I see. I will change it to the republic, or a broader term if I can find one. It would actually support my argument if it was limited to the republic period. [quote]Nor can you show how past Western models of power are any more inclusive than any other.

What period are you trying to restrict me to now?


Quote:

No worries. But can I ask, FD - have you read the Ian Morris book? There must be examples in there, shurely.

This is Acemoglu's theory. Rome and Venice are his earliest examples that I recall. Yes I have read both. If you follow the links I present reviews of their content.


Quote:

Elections were used in the Roman republic to prevent people from overthrowing their leaders.

Yes, that is one of the benefits, even today. Or rather, they enable the overthrow, without bloodshed.


Quote:

They create a sense of order based on the illusion that the people have a say in their rulers. This was Machiavelli's argument, and when you look at countries like Thailand today, it makes sense. Elections are a tool used by generals to consolidate their coups.

Is that what the elections in Rome were? Or is this just another version of "it's not pure democracy, therefor it doesn't count"?


Quote:

They are not the be-all and end-all of popular representation. In modern democracies, the biggest fundraisers generally get elected.

Is this a correlation or a causation? Or does it not matter so long as you can poke a hole?


Quote:

This is not some new discovery, it goes back to the early theorists on government and the social contract - people like Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. What we tentatively call democracy today is, at best, a concession to the ideal of democracy. Citizens almost never get direct representation. At the same time, the corporate interests and political backers don't always get their demands either. Citizens (plebeians and patricians) are forced to compromise.

Still a lot better than dictatorship don't you think? And more likely to produce a higher living standard, among other things?[/quote]

FD, you're not saying anything here. You're trying to prove Rome was more inclusive than the caliphate. Can you do this?

You're only restricted to the points you've made in your argument. If they don't stand up, you can hardly blame me.

Quote:

Again, is there anything in the article you actually disagree with? Is there a point to this? Or do you just want to have a details competition because you don't like the substance?

it's not so much that I don't like the substance. I think the article is incredibly well-written. Good use of plain English, a very easy read, point by point. Good timing, good pacing.

I'm getting to its substance, which from what you've just shown, does not exist. Asking for evidence of elections is not a details competition when it's your only argument. If you don't have any evidence of what you're saying, why say it? Someone like me is inevitably going to come along and point this out. That's why we post on a discussion board, not a blog.

At its core, the "substance" of the article is ludicrous: the West is better than Islam because we have elections and they have inbreeding.

But the West did not have elections for 2000 years, and the Roman empire had far more inbreeding than the caliphate. And how do we know?

According to Matty's IQ article, the Arabs interbred with African slaves - slaves who, as you've said - could gain their freedom by converting to Islam.

So there, in a nutshell, is why the caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman republic and empire: slaves could become citizens. This could never happen in Rome, a province where the vast majority of those within its borders were slaves and non-citizens.

And remember, in neither of these empires did citizens get to vote for their leaders.

Quote:

FD, you're not saying anything here. You're trying to prove Rome was more inclusive than the caliphate. Can you do this? You're only restricted to the points you've made in your argument. If they don't stand up, you can hardly blame me.

Elections. In the republic. Even if they did not achieve whatever your version of pure democracy is.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Elections. In the republic. Even if they did not achieve whatever your version of pure democracy is.

Are you changing your argument to the republic? You initially confined your argument to the Roman Empire and said it's impossible to uncover different periods as it's all lost to the sands of time.

Quote:

Are you changing your argument to the republic? You initially confined your argument to the Roman Empire and said it's impossible to uncover different periods as it's all lost to the sands of time.

Read my previous reponse on this Karnal.


Quote:

At its core, the "substance" of the article is ludicrous: the West is better than Islam because we have elections and they have inbreeding.

I thought we were restricting ourselves to the points made in the article?

Do you think western democracy and liberty is a good thing? That it contributes to our wealth? What about all that inbreeding? Do you deny the direct support for it in the Koran, the difficulties that Muslim nations would have banning it because of this, or the significant negative impact this has on Muslim societies?


Quote:

But the West did not have elections for 2000 years

The west has no lead for 2000 years.


Quote:

and the Roman empire had far more inbreeding than the caliphate

How do you know this? So far all your commentary appears restricted to the ruling class, and you seem to think that was my argument also.


Quote:

According to Matty's IQ article, the Arabs interbred with African slaves - slaves who, as you've said - could gain their freedom by converting to Islam.

I doubt it was as easy as Abu made out for slaves to gain their freedom. And there are surprisingly few African looking faces among the middle eastern arabs today. The inbreeding thing may go some way to explaining this.


Quote:

So there, in a nutshell, is why the caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman republic and empire: slaves could become citizens.

By submitting? This did not exactly get them any closer to having a say in government, though it did make it more economically inclusive, to the extent the slaves were actually freed.


Quote:

This could never happen in Rome, a province where the vast majority of those within its borders were slaves and non-citizens.

Never ever?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Freedmen

Rome differed from Greek city-states in allowing freed slaves to become citizens.

The rise of successful freedmen—through either political influence in imperial service, or wealth—is a characteristic of early Imperial society. The prosperity of a high-achieving group of freedmen is attested by inscriptions throughout the Empire, and by their ownership of some of the most lavish houses at Pompeii, such as the House of the Vettii. The excesses of nouveau riche freedmen were satirized in the character of Trimalchio in the Satyricon by Petronius, who wrote in the time of Nero. Such individuals, while exceptional, are indicative of the upward social mobility possible in the Empire.

Freed men were not slaves anymore, FD, but a good detail nevertheless.

Inbreeding was common in Rome, particularly among patricians who wanted their wealth kept in the family. It was also common after the fall of Rome, and particularly among the European aristocracy.


Quote:

For some prominent examples of cousin marriages in ancient Rome, such as the marriage of Octavian's daughter to his sister's son, see the Julio-Claudian family tree. Marcus Aurelius also married his maternal first cousin Faustina the Younger, and they had 13 children. Cousin marriage was more frequent in Ancient Greece, and marriages between uncle and niece were also permitted there.[4] One example is King Leonidas I of Sparta, who married his half-niece. A Greek woman who became epikleros, or heiress with no brothers, was obliged to marry her father's nearest male kin if she had not yet married and given birth to a male heir. First in line would be either her father's brothers or their sons, followed by her father's sisters' sons.[36] According to Goody, cousin marriage was allowed in the newly Christian and presumably also pre-Christian Ireland, where an heiress was also obligated to marry a paternal cousin. From the 7th century the Irish Church only recognized four degrees of prohibited kinship, and civil law fewer. This persisted until after the Norman conquests in the 11th century and the synod at Cashel in 1101.[37] In contrast, contemporary English law was based on official Catholic policy, and Anglo-Norman clergy often became disgusted with the Irish "law of fornication".[38] Finally, Edward Westermarck states that marriage among the ancient Teutons was apparently prohibited only in the ascending and descending lines and among siblings.[39] First cousin marriage was also common among southern Italians as Sicily had a high percentage of cousin marriage of almost 50 percent in rural areas in the early 20th century.[40][41]

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

But I'm curious. What's the direct support for inbreeding in the Koran?

I draw your attention to a certain country on your inbreeding map that has gone meticulously avoided to date: India, a country where 20-29% are allegedly inbred.

India is also an emerging world power, the second largest emerging economy in the world. If your thesis is correct, if inbreeding leads to a decline in living standards, technological development, "inclusive" systems of government, etc, etc, etc, how could India possibly have such a high level of economic growth?

I'd pose a simple solution to this enigma, but I'm not sure you'll agree with my answer.

Population.

India, quite simply, is an emerging world power because it has the world's second highest population in the world.

And yes, I know where you'll go with this. No, you'll say, India is an emerging world power because it has "elections", the heavy legacy of our past, bequeathed by that great past empire, Mother England.

To which my response will be, no FD, India is a democracy because it fought for its independence from Mother. I'll also say that China is not a democracy but they're the second biggest economy in the world, so democracy couldn't possibly be the cause of wealth creation per se.

Oh - and China has "elections".

No, India is an emerging power despite its high level of inbreeding and even its low average IQ score - a few points lower than all those Muslim countries.

So there you go again - not even a country's average estimated IQ score is the sole driver of national wealth/economic growth. India has high inbreeding, a low average IQ score, elections, and as much tintedness as all your Muselman countries put together.

But it does have a hell of a lot of people.

Ah.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islamic_Incest_Ratchet#Quranic_support_for_incest

A few examples says nothing at all about how common inbreeding was, and if it was "common" after the fall, that hardly contradicts anything in the article.

I'll throw in my edit for you to think about.


Quote:

I draw your attention to a certain country on your inbreeding map that has gone meticulously avoided to date: India, a country where 20-29% are allegedly inbred. India is also an emerging world power, the second largest emerging economy in the world. If your thesis is correct, if inbreeding leads to a decline in living standards, technological development, "inclusive" systems of government, etc, etc, etc, how could India possibly have such a high level of economic growth? I'd pose a simple solution to this enigma, but I'm not sure you'll agree with my answer. Population. India, quite simply, is an emerging world power because it has the world's second highest population. And yes, I know where you'll go with this. No, you'll say, India is an emerging world power because it has "elections", the heavy legacy of our past, bequeathed by that great past empire, Mother England. To which my response will be, no FD, India is a democracy because it fought for its independence from Mother. I'll also say that China is not a democracy but they're the second biggest economy in the world, so democracy couldn't possibly be the cause of wealth creation per se. Oh - and China has "elections". No, India is an emerging power despite its high level of inbreeding and even its low average IQ score - a few points lower than all those Muslim countries. So there you go again - not even a country's average estimated IQ score is the sole driver of national wealth/economic growth. India has high inbreeding, a low average IQ score, elections, and as much tintedness as all your Muselman countries put together. But it does have a hell of a lot of people. Ah.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 5:31pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islamic_Incest_Ratchet#Quranic_support_for_incest A few examples says nothing at all about how common inbreeding was, and if it was "common" after the fall, that hardly contradicts anything in the article.

Sorry, FD, what I asked was what was the "direct support" for inbreeding in the Koran?

By this I meant which part of Islam encourages or compels the marriage of cousins?

Your Koran quotes merely allow such marriages, as did the laws of ancient Rome and even Australian law today.

Quote:

To which my response will be, no FD, India is a democracy because it fought for its independence from Mother.

Whichever way you spin it, it has democracy. The British influence there is undeniable, but they would still benefit from democracy even if they got it some other way. I'd say the Muslims, the inbreeders etc are holding them back, and Britain's influence (democracy in aprticular) is pulling them forward.


Quote:

I'll also say that China is not a democracy but they're the second biggest economy in the world, so democracy couldn't possibly be the cause of wealth creation per se.

Acemoglu's theory is that political and economic inclusiveness cause wealth, and reinforce each other. China's rise is attributable to two strong forces - the one child policy, and economic inclusiveness. The communist party is introducing capitalism. There is a rapid and genuine liberation happening, at least in terms of economic freedom. Also in contrast to your typical dictatorship, the communist party is relatively democratic in the internal mechanisms, which puts it a few steps ahead of many places on the political front, and creates a framework that will no doubt ease future reform. China is one of those countries where Acemoglu's theory is playing out in full force. Look for the new middle class demanding political reform some time soon.

Quote:

By this I meant which part of Islam encourages or compels the marriage of cousins?

I did not use the word compulsion. The Koran specifically permits it, and Muhammed's example encourages it. That is, it can not be seen as one of those things that is "permitted but discouraged" like beating and raping your wives and sex slaves. The specific permission for it makes it hard for Muslim countries as well as religious institutions to outlaw it or issue a fatwa against it, and the Muhammed example makes it difficult for them to criticise it.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 5:50pm:

Look for the new middle class demanding political reform some time soon.

The Acemogluists have been saying this for some time now, FD. And yet, the opposite is occurring. Xi Jinping is even using a crackdown on corruption to cement power and reduce "inclusiveness".

I'd like to think Acemonglu is right, but unfortunately, few facts seem to back up his argument. You haven't yet shown how the caliphate was less politically inclusive than Rome. I'm not saying it wasn't either - I'd just like to see some facts.

Feel free to show them.

Quote:

The Acemogluists have been saying this for some time now, FD. And yet, the opposite is occurring. Xi Jinping is even using a crackdown on corruption to cement power and reduce "inclusiveness".

How quickly do you expect this to happen Karnal?


Quote:

You haven't yet shown how the caliphate was less politically inclusive than Rome.

Except of course, for the whole election thing in Rome, and Islam being ideologically opposed to the rejection of Shariah law. It's kind of hard to have an inclusive political process with a predetermined outcome don't you think?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 5:54pm:

Quote: By this I meant which part of Islam encourages or compels the marriage of cousins? I did not use the word compulsion. The Koran specifically permits it, and Muhammed's example encourages it. That is, it can not be seen as one of those things that is "permitted but discouraged" like beating and raping your wives and sex slaves. The specific permission for it makes it hard for Muslim countries as well as religious institutions to outlaw it or issue a fatwa against it, and the Muhammed example makes it difficult for them to criticise it.

Strange. It's legal to marry "the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and the daughters of your maternal aunts" in most of the world. Why is it still common in the Middle East and Central Asia?

The custom of arranged marriage, and in particular, dowries. Brothers and sisters do not demand such a high price for their children's hands in marriage. Take away the dowry system and there's no economic incentive to skimp on dowries, which is just what happened when China did away with dowries in the 20th century.

Muhammed married a 9 year old, but child marriage is illegal in every Muslim country bar 3: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Muslim countries, it would seem, do not need a religious injunction to approve or ban things.

So Islam has no influence on the law in Muslim countries?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 6:05pm:

Quote: You haven't yet shown how the caliphate was less politically inclusive than Rome. Except of course, for the whole election thing in Rome, and Islam being ideologically opposed to the rejection of Shariah law. It's kind of hard to have an inclusive political process with a predetermined outcome don't you think?

We've seen how the whole erection thing was done away with in Rome, which expanded its wealth. Sharia law does not prohibit erections. If it did, Sharia law could not coexist with elected parliaments, which it does in most Muslim countries.

But this is beside the point. You've failed to show how the Roman republic (with voting rights for some) was more inclusive than the caliphate.

You've also argued that "inclusiveness" has expanded in China without any real democratic reforms. Your argument here seems to be based around economic reforms, which I agree - without them, "inclusiveness" could not possibly occur.

An example of this is South Africa, who's democratic reforms were sweeping. Today, they're stuck with a corrupt, one party state, slums for the poor, and gated communities for the rich.

Democracy, I would argue, needs to fostered simultaneously with the development of an inclusive economy. Check out the Muslim kingdoms of Brunei and Saudi Arabia - socialist in their wealth distribution, but exclusive in their power distribution.

The most "inclusive" thing about Rome was not the vote in its assembly (when its citizens had this) but the bread rations.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 6:29pm:

So Islam has no influence on the law in Muslim countries?

Depends on the country. Does religion have an influence on our laws here?

Quote:

We've seen how the whole erection thing was done away with in Rome, which expanded its wealth.

Morris' index peaks at roughly the same time then starts going back down.


Quote:

Sharia law does not prohibit erections.

No, it just dictates what the outcome is, and permits you to slaughter people in order to get there, if democracy doesn't give you the proper result.


Quote:

You've failed to show how the Roman republic (with voting rights for some) was more inclusive than the caliphate.

Except of course for the elections, and shariah law. But please, tell me again how the elections don't count because Rome abandoned them then started to go downhill, and Islam has such a rich history of democracy.


Quote:

You've also argued that "inclusiveness" has expanded in China without any real democratic reforms. Your argument here seems to be based around economic reforms, which I agree - without them, "inclusiveness" could not possibly occur.

Here it is again: political and economic inclusiveness are self reinforcing (and reinforce each other) and create wealth. The opposite (oppression and exclusion) are also self reinforcing. Thus societies tend to drift towards one extreme and the middle ground is unstable. You don't necessarily need to have one before the other, but they will follow.


Quote:

An example of this is South Africa, who's democratic reforms were sweeping. Today, they're stuck with a corrupt, one party state, slums for the poor, and gated communities for the rich

Acemoglu goes into these in details. The institutions are very resilient. You can put elections on top, but it is still a dictatorship at heart. That is why he uses the terms political and economic inclusiveness rather than freedom, capitalism and democracy.

I suspect this is why the US insisted on rooting out the Baathists in Iraq, and why the French were a bit more successful at the game in continental Europe.

So let’s look at the causes of wealth in the Islamic "golden age". It had the bread basket of the Nile, but importantly, it held the silk road, the trading route between China and Europe. What political inclusivity did it adopt to allow for its rise as an empire that, as you say, surpassed the borders of Rome?

Was it erections? Why not?

You do not need political inclusivity to build an empire, especially if none of the other kingdoms you are competing against are democratic. What Islam had over them was a religious devotion to the state. It was the post apocalyptic conditions that allowed Islam to take over. There was a massive power vacuum, and it sucked something horrible out of the Arabian peninsula. Think ISIS, but without Uncle Sam dropping the bombs.

As the index demonstrates, there was remarkably little 'wealth' generated despite the enourmous resources at hand (I don't think wealth is part of the index, but would expect it to look the same). Something must have been working hard to prevent it. Guess what I blame?

I have added a paragraph clarifying Acemoglu's theories, and given it its own section.

I have also changed a lot of the references to the Roman Empire, but it got a bit messy so I will have to go through it again and take a closer look.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 9:16pm:

You do not need political inclusivity to build an empire, especially if none of the other kingdoms you are competing against are democratic. What Islam had over them was a religious devotion to the state. It was the post apocalyptic conditions that allowed Islam to take over. There was a massive power vacuum, and it sucked something horrible out of the Arabian peninsula. Think ISIS, but without Uncle Sam dropping the bombs.

But you’ve already mentioned the competition posed by "inclusive" European city states like Venice, a city, Like Rome, that was also the subject of a Shakespearean tradgedy- and this one involving a gen-u-wine Mohammedan, Othello.

Shakespeare posed this competition in uniquely dramatic terms: the cold, precise rationality of the Muselman (Othello) versus the hot-blooded revenge of the Italian (Iago). Guess who wins?

If all it takes is competition from a more "inclusive" political.framework to destroy empires (and I’d like to believe this was true), then.perhaps you could answer this.

Why does a quarter of the world’s population still identify as Muslim?

And before you say inbreeding, look at your map. The largest Muslim.country is the same colour as Australia.

Because it creates resilient oppressive social institutions. Basically the same reason why dictatorship is so persistent, except that with Islam the victims are ideologically committed to their submission.

BTW, we did destroy the Caliphate. We can shape the borders to look however we want. But changing the social fabric is a bit more difficult. Toppling Saddam was a piece of cake compared to establishing democracy.

Venice was based on economic inclusion in the sea trade industry. Kind of hard to build a land empire on that, and they eventually abandoned it and declined, much like Rome.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 5:54pm:

Because it creates resilient oppressive social institutions. Basically the same reason why dictatorship is so persistent, except that with Islam the victims are ideologically committed to their submission..

Mosques?

The death penalty for apostasy, the infidel tax, the harem gathering that muslim men permitted themselves, the slavery, the legal inferiority of non-Muslims - all great incentives to become a Muslim and remain a Muslim, which means becoming a servile member of the only political party allowed. Did you know that Islam means submission?

I added a paragraph about your favourite theory on the one child policy.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 8:42pm:

The death penalty for apostasy, the infidel tax, the harem gathering that muslim men permitted themselves, the slavery, the legal inferiority of non-Muslims - all great incentives to become a Muslim.

I’m.sold, FD. Which countries can you do this in?

All at once, or one at a time?

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2016 at 10:10pm:

All at once, or one at a time?

And what if they impose that sinister oppressive democratic institution; erections?

You know, like cute and cuddly Malaysia?  Indonesia? Bangladesh? Turkey?

Or that cunning South Korean/Roman imposter, Iran?

Even the best modern examples you can come up with are being demonstrably undermined by Islam.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 12:29pm:

Even the best modern examples you can come up with are being demonstrably undermined by Islam.

But, FD, they have erections. They must be "inclusive", no?

The term inclusive was deliberately used to invoke relativity Karnal.

Do you have a point this time?

Not me, FD. But you do:


freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 10:15pm:

Elections.

Elections set Rome apart 2 millenia ago. That is no longer true for today's democracies Karnal.

Is there anything in the article you disagree with?

I also once tried to engage FD on the details of this so-called "inclusiveness" of the Roman Republic, and how it led to greater prosperity. Like in this thread, he also couldn't elaborate any more than the one word response "elections".

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 8:46pm:

I also once tried to engage FD on the details of this so-called "inclusiveness" of the Roman Republic, and how it led to greater prosperity. Like in this thread, he also couldn't elaborate any more than the one word response "elections".

Is anyone disagreeing with me that elections made them more inclusive than competing nations?

I just wrote an 8000 word article on it Gandalf. Is that not enough?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 8:46pm:

I also once tried to engage FD on the details of this so-called "inclusiveness" of the Roman Republic, and how it led to greater prosperity. Like in this thread, he also couldn't elaborate any more than the one word response "elections".

Yes, but South Korea must have got the message.

Not to mention cute and cuddly Malaysia, axis of evil Iran, Saddam’s Iraq, our friends the Saudis, etc, etc, etc.

Erections set the Roman republic apart - from empires half a millenium later.

:-*
freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 8:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 8:46pm: I also once tried to engage FD on the details of this so-called "inclusiveness" of the Roman Republic, and how it led to greater prosperity. Like in this thread, he also couldn't elaborate any more than the one word response "elections". Is anyone disagreeing with me that elections made them more inclusive than competing nations?

The Islamic caliphate?

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 8:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 8:46pm: I also once tried to engage FD on the details of this so-called "inclusiveness" of the Roman Republic, and how it led to greater prosperity. Like in this thread, he also couldn't elaborate any more than the one word response "elections". Is anyone disagreeing with me that elections made them more inclusive than competing nations? I just wrote an 8000 word article on it Gandalf. Is that not enough?

We're all trying to work out what you even mean by 'inclusive' fd, for some reason you wont say.

An 8000 word article on Roman Republican elections? Gosh i must have missed that one. Silly me.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 9:17pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 8:58pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 8:46pm: I also once tried to engage FD on the details of this so-called "inclusiveness" of the Roman Republic, and how it led to greater prosperity. Like in this thread, he also couldn't elaborate any more than the one word response "elections". Is anyone disagreeing with me that elections made them more inclusive than competing nations? I just wrote an 8000 word article on it Gandalf. Is that not enough? We're all trying to work out what you even mean by 'inclusive' fd, for some reason you wont say. An 8000 word article on Roman Republican elections? Gosh i must have missed that one. Silly me.

Yes, but ancient Rome covered a very long time span. The details are mostly lost. FD’s just filling us in on the important parts.

You know, they once had erections. For some. They were "inclusive".

Unlike your despicable Muslim.caliphate.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 9:17pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 8:58pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 8:46pm: I also once tried to engage FD on the details of this so-called "inclusiveness" of the Roman Republic, and how it led to greater prosperity. Like in this thread, he also couldn't elaborate any more than the one word response "elections". Is anyone disagreeing with me that elections made them more inclusive than competing nations? I just wrote an 8000 word article on it Gandalf. Is that not enough? We're all trying to work out what you even mean by 'inclusive' fd, for some reason you wont say. An 8000 word article on Roman Republican elections? Gosh i must have missed that one. Silly me.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/heavy-legacies-our-past.html#inclusiveness

It has become popular among socialists and other groups with an axe to grind against capitalism, economic freedom, democracy or even white people in general, to insist that the rise of western Europe and its colonies is a result of slavery. This can be an attractive fallacy, given that the recent rise of European powers coincided with their involvement in the global slave trade. However, it is a correlation, not a causation. I argue here the opposite – that freedom and democracy are the cause of Europe’s rise.

The historian Daron Acemoglu uses the broader terms of political and economic inclusiveness to describe this theory. This is in part to avoid inevitable arguments about what constitutes true freedom, democracy or capitalism. Furthermore, his argument is (rightly) that these are opposite extremes on a spectrum, and more significantly, that this is a naturally polarising spectrum. That is, countries tend to drift towards the nearest end of the spectrum. In his book, Why Nations Fail, he explores the positive feedback loops (ie, self-reinforcing mechanisms) that make this happen.

To summarise his (expansive) thesis: Political and economic inclusiveness are self reinforcing, and reinforce each other. They also create wealth. The opposite (oppression and exclusion) are also self reinforcing. Thus societies tend to drift towards one extreme and the middle ground is unstable. In transitioning to liberal democracy, the theory does not demand one to come first, but predicts that one inevitably follows the other. Likewise, loss of democracy leads inevitably to loss of freedom, and democracy cannot function without freedom of the press, free speech etc. Political and economic inclusiveness refer to institutions that pervade all levels of society and are very resilient at either extreme. The consequence of this is that liberal democracy and dictatorship are very resilient, as institutions. Dictatorship is far harder to get rid of than merely toppling a dictator. A dictator may fall, but no matter what promises his usurper makes, the existing institutions will almost certainly cause him to become corrupt and dictatorial in order to cling to power. Thus, chopping the head off a corrupt regime and putting democracy there is unlikely to work, because the whole body is corrupt. Likewise, the Nazis may do away with democracy, but if it is institutionalised through society, it will spring back to life if given the chance. Countries between these extremes are at a historical crossroads, but even here intervention is fraught, as the corrupting elements of society are ingrained in the culture. I suspect this is why the US insisted on rooting out the Baathists in Iraq and abandoning much of Iraq's beuracracy. Likewise, the French were more succesful in continental Europe because they were there to stay, intended to turn society on its head, and were not afriad to shed some blood in the process.

In the context of the arguments regarding slavery under recent European imperialism, I would phrase it thus: only a small advantage was needed for European nations to have the upper hand and take over the world. The historical tendency for corrupt nations to reinforce their oppressive social institutions meant that Europe’s competitors were at the opposte end of the spectrum and easy to overtake. This, combined with Islam’s grip on the bulk of western civilisation, meant that European countries did not have far to go to get that upper hand. Although Europe was rapidly transitioning towards liberal democracy, history would not wait for perfection, and so a society recently risen from barbarity found itself ruling the world. Thus Europeans ramped up the slave trade, as they ramped up all global trade. But they also brought their liberal morals in whatever form they took at the time, and as the path to liberalism continued they wound down the global slave trade, while continuing to ramp up the free global market.

During the Roman Republic, the relative advantage took the form of political inclusiveness – a rough, messy form of democracy that was eventually abandoned, to Rome’s detriment. Later, this advantage took the form of economic inclusiveness. Slavery turned into serfdom, which turned into a free market in human labour every time a plague increased the value of labour and decreased the relative value of capital. Entrepreneurs were more free in western Europe than elsewhere to invest in the industrial revolution and take advantage of the mobile workforce (and profit from it). Political inclusiveness came later – a sudden upheaval in mainland Eruope, a gradual transition in Britain. This was a long incubation period. The seeds of democracy lay dormant as little more than a memory of Rome, while the absence of slavery was of little value while people were starving in a Malthusian backwater.

In modern China, the communist party is transitioning the country to capitalism. However, the explosive economic growth that is still unfolding owes just as much to the one child policy as it does to economic inclusiveness. The Chinese were literally living and dying a Malthusian hell a generation ago, and those recipes for locust soup are not just a culinary quirk. The one child policy was a plague on steroids, and the guided transition to capitalism is China's parallel to the industrial revolution. Critics of this suggestion often argue that population actually went up in an absolute sense, however it is the relative balance between population, technology and sustainability that affects affluence, and there was no shortage of technology available to China, once they could look past their next meal. Look for the rising Chinese middle class demanding greater political rights (and hopefully sustainability also) in the near future. Here too there is cause for hope. In a parallel to Europe's 'citizen's assemblies', the Chinese communist party has democratic internal mechanisms. This familarity with and acceptance of (and hopefully, appreciation for) democracy will no doubt ease the burden of the interesting times that lay ahead.

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2016 at 10:21pm:

During the Roman Republic, the relative advantage took the form of political inclusiveness – a rough, messy form of democracy

Thanks FD, that clears everything up.

Is that the 8000 words on Roman republican political inclusiveness you were talking about?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

freediver wrote on May 4th, 2016 at 10:21pm: During the Roman Republic, the relative advantage took the form of political inclusiveness – a rough, messy form of democracy Thanks FD, that clears everything up. Is that the 8000 words on Roman republican political inclusiveness you were talking about?

FD wasn't talking about the Roman republic, G, he just meant Rome.


freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2016 at 5:58pm:

Rome was more politically inclusive than its competitors Karnal. Do you concede that?

He then clarified and said he was actually referring to the Roman empire, but the details are lost to history.


freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 10:21am:

Karnal, much of the details are lost to history, the the political institutions changed multiple times throughout the history of the Roman Empire, which is over 1000 years if you count the bits on each end.

He then said, okay, I now mean the Roman republic.


freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 3:03pm:

Elections. In the republic. Even if they did not achieve whatever your version of pure democracy is.

It's a bit of a work in progress. Still, it makes up 8000 words, no?

If this routine sounds familiar its because we've been through this before. This is the most detail FD has ever managed to come up with on Rome's alleged 'inclusiveness':


freediver wrote on Jan 29^th, 2015 at 8:20am:

There was a large number of people involved, including representatives of the plebs. There was no religious or ideological barrier to what they could decide on.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 4:33pm:

If this routine sounds familiar its because we've been through this before.

Well yes, but you know me. I'm a bit of a stickler for details. Here's another tricky detail in FD's thesis, where he refers to Morris' index:


freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 7:03pm:

Quote: We've seen how the whole erection thing was done away with in Rome, which expanded its wealth. Morris' index peaks at roughly the same time then starts going back down.

I've looked through FD's maps and charts and can't find one that shows Roman wealth contracting with the transition to imperial rule. FD's maps show the Roman empire steadily expanding - but most importantly capturing the Nile,  the future Roman bread basket - directly after the Triumvirate's clampdown on the republic.

Alas, no more erections, but plenty more bread, and it was the capture of Egypt that gave Julius Caesar his crowning victory.

The arguments used at the time were that imperial rule would deliver the goods - the very opposite of FD's proposal that erections create wealth. This, it was argued, was the very point of empires, which would provide security and bread - an argument that endured in the West until the post-war decline of the British empire. It was certainly an argument used by Shakespeare when he dramatized Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, etc, to back up Elizabethan imperial rule.

And it's a haunting argument. Security and economic stability versus the rule of the mob. It was used after the French Revolution - particularly by the Tories in Britain. It was used to bring back the French monarchy. Imperial Rome was referenced by Napoleonic propaganda, particularly after the capture of Egypt, and again by Mussolini, Hitler, and other map enthusiasts. 

Morris' map and time-line backs their case up. Rome massively expanded after the rise of the Caesars - straight after it abandoned erections. Once, when people talked about civilization, they meant empires. The idea that democracy could deliver such a thing was ludicrous in most places until the 20th century, which not coincidentally, corresponded with the economic (and military) rise of a new republic: the US of A.

I haven't asked what FD means by "Morris' index peaks at roughly the same time then starts going back down." But I do wonder if it's another of those little porkies FD refuses to rule out in his crusade against the Muselman.

I'd ask FD about this, but he always clams up.

Quote:

I haven't asked what FD means by "Morris' index peaks at roughly the same time then starts going back down." But I do wonder if it's another of those little porkies FD refuses to rule out in his crusade against the Muselman.

It is the very first figure in the article - the plot of Morris' human development index vs time. This is not the same thing as size or stability of an empire - as the Islamic example demonstrates. This index clearly shows trouble developing within the empire long before the symptoms that are more visible to us.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

Quote: I haven't asked what FD means by "Morris' index peaks at roughly the same time then starts going back down." But I do wonder if it's another of those little porkies FD refuses to rule out in his crusade against the Muselman. It is the very first figure in the article - the plot of Morris' human development index vs time. This is not the same thing as size or stability of an empire - as the Islamic example demonstrates. This index clearly shows trouble developing within the empire long before the symptoms that are more visible to us.

In what way? What does this graph measure?

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

I have added the following paragraphs:

To clarify the meaning of these terms, political and economic inclusiveness are the absence of dictatorship and oppression. They are the absence of artificial barriers to becoming wealthy by your own hand, having a say in your governance and becoming a political leader. They are the social institutions (rules, customs, traditions, values, expectations etc) that enable meaningful participation and capture both the number of people with access and the nature of that access. They are a measure of the extent to which a society meets the higher and more absolute standard of liberal, capitalist democracy, and are intended to invoke a spectrum of possibilities between dictatorship and democracy. Where I have used the terms freedom and democracy too broadly above, it reflects the lack of familiar language to communicate these concepts.

The transition from uncivilised freedom, to oppressive civilisation, to liberal civilisation has always been a blind one. Despite our sense of achieving freedom and equality, there is no absolute end to the spectrum. There was nothing fundamental forcing people to live together in greater numbers, though historians have plenty of reasons why it was almost inevitable. There was nothing forcing people to create oppressive regimes in the first large communities, although it happened in parallel plenty of times through history. There was no limit on how oppressive society could become, and our fiction authors have dreamed up all sorts of plausible scenarios. Likewise there is no limit to how far freedom and democracy can spread across the world, or to how much more liberal and politically engaged we could become. The spectrum of inclusiveness may appear to have solid, fixed ends: at one end, slaves building pyramids and on the other, modern society. However this is merely a reflection of our limited experience. In reality we are blindly pushing the boundaries of inclusiveness into unknown territory, like the Romans before us.

Discover how voting by delegable proxy can combine the best aspects of modern representative democracy and Greek-style direct democracy.

To summarise Acemoglu's (expansive) thesis: Political and economic inclusiveness are self-reinforcing, and reinforce each other. They also create wealth. The opposite (oppression and exclusion) are also self-reinforcing. Thus societies tend to drift towards one extreme and the middle ground is unstable. In transitioning to liberal democracy, the theory does not demand one to come first, but predicts that one inevitably follows the other. Likewise, loss of democracy leads inevitably to loss of freedom, and democracy cannot function without freedom of the press, free speech etc. Political and economic inclusiveness refer to institutions that pervade all levels of society and are very resilient at either extreme. The consequence of this is that liberal democracy and dictatorship are very resilient, as institutions. Dictatorship is far harder to get rid of than merely toppling a dictator. A dictator may fall, but no matter what promises his usurper makes, the existing institutions will almost certainly cause him to become corrupt and dictatorial in order to cling to power. Thus, chopping the head off a corrupt regime and putting democracy there is unlikely to work, because the whole body is corrupt. Likewise, the Nazis may do away with democracy, but if it is institutionalised through society, it will spring back to life if given the chance. Countries between these extremes are at a historical crossroads, but even here intervention is fraught, as the corrupting elements of society are ingrained in the culture. I suspect this is why the US insisted on rooting out the Baathists in Iraq and abandoning much of Iraq's bureaucracy. Likewise, the French were more successful in continental Europe because they were there to stay, intended to turn society on its head, and were not afraid to shed some blood in the process.

Discuss Daron Acemoglu's theory that political and economic inclusiveness are self-reinforcing and the ultimate cause of modern wealth.

Discuss the role of slavery in the rise of western Europe

The rise of the Roman Republic was ultimately driven by an almost unique political concept – that people should have a say in how they are ruled. The Greeks had done impressive things with direct democracy, but this has obvious limitations as the number of people involved grows. Much like Greece, Rome limited voting rights to free adult male citizens. There were additional arrangements that effectively limited the voting power of the poor. They did not have a legislative assembly. New laws were enacted through a form of direct democracy. The Senate had an administrative role and did not propose or pass laws. Two consuls were elected by citizens for an annual term, and had powers similar to previous kings. Beyond this, the Roman constitution gets very complicated. This was in part a deliberate measure designed to achieve a balance of power. The constitution also evolved over time, partly in response to strikes from the poorer citizens demanding greater political rights. The Roman model was significantly inspired by the Greeks, but both Greek and Roman models fell far short of today's standard. Despite this, it contained sufficient democratic mechanisms to set it apart from competing societies and drive its continual rise over half a milennia.

These principles were eventually discarded and Rome came to be a dictatorship – no different to nearly every previous empire, except for the enormous geographical expanse it ruled. This started in 27 BC with Augustus Caesar, or perhaps earlier with the appointment of Julius Caesar to the position of perpetual dictator in 44 BC (he was assassinated the same year). It is no coincidence that Rome peaked on Morris' index of human development at this time. Inevitable decline eventually followed, driven visibly by violent internal competition, and invisibly (to us) by gradual political and economic exclusion and disengagement that weakened the social fabric needed to hold such a behemoth together. If we step back even further, Rome's decline can be traced to its astonishing success. The model of government created so carefully to maintain a balance of power was simply abandoned to accommodate individuals who had achieved great power on the battlefield. Their battlefield success was in turn ultimately driven by Rome's economic success and the (political) willingness of the people to support it. Even more broadly, Rome was undone by the basic strategy of using constitutional complexity rather than popular values to maintain a balance of power. The model was abandoned so easily because people did not value it. It is hard to blame them. There is nothing pure in it. It is a mish-mash of democracy, exclusion and aristocratic privilege held together by complex rule and bureaucracy. And the glory of Rome.

FD,

I am assuming that you do believe in the beneficial advantage of the representative system of government, wherever men live together.

QUESTION;
If you believe in the beneficial advantage of the representative system of governing a society of men [and women - nod to 'Life of Brian'], do you believe in the merit of requiring [in insisting upon] competency, in determining who has the 'right' to wield political authority in such a society [.....or in any society where the citizens are governed by an elected elite] ?

i.e.
What is the [overriding] merit, in a society of men determining that a system of universal suffrage [of those entitled to vote] should apply ?

[I'll just state that i do not support a system of universal suffrage [of those entitled to vote]

Or, would a system of representative of government [among men] driven by universal suffrage, carry the seeds of its own downfall ?        [....which would be my opinion.]

Or would you contest that 'assumption' of such a mechanism leading to the 'political corruption' of all merit, within such a society ?



For myself, i believe that where, and whenever, 'self interest' [in place of some system of self-limiting competency] is given political authority, within a society of men,        ....then those who will wield that political authority, will and must, inexorably cause the debasement of their own virtue, their own circumstance, and their own society.

And i would argue that human history [and the history of past human society] attests to that truth.

Thank's for the read and the effort FD. It started off interesting but the bashing of Islam was not very well eased into. It was a sudden onslaught and then it continued. I enjoyed the first part though. One thing, the Romans did invade and build on the other side of the Rhine. There are two people responsible for it not continuing, Arminius(Herman the German) and Varus. Rome abandoned Germany after Arminius destroyed Varus and his 3 legions in the Teutoburg Forest. The emperor, sorely in need of his army and there is a famous quote of a distraught emperor butting his head against the wall yelling "Quintili Vare, legiones redde!“ ('Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!')



Quote:

The Roman force was led by Publius Quinctilius Varus, a nobleman and experienced administrative official from a patrician family[11] who was related to the Imperial family.[12] He was assigned to consolidate the new province of Germania in the autumn of 6 CE.[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

edit: 3 legions I think was 10% of their army for the entire empire at that time.

Rome, like any empire leached from those it conquered. Were gold coins minted in Rome before Caesar "liberated" the Gauls? There was soon after and 1/3 of the population was killed or sold as slaves. 40,000, every inhabitant of Avaricum, men women and children were slaughtered, read it from Caesar himself and his justification. A bit like the Israelites smiting those others and their pets.

After Trajan conquered Dacia(Romania) enormous wealth again poured into Rome, can't help it if your enemies choose to live where the gold is.

Setanta wrote on May 5^th, 2016 at 11:23pm:

Thank's for the read and the effort FD. It started off interesting but the bashing of Islam was not very well eased into. It was a sudden onslaught and then it continued......

QUESTION;
If a person is not a moslem [i.e. if a person has a worldview which is not constrained by the oppressive and violent thoughts of Mohammed and Allah],       ...then what is not 'to bash', when the subject of ISLAM is raised ?

Any sensible and reasoning person, imo, would want to criticise what ISLAM promotes and what ISLAM represents.

Human poverty, oppression, violence, and murder.





.







Quote:

Pakistani cleric: 'We want Islamic law for all Pakistan and then the world. We would like to do this by preaching. But if not then we would use force.'

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/pakistani-cleric-we-want-islamic-law-for-all-pakistan-and-then-the-world-we-would-like-to-do-this-by.html




.




Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4






n.b.
It was not Yadda who first brought up the subject of ISLAM, in this thread.

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2016 at 12:09am:

Setanta wrote on May 5th, 2016 at 11:23pm: Thank's for the read and the effort FD. It started off interesting but the bashing of Islam was not very well eased into. It was a sudden onslaught and then it continued...... QUESTION; If a person is not a moslem [i.e. if a person has a worldview which is not constrained by the oppressive and violent thoughts of Mohammed and Allah],       ...then what is not 'to bash', when the subject of ISLAM is raised ? Any sensible and reasoning person, imo, would want to criticise what ISLAM promotes and what ISLAM represents. Human poverty, oppression, violence, and murder. . Quote: Pakistani cleric: 'We want Islamic law for all Pakistan and then the world. We would like to do this by preaching. But if not then we would use force.' http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/pakistani-cleric-we-want-islamic-law-for-all-pakistan-and-then-the-world-we-would-like-to-do-this-by.html . Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen; THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. Please watch this YT... A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing; [quote] YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4






n.b.
It was not Yadda who first brought up the subject of ISLAM, in this thread.


[/quote]


All that tripe is not needed Yadda, didn't read. I will comment on the first couple of lines which I did read.
Bash away. Bash all religions, no dog in the fight. I'd like your religion to go away too.

It started, the intro really well, interesting and drawing you in as it should, then it went full retard on Islam bashing as the scourge of man. The Christians were the scourge of man not very long ago. Rather than FD saying, these bad now(Islam), them bad before but good now(Christians), perhaps he should just point out this is what religion does. As it's a FD history lesson, surely we can't leave out Christianity's and the Jewish barbarity.

I blame them all.

Setanta got it..... just because the Christians (LMAO) are no longer vicious and violent and no longer do things like tell the Maltese people to accept the cross or the sword, etc... and the Mussos still do the same things.... such as stoning witches instead of burning them....

... doesn't mean that many Mussos , who may well live in the Dark Ages, won't be still calling any Western intervention in any way 'Crusaderism'... as they do.  :-/

Yadda wrote on May 6^th, 2016 at 12:09am:

n.b. It was not Yadda who first brought up the subject of ISLAM, in this thread.

Did you not read FD's missive? That is what this whole thread is about. Have you lost the plot?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 2:38pm:

Quote: Again, is there anything in the article you actually disagree with? Is there a point to this? Or do you just want to have a details competition because you don't like the substance? it's not so much that I don't like the substance. I think the article is incredibly well-written. Good use of plain English, a very easy read, point by point. Good timing, good pacing. I'm getting to its substance, which from what you've just shown, does not exist. Asking for evidence of elections is not a details competition when it's your only argument. If you don't have any evidence of what you're saying, why say it? Someone like me is inevitably going to come along and point this out. That's why we post on a discussion board, not a blog.

No evidence or argument that FD would supply, would satisfy you.



Karnal,

Your contention, so often expressed here on OzPol, is that there is no evidence [which can satisfy your intellect] [in an argument!].

Your contention, so often is that, to the contrary, instances and anecdotes presented here [which demonstrate the validity of an argument/opinion], are merely that, i.e. they are opinion, and not evidence.

Your point being, and your 'point' being underlined [in every response],           ....is that nothing can be 'proved',           ....and that every argument presented, is essentially just that, merely an unprovable argument/opinion.



Karnal,

With such intransigence as yours, reason [i.e. reasonableness] is lost.

And men of war emerge, will emerge.

And in the end, where reason is ignored/discarded, then men with swords [always, inevitably] emerge, to destroy those [everyone] who disagrees with THEIR argument/opinion.

That is my opinion.





Google;
Every Man Should Have A Rifle - Henry Lawson


Why ?

Because in the end, every generation learns an inevitable truth;

Google;
political power grows out of the barrel of a gun


.....that among men, 'might is right'




"Right is only in question between equals, and while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must."
Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) Greek Historian


Thucydides got it right imo.

No way, can an altruistic thought or intent, in any [few] individuals overcome the force of 'human nature' [selfish intent] in a majority.

'Wolves' will always seek to predate upon others weaker than themselves, particularly the sheep.

It is just our nature.

If we look at our own circumstances, in the last 50-60 years and we can judge that we have experienced a remarkable period of [mostly] prolonged peace and prosperity.

But look further back in human history and we could judge, that the period of relative peaceful relations among [at least 1st world] nations has been a 'deviation' from the norm.

That's right, Y. It's why FD keeps changing his article in an attempt to provide such evidence.

It helps that he now knows the difference between the Roman republic and empire, no?

Quote:

What is the [overriding] merit, in a society of men determining that a system of universal suffrage [of those entitled to vote] should apply ?

That it is better than the alternatives.


Quote:

Or, would a system of representative of government [among men] driven by universal suffrage, carry the seeds of its own downfall ?

I have said similar things myself. Our society's strength is not in the machinations of elections, but our values - freedom and democracy. Democracy provides a simple mechanism for undoing itself, so it can only survive where the vast majority actively support it. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Acemoglu's theories reinforce this - freedom and democracy are deeply ingrained social institutions. They are a way of life, not a set of laws and rules for electing people.


Quote:

Or would you contest that 'assumption' of such a mechanism leading to the 'political corruption' of all merit, within such a society ?

Not really sure what you are asking here.


Quote:

For myself, i believe that where, and whenever, 'self interest' [in place of some system of self-limiting competency] is given political authority, within a society of men,        ....then those who will wield that political authority, will and must, inexorably cause the debasement of their own virtue, their own circumstance, and their own society.

I have no problem with people voting out of self interest. While there are more noble goals, be wary of anyone who asks you to forgo self interest for their version of the greater good. It is often ignorantly misguided or deliberately misguiding. Voting in self interest is a whole lot better than having someone else decide on your behalf what is best for you. People have a sense that the only way to protect your own freedom and wealth is to protect everyone's freedom and wealth. You cannot deny some other group a basic human right without also denying it to yourself.


Quote:

And i would argue that human history [and the history of past human society] attests to that truth.

Go ahead and make the argument.

---

Setanta:


Quote:

Thank's for the read and the effort FD. It started off interesting but the bashing of Islam was not very well eased into. It was a sudden onslaught and then it continued. I enjoyed the first part though.

Thanks for the feedback. I have considered putting that part at the end, but I like the chronological order. I hope that the frank discussion of Islam sets my article apart from others who might tiptoe around the issue. Is any of it incorrect in your opinion?


Quote:

One thing, the Romans did invade and build on the other side of the Rhine.

Thanks. I have changed the wording of one of the sentences slightly. In terms of the broader thesis on cultural elgacies, the brevity of their venture over the Rhine (AD 4-9? most of it under a rebellion, and few military incursions after this to take revenge) meant that they did not "Romanise" the region.


Quote:

It started, the intro really well, interesting and drawing you in as it should, then it went full retard on Islam bashing as the scourge of man. The Christians were the scourge of man not very long ago. Rather than FD saying, these bad now(Islam), them bad before but good now(Christians), perhaps he should just point out this is what religion does. As it's a FD history lesson, surely we can't leave out Christianity's and the Jewish barbarity.

The point of this article is that this is not correct. The freedom and democracy that we see in the world today (as well as its children, wealth, science, industrialisation etc) is almost exclusively a result of the influence of western Europe on the world. This happened under the religious dominance of Judaism and Christianity. These religions did not invent the barbarity you describe (your Roman example being a good demonstration of this). They did however bring it to an end, in what was from a historical perspective a fairly short period. It did not have to go this way. The Europeans could have sat on top of slave empires for a very long time, like every empire that came before them. Had they done so, the world would probably look a lot like the middle east does today (without the skyscrapers of course).

No, FD, Europe only  got those things when it abandoned Christian ideas in.the Enlightenment. The return to Greek and Roman.political frameworks was a tacit acceptance of a pagan system.

Most of the influential French Enlightenment thinkers were atheists, as were the French scientific socialists who inspired the 1848 revolution.

The reforms ushered in by the Fabian socialists and social democrats in late 19th century Europe were a response to the rise of communism, another atheist set of ideas.

The church was inextricably linked with the crown. It preached obedience to imperial rule, not social inclusiveness. The ideas of liberty we hold today were conceived of as freedom from the church and crown.

The move of the Catholic church into social justice and poverty erradication is very new, and also the effect of the Enlightenment. The church became the voice of newly liberated Catholic ex-colonies during Pope Paul VI’s short reign in the 60s, and it then turned to eradicating the USSR during the reign of Pope John.Paul in the 1980s. It went from the radicalism of the Second Vatican Council to Uncle’s man in the Vatican in two decades.

With the exception of the church of England, the church is no longer tied to the crown, not because of ideology per se, but because power no longer lies in the crown. Our systems of government are a quaint blend of pagan and Christian traditions, but remember, we’re one of the few countries left in the commonwealth, the old British empire.

Communism is almost as bad as Islam. It's only saving grace was that it was historically short lived.

Why do you think the church was able to move into those areas and be influenced by the enlightenment? Could this too be a reflection of Christianity? Or are you going to play Muhammed's trick and tell us all what the real Christianity is?

Europe was able to abandon those "Christian ideas" and replace them with a pagan system of government because there is no such thing as a Christian system of government.

Plenty of the influential players in the ending of slavery were Christians doing so in the name of Christianity. Plenty of the great scientists were Christians who sought to know God through his work. These developments should have happened throughout western civilisation. They would have, had Islam not smothered the majority of it. It is not a mere coincidence that that they happened on the Christian fringe of western civilisation. It is not a historical accident that areas dominated by Islam remain backwards to this day and that Muslims fight against enlightenment principles.

The reason people support separation of church and state is because any links have a corrupting influence on both. Islam is that corruption. It was corrupt from Muhammed on. You ignore this fundamental aspect of Islam, at the same time as trying to define Christianity by this corruption, when it has no basis in Christianity.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 2:08pm:

The reason people support separation of church and state is because any links have a corrupting influence on both.

The separation of church and state was a cunning ruse to let Henry VIII get a divorce. The church was created by the Roman Empire. Its emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicea, which not only compiled the books of the Bible, but wrote down the Christian creed still in use today.

Democracy, liberal or otherwise, owes nothing to Christianity. As the prophet Yeheshua said, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto Gud that which is Gud's.

Like I said, there is no such thing as a Christian system of government. You are the only one pretending there is.

However modern democracy did arise within Christian society. Had it not been for Christianity, Islam probably would have infected Europe and prevented this from happening.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 1:26pm:

Why do you think the church was able to move into those areas and be influenced by the enlightenment?

The church competed with the Enlightenment. The Catholics set up the Jesuit order for this reason.

The church also competed with itself. The Hundred Years war wasn't pretty - nor was Oliver Cromwell's revolution. If you think ISIS are bad, go back to the Catholic/Protestant split that helped shape the current map of Europe. 

The refugees from such religious conflict created the American separation of church and state that we understand today. They also created the ideal of religious freedom you've dispensed with in your "criticism" of Islam.

So yes, the war within the church left no alternative than to settle for secularism, which has also led to the slow existential dearth of the role of the church in today's world.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 6:34pm:

Like I said, there is no such thing as a Christian system of government. You are the only one pretending there is.

Sorry, weren't you pretending there's an Islamic system of government? I'm confused.

True. There is no Christian government system. Christianity was just the official religion of tyrannies until the Enlightenment kicked in and made your graph spike.

Quote:

They also created the ideal of religious freedom you've dispensed with in your "criticism" of Islam.

How have I dispensed with it? Since when does freedom of religion preclude criticism of religion?


Quote:

So yes, the war within the church left no alternative than to settle for secularism

There are always alternatives, as Islam demonstrates. You can keep the war going for 1400 years.


Quote:

Sorry, weren't you pretending there's an Islamic system of government? I'm confused.

Sure. Muhammed demonstrated it. Ever heard of Shariah law? Separation of church and state is entirely consistent with Christianity. You even quoted a bible passage the directly supports it. It is anathema to Islam. The muftis get all hot under the collar when you suggest laws against wife beating.

You did however also insist that Europe had to abandon "Christian ideas" in order to adopt a pagan system of government. Would you mind quoting Jesus' explanation of the divine right of kings?


Quote:

Christianity was just the official religion of tyrannies until the Enlightenment kicked in and made your graph spike.

All of them, or just the ones that came to an end?

Can you explain why to this day, those enlightenment ideals that made such short work of the divine right of kings still barely penetrate into the original heartland of Islam?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 9:06am:

Quote: For myself, i believe that where, and whenever, 'self interest' [in place of some system of self-limiting competency] is given political authority, within a society of men,        ....then those who will wield that political authority, will and must, inexorably cause the debasement of their own virtue, their own circumstance, and their own society. And i would argue that human history [and the history of past human society] attests to that truth. Go ahead and make the argument.

FD,

Thank you for addressing my Q's, in your post #84.




One 'recent' historic example, King Louis XVI of France ?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1458861531/0#0

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 6:54pm:

Quote: Sorry, weren't you pretending there's an Islamic system of government? I'm confused. Sure. Muhammed demonstrated it.

Demonstrated it?

That's that then. Abraham demonstrated it, Moses demonstrated it, David and Yeheshua and Paul demonstrated it.

It is a demonstrative world, no?

You left out Jesus. Why?

Do the examples set by Jesus and Muhammed not form a crucial part of their religions? What about the laws that were 'revealed' to Muhammed?

Yadda, please spell it out for us.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 8:03pm:

You left out Jesus. Why? Do the examples set by Jesus and Muhammed not form a crucial part of their religions? What about the laws that were 'revealed' to Muhammed? Yadda, please spell it out for us.

Yeheshua is Jesus in Jewish, effende. He is your Christian prophet, no?

Sorry, I missed that.

Do the examples set by Jesus and Muhammed not form a crucial part of their religions? What about the laws that were 'revealed' to Muhammed?

In terms of doctrinal support or opposition to separation of church and state, Christianity and Islam are pretty much opposites. So why was it Christianity that you chose to portray as a barrier?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Sorry, I missed that. Do the examples set by Jesus and Muhammed not form a crucial part of their religions? What about the laws that were 'revealed' to Muhammed?

The laws revealed to Muhammed are religious laws, FD. Nowhere does Muhammed demand circumcision or public hair trimming or entering the bathroom with your right foot or everything else you pretend comprise the government systems of majority Muslim states like cute and cuddly Malaysia.

You know all this, but you never did say whether you rule out the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman, so we'll take it as a given.

Quote:

circumcision or public hair trimming or entering the bathroom with your right foot

These are the ones I would consider religious. I have never criticised any of these examples. It is the ones involving killing people, hacking off body parts, having sex with children, infidel taxes, polygamy, war etc that I have a problem with. And the example set by Muhammed.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 8:58pm:

Quote: circumcision or public hair trimming or entering the bathroom with your right foot These are the ones I would consider religious. I have never criticised any of these examples. It is the ones involving killing people, hacking off body parts, having sex with children, infidel taxes, polygamy, war etc that I have a problem with. And the example set by Muhammed.

No worries, FD. Feel free to show where Muhammed legislated these things for all posterity, including which Muslim countries "follow his example" today.

While you're at it, please explain why the laws of Moses - beheadings, stonings, burnings, etc - all legislated for Jews for all posterity in a book called "the law" - are somehow benign and have no influence on Jews today.

You're right. Your prophet Yeheshua made only one real law, to love thy Gud with all thy heart, etc. Nothing wrong with that.

Please include in your reply why this law has no influence on Christians today. 

All Muslims consider Islam to be timeless Karnal. It did not come with an expiry date.

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 9:27pm:

All Muslims consider Islam to be timeless Karnal. It did not come with an expiry date.

So can you give me a direct quote by their prophet that looks anything like a system of government or a legal code?

You want me to quote Muhammed saying all the laws at once?

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2016 at 7:17am:

You want me to quote Muhammed saying all the laws at once?

Can’t do it, eh? I understand.

You’ll have a hard time showing where Yeheshua said he was the Messiah too, or where his followers need to be baptised, confirmed, and all the other rules and rituals of the church, which are, incidentally, not negotiable.

Muhammed gave his own followers orders in.a time of war. You’ve been told this many times. Sharia law only borrows from Muhammed. It was a system designed after his death, for followers of his religion.

As you’ve been shown, it never applied to non-Muslims in kingdoms with Islamic rule. Today in Australia,, it’s a voluntary system that applies to civil and family law. Muslims who want the right to practice Sharia criminal law are jokers, but they don’t understand the rules: Muslim.law cannot apply in states with their own legal codes. It is secondary to existing juristictions on the advice of Muhammed.

Render unto Caesar.

This is what Muslims in the world believe and, when they feel like it, practice. You’ve been told this many times. Muslims are advised by their prophet to follow the laws of their land,.

There are very few shariah juristictions in the world today. Most majority Muslim countries are what you call democracies. Even the theocracy of Iran has popular erections.  There is no such thing as a Muslim system of government. Islam arose in a system of kingdoms, or caliphates. This was the way the world was ruled back then.

You know all this. It’s been explained to you many times. Look at your inclusivity graph. East and West rise similtaneously. The Ottomans reformed at the same time as European states, and no wonder - they got their inspiration from the Enlightenment through France and Prussia.

So no, FD, don’t bother pretending you can’t find a Muhammed quote.

Quote:

Today in Australia,, it’s a voluntary system that applies to civil and family law.

Are you seriously holding our intolerance of shariah law up as evidence that Islam is benign?


Quote:

Render unto Caesar. This is what Muslims in the world believe and, when they feel like it, practice.

Do you also concede that Islam asks them to strive for shariah law instead?


Quote:

You’ve been told this many times.

I know. This was one of Abu's favourite deflections.


Quote:

Most majority Muslim countries are what you call democracies.

How many are you talking about?


Quote:

There is no such thing as a Muslim system of government. Islam arose in a system of kingdoms, or caliphates. This was the way the world was ruled back then.

Actually. Islam arose where there was no centralised government. Muhammed came up with his own Islamic system.


Quote:

Look at your inclusivity graph.

WTF?


Quote:

East and West rise similtaneously. The Ottomans reformed at the same time as European states

The 'east' in Morris' graph of the human development index refers to Chinese civilisations. The Ottomans were in the west.


Quote:

So no, FD, don’t bother pretending you can’t find a Muhammed quote.

Here is one for you:

If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.

A bit different from Jesus don't you think?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on May 7th, 2016 at 8:03pm: You left out Jesus. Why? Do the examples set by Jesus and Muhammed not form a crucial part of their religions? What about the laws that were 'revealed' to Muhammed? Yadda, please spell it out for us. Yeheshua is Jesus in Jewish, effende. He is your Christian prophet, no?

Actually no....He's not.

Jesus is much more than just another feeble prophet.

He is the Son of God.

Don't make that mistake again.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:33am:

[quote] Do you also concede that Islam asks them to strive for shariah law instead?

Show me where the Koran asks anyone to "strive" to live under a legal code that was dreamed up after the Koran was written, FD. Just show me this.

Lisa Jones wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 7th, 2016 at 8:27pm: freediver wrote on May 7th, 2016 at 8:03pm: You left out Jesus. Why? Do the examples set by Jesus and Muhammed not form a crucial part of their religions? What about the laws that were 'revealed' to Muhammed? Yadda, please spell it out for us. Yeheshua is Jesus in Jewish, effende. He is your Christian prophet, no? Actually no....He's not. Jesus is much more than just another feeble prophet. He is the Son of God..

That's what Paul said, dear. Paul was a Roman. He created Christianity as a Roman religion. He set Yeheshua up to compete in the pantheon of Roman gods.


Quote:

Muhammed came up with his own Islamic system.

Would you care to share this with us?

Sure. It's called a Caliphate. Muslims also often refer to it as an Islamic State. Muhammed built the first one, using a series of convenient 'revelations' to position himself as both a religious and political leader and combine the two roles into one ideology (and for other purposes like getting his neighbour's 6 year old daughter).

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 10:16am:

Sure. It's called a Caliphate.

Is that really the best you can do?

8000 words, and this is the sum-total of your knowledge of Muslim social and political theory?

That's the question you asked Karnal.

How about this one:

If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 12:20pm:

That's the question you asked Karnal. How about this one: If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.

How does this constitute a political system, FD?

According to Abu, you can't just sneak up behind an apostate and hit him over the head. You need to do all the paperwork first. That paperwork requires bureaucrats to file it, so the head hacking can proceed in a nice orderly fashion.

Otherwise there would be chaos.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

According to Abu, you can't just sneak up behind an apostate and hit him over the head. You need to do all the paperwork first. That paperwork requires bureaucrats to file it, so the head hacking can proceed in a nice orderly fashion. Otherwise there would be chaos.

You haven't answered the question, FD. What political system did Muhammed establish? What political system does Islam ask Muslims to strive for?

The common term for it is theocracy. This is the answer to both questions.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 5:22pm:

The common term for it is theocracy. This is the answer to both questions.

Ah. A Greek term.

Caliphates and sultanates are not theocracies, FD, they're monarchies. A theocracy is when the priests run the show.

Now, I've been nice and described the ancient Roman models.  Can you quote the list of rules for Muslim theocracies? Can you show us the political system you're describing?

Or has the cat got your tongue?

So Caliphates are not theocracies because Islam doesn't have priests?

The only reason you make this distinction is because you are viewing it through the western cultural filter of separation of church and state - priests taking on political roles. Islam does not make this distinction. Muhammed was both a political and a religious leader. A saviour and a slaughterer, depending on his mood at the time.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:29pm:

So Caliphates are not theocracies because Islam doesn't have priests?.

Trying to wriggle out of your theocracy definition, eh?

No worries. How was the Roman empire more inclusive than, say, the Islamic caliphate?

Erections.

And what were the political rules of the caliphate, set down for all time by sinister prophet Muhammed?

Theocracy.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Well done Karnal. You can answer your own silly questions from now on.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 9:08pm:

Well done Karnal. You can answer your own silly questions from now on.

Done, are you?

I understand. Would you prefer I explained the difference between monarchies and theocracies, or do you want to have a go this time?

If you have a point to make Karnal, go ahead and make it.

Why, FD, you should know my point by now.

My point is that the early Muslim caliphates were more "inclusive" than the Roman empire.

That's all.

Economically, or politically?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 11:33am:

Economically, or politically?

Both. In Rome, the payoff for losing the vote was bread and circuses. In Muhammed's time, nobody had a vote. The proposed reason for Islamic imperialism was security - uniting the desert tribes, as I believe Muhammed argued.

Your article is a tad quiet on Muslim political systems, FD. You've discussed them here since 2007, so you're quite well informed.

Is there any reason why you're keeping mum on this issue?

I thought it was pretty obvious. Muhammed was in charge, then the Caliphs that followed him.

How were bread and circuses less inclusive than the Caliphate?

Would you say the Roman Republic was more inclusive than the Caliphate?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:57pm:

Would you say the Roman Republic was more inclusive than the Caliphate?

Ah.

Thanks for catching that error Karnal. I have updated the article. Do you agree with it now?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

Thanks for catching that error Karnal. I have updated the article. Do you agree with it now?

Do I agree that "the Roman.empire was more inclusive that its contemporaries, which is the main thesis"?

Or are you saying something else here?

You still haven’t captured the political framework of the first Islamic caliphate. I believe this is your true thesis. Do you want to give it a stab?

Remember, you want all Australian visa applicants to be quizzed on this.

Would you say the Roman Republic was more inclusive than the Caliphate?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:

Would you say the Roman Republic was more inclusive than the Caliphate?

You first.

Theocracy.

Would you say the Roman Republic was more inclusive than the Caliphate?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

Theocracy. Would you say the Roman Republic was more inclusive than the Caliphate?

Wrong answer. Try again.

You can do this, FD.

Ban Him  ::)

Ashley wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 8:43pm:

Ban Him  ::)

Matty’s learning, FD. He’s being inclusive.

Karnal if there is nothing in the article you disagree with, why does it bother you so much?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Karnal if there is nothing in the article you disagree with, why does it bother you so much?

Sounds like you’re not saying, FD. No worries. Here’s another question - if you’re saying the Roman empire was more inclusive than.Islamic caliphates, what do you make of the process of shura?

I think you spelt that wrong.

The republic was more inclusive than the caliphates, and just about every advanced civilisation before the industrial revolution. This inclusiveness was gradually lost when the republic ended.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 7:50pm:

I think you spelt that wrong.

Good work, FD. Abu used to correct my Arabic spelling too.

Please provide the correct spelling. Oh - and a definition.

Your readers will want to know about this. You can add it to the article.

It looks pretty hopeless to me Karnal. The only example of shura in the Koran is a wife consulting her husband on when to wean a child. Even the worst dictatorships employ some kind of consultative process. This came after the Greeks and Romans, so it was not like Muhammed lacked examples to follow. At the end of the day, the outcome must still be consistent with shariah law. Neither Muhammed's Islamic state nor the Caliphates that followed were as politically inclusive as the Roman Republic. Shura is meaningless window dressing. Can you imagine the founding fathers of the US getting together and deciding not to bother with elections, we will just consult with each other like adults and come to the right conclusion? In any context other than Islam you would laugh.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

It looks pretty hopeless to me Karnal. The only example of shura in the Koran is a wife consulting her husband on when to wean a child. Even the worst dictatorships employ some kind of consultative process. .

Elections?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

It looks pretty hopeless to me Karnal. The only example of shura in the Koran is a wife consulting her husband on when to wean a child. Even the worst dictatorships employ some kind of consultative process. This came after the Greeks and Romans, so it was not like Muhammed lacked examples to follow. At the end of the day, the outcome must still be consistent with shariah law. Neither Muhammed's Islamic state nor the Caliphates that followed were as politically inclusive as the Roman Republic. Shura is meaningless window dressing. Can you imagine the founding fathers of the US getting together and deciding not to bother with elections, we will just consult with each other like adults and come to the right conclusion? In any context other than Islam you would laugh.

I do laugh, FD, the US has electoral colleges, it does not have direct erections or popular representation. This is why it’s called a republic.

Are you saying Muhammed was influenced by Greece and Rome? I am.curious.

What’s the right spelling, by the way?

My mistake, your spelling is correct.


Quote:

Are you saying Muhammed was influenced by Greece and Rome? I am.curious.

No Karnal. He could have been. Ho chose not to. Instead he chose convenient revelations from Allah, nice consultative dictatorships and a slave economy where nice slave owners free their slaves. And the world suffers today as a result.


Quote:

I do laugh, FD, the US has electoral colleges, it does not have direct erections or popular representation. This is why it’s called a republic.

This is why Acemoglu uses the term political inclusiveness - to avoid irrelevant distinctions like this one. Do you have a point?

Is there anything in the article you disagree with?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 7:49am:

My mistake, your spelling is correct. Quote: Are you saying Muhammed was influenced by Greece and Rome? I am.curious. No Karnal. He could have been. Ho chose not to. Instead he chose convenient revelations from Allah, nice consultative dictatorships and a slave economy where nice slave owners free their slaves. And the world suffers today as a result. [quote]I do laugh, FD, the US has electoral colleges, it does not have direct erections or popular representation. This is why it’s called a republic.

This is why Acemoglu uses the term political inclusiveness - to avoid irrelevant distinctions like this one. Do you have a point?[/quote]

I most certainly do. I'm saying the first caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman empire. I've told you this 3 times already.

This means that Muhammed's caliphate, when it was a theocracy, was an evolution towards the political inclusivity you're promoting.

And not only that, the legal system that was developed created a system of civil law - the first in recorded history. Many historians believe the West borrowed this from Sharia courts, which were "inclusive" enough to provide a mechanism to resolve civil disputes. This was an evolution towards the rule of law and away from the anarchy of warring Arab tribes and blood feuds.

War unites populations. Order arises from chaos if people submit to God. This is the dominant message of Islam. I don't know whether to believe this or not, but it was Muhammed's stated aim.

My point is that the legal and political mechanisms that arose were an improvement on the Roman empire.

Now. Why don't you go ahead and describe those mechanisms. You've been given every opportunity to do so.

Feel free to disagree with my point, but if your analysis consists of a one-word response; "theocracy", your argument will continue to be meaningless.

Quote:

I most certainly do. I'm saying the first caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman empire. I've told you this 3 times already.

Do you agree that it was less inclusive than the republic?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 4:41pm:

Quote: I most certainly do. I'm saying the first caliphate was more "inclusive" than the Roman empire. I've told you this 3 times already. Do you agree that it was less inclusive than the republic?

Do you agree that Muhammed's caliphate was more inclusive than the Roman empire? That's the point you, yourself, raised.

A simple yes or no will suffice.

No.

Do you agree that the Caliphate was less inclusive than the republic?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

No.

So you believe an empire, centred in Rome and ruled by corrupt, nepotistic governors, is more "inclusive" than locally appointed leaders erected by their own councils?

Good-o.

Not really a democrat, are you?

Do you agree that the Caliphate was less inclusive than the republic? What are you afraid might happen if you concede this point?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 4:56am:

Do you agree that the Caliphate was less inclusive than the republic? What are you afraid might happen if you concede this point?

I can't possibly concede this point, FD. All you've proposed is erections, which you then said, according to Acemoglu, is not even the main issue. Instead, it's "inclusiveness".

When you jot down a few points on the difference between the Roman republic and Muhammed's caliphate, we can have a real discussion. If we take Acemoglu's argument seriously, it is quite possible for a theocracy/monarchy to be more socially and politically inclusive than a republic.

What your argument lacks is any form of detail beyond glib slogans like "elections" and "theocracy", when you're relying on a theorist who deliberately avoids such terms.

You've been very muddy on the details of the Roman republic. You originally confused this with the Roman empire. You are now deliberately evading the details of the caliphate. I'm not sure if you're ignorant of these details or you're covering up things that don't suit your argument. There were indeed political mechanisms of inclusion during Muhammed's time, as there were in the Ottoman caliphates that followed. You know this. You've engaged in countless discussions over the years about this, and you've conceded this point.

Without these details, your argument makes no sense, but let's get to the assumptions behind your argument. You asked whether the Roman empire was more politically or economically inclusive than the caliphate, as if one could possibly be abstracted from the other. Political inclusion is economic inclusion. The idea that they're separate is a modern phenomenon, but one that follows political inclusion. In our society, you don't need a title to own land, and you don't need to own land to vote or run for parliament. You don't need to be a member of a titled class, as you did in the Roman republic, to stand for office. You don't need to own land or a big business, as you did during the British empire, to be able to vote. We now have equality of opportunity, at least in our political-legal frameworks.

This is not something the ancient world had, including the Roman republic.

The other factor your argument ignores is security. The selling point of empires, beyond their expansion (or because of it), was to protect populations from invaders. Besieged people accept political exclusion to have their lives and livelihoods protected. You ignore this, I think, because you see things from a secure, modern Australian perspective. You ignore the fact that most of the world is still prepared to swap freedoms for security, and we could add economic security. This is because their social and political DNA is rooted in war and political instability. China is a perfect example of this, as was much of the Arab world until the Arab Spring - as was Europe until the end of WWII. Reactionary forces the world over exploit this payoff. Putin has done this masterfully, George Bush did it to justify "homeland security", and both parties in Australia aligned to take away press and other freedoms in their Foreign Fighters bill.

During Muhammed's time, security concerns were not manufactured. Muhammed and his followers were under siege. You could argue that the Koran is about this very point - how to achieve foreign and domestic security; in both the ways of war and in the metaphysical sense.

Modern pseudo-theocracies like Iran or Gadhafi's "green revolution" are not inclusive, as uprisings and popular protest highlight. They are simply a way for reactionary forces to obtain and hold power. Such tyrannies can inadvertently create the perfect conditions for social and political inclusion, as populations mobilize and fight back. Gadhafi was deposed, Iran is taking the gradual reformist path. Iran will change. It has to. Its people have deeply rooted secular ideals and the path is now open for foreign trade and investment. Shia Islam is part and parcel of Iranian nationalism and independence, but Iran has always had a sizeable population of Western-influenced secularists. The mullahs are losing their grip domestically, but expanding their power geopolitically. The Islamic revolution - the first of its kind - will most likely end in the justification of power alone: the "protection" of Shia Muslims in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and elsewhere.

So - include a few details about the Roman republic and Muhammed's caliphate, and we can talk. To be honest, I have no idea which of these was more "inclusive".

As ever, I'm curious. Are you?

Quote:

I can't possibly concede this point, FD. All you've proposed is erections, which you then said, according to Acemoglu, is not even the main issue. Instead, it's "inclusiveness".

Elections do mean poltical inclusiveness. He uses inclusiveness instead to stop idiots citing pretend elections (like some of the tinpot dictatorships have) as a criticism of his thoery. The elections put the Roman Republic way out in front the Caliphate. That is why I do not need to "jot down a few points" on the differences. One is enough.


Quote:

If we take Acemoglu's argument seriously, it is quite possible for a theocracy/monarchy to be more socially and politically inclusive than a republic.

If that is what you intend to argue, it is up to you to argue it.


Quote:

What your argument lacks is any form of detail beyond glib slogans like "elections" and "theocracy", when you're relying on a theorist who deliberately avoids such terms.

He deliberately avoids such terms to avoid your sort of idiocy.


Quote:

You are now deliberately evading the details of the caliphate.

No I am not. You cited one word - shura. I gave you a paragraph in response. You are clutching at straws an demanding I do your thinking for you.


Quote:

Political inclusion is economic inclusion.

No it isn't. That is why there are two different terms. Acemoglu argues that there is a causal relationship between them, but that does not make them the same thing.


Quote:

The other factor your argument ignores is security. The selling point of empires, beyond their expansion (or because of it), was to protect populations from invaders. Besieged people accept political exclusion to have their lives and livelihoods protected. You ignore this, I think, because you see things from a secure, modern Australian perspective. You ignore the fact that most of the world is still prepared to swap freedoms for security, and we could add economic security.

I am not ignoring it. My argument is not about why people give up political rights. It is about the consequence of doing so. If people give up economic and political rights for economic security, they are giving up their wealth, not securing it.


Quote:

This is because their social and political DNA is rooted in war and political instability.

This is an invention of nationalism. In the more distant past, people saw wars as something that happened between noblemen that had very little effect on them. They got treated the same way regardless. They were the herd that the hunters faught over. Mass conscription is a more recent phenomena, only possible with industrialisation (and a good dose of nationalism).


Quote:

During Muhammed's time, security concerns were not manufactured. Muhammed and his followers were under siege. You could argue that the Koran is about this very point - how to achieve foreign and domestic security; in both the ways of war and in the metaphysical sense.

They were under siege because their livelihood was based on raiding Meccan caravans and slaughtering Jews. Muhammed deliberately wound the Jews up. He was looking for a fight, just like a modern tyrant looking for a war to detract from his own inadequacies.

Quote:

You are clutching at straws an demanding I do your thinking for you.

No, FD, I'm suggesting you back up your argument. You're free to propose ludicrous statements like this, when you know how much Iran, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq rely/ed on erections:


Quote:

Elections do mean poltical inclusiveness

So 8000 words isn't enough?

Are you still confused about the relationship between elections and political inclusiveness?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:55pm:

So 8000 words isn't enough? Are you still confused about the relationship between elections and political inclusiveness?

I most certainly am, FD. I can't possibly understand, for example, how Iraq couldn't have been the next South Korea under Saddam and his erections, but they can now after Uncle went in to shoot the place up.

Inclusiveness, is it?

Are you suggesting your word count explains the legal and political mechanisms within Muhammed's caliphate and compares them with those of the Roman republic?  Is 8000 a lucky number? Does 8000 hypnotize readers into believing a few quick platitudes and glibly phrased clichés?

I'm curious. I'm keen to know more. I'd also like to know about power in the caliphate. What was it that made, in your argument, the Roman republic more inclusive?

You've already said erections. I've countered your erections with a Shura. It's even-Steven right now.

Now why don't you get stuck into the caliphate and justify those 8000 words?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:09pm:

Quote: [quote]This is because their social and political DNA is rooted in war and political instability. This is an invention of nationalism. In the more distant past, people saw wars as something that happened between noblemen that had very little effect on them. They got treated the same way regardless. They were the herd that the hunters faught over. Mass conscription is a more recent phenomena, only possible with industrialisation (and a good dose of nationalism).

No, FD, in the distant past, people saw wars as causing their invasion, rape, pillage, torture, killing, and if anyone was left alive, their enslavement.

And if they were on the winning side, they got to do this to others. Their payment was in war booty, or what were called "the spoils of war".

The invention of nationalism happened after the invention of nations - a phenomenon that occurred only recently, in the 19th century. The rise of the nation state was also about security. It was believed that once the borders were agreed, the constitutions written and the treaties signed, war would be no more. The warmongers would simply take their bat and ball and go home. Not cricket.

Alas, WWI saw an end to that idea. Nations just decided to join forces against others - an easy mistake to make. The rise of the nation state also saw the introduction of a system of alliances that made avoiding war almost impossible once one state lit the fuse.

If you think people in the past saw wars as just a distant tiff between noblemen, you're missing a vital part of the world's unconsciousness today. The latent memory of war is alive and well - in our speech and ideology, if not our very cells. The subject is the source of most Western philosophy, from Plato to Thomas Moore to Karl Marx. When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle.

It is a jolly world, no?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle.

It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant.

Frank wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 5:35pm: When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle. It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant.

Marx’s slant was most certainly not monomaniacal, Frank. It was dialectic.

His argument was that the struggle between two opposing forces drives history; the struggle between empires, classes and competing economic superstructures.

It’s fairly hard to argue the historical momentum from the French revolution on was not about class struggle. It’s impossible to argue that the Roman republic and its classes of patricians, plebians and slaves was not driven by class struggle too.

I propose a new argument. The rise of modern.racism - the proposed banning, killing and nuking of the tinted races - is all about class struggle too.  All we’ve done in the developed world is outsource our plebian and slave classes.

Cunning, no? After all, the people who manufacture most of our goods have little political, and almost no economic inclusiveness.

All FD can say about this is, yes but maybe one day they will.

Yes indeed. Maybe one day they will.

Quote:

I most certainly am, FD. I can't possibly understand, for example, how Iraq couldn't have been the next South Korea under Saddam and his erections, but they can now after Uncle went in to shoot the place up.

Do you not see any difference between the elections under Saddam and under the new regime?


Quote:

I'm curious. I'm keen to know more. I'd also like to know about power in the caliphate. What was it that made, in your argument, the Roman republic more inclusive?

The elections.


Quote:

You've already said erections. I've countered your erections with a Shura. It's even-Steven right now.

Do you consider a dictatorship in which the dictator talks to people to be just as inclusive as a democracy? Does your argument hinge on not being able to tell the difference between pre and post Saddam Iraq?


Quote:

All FD can say about this is, yes but maybe one day they will.

Our purchases are fueling it. The reason China for example is making so many of our goods is because of the increasing inclusiveness of their economy. The enourmous market available to poorer nations is making the choices they face starker than before. There are plenty of even poorer places we don't buy things from, and this is ultimately due to them being less inclusive.

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

Do you consider a dictatorship in which the dictator talks to people to be just as inclusive as a democracy?

The Roman Republic was a democracy was it?

No it wasn't. Good, now we all agree on that, perhaps you can actually answer K's question - how is the Roman Republic's non-democratic system of elections more "inclusive" than the Caliphate's non-democratic system of shura (consultation)?

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:41am:

Quote: I most certainly am, FD. I can't possibly understand, for example, how Iraq couldn't have been the next South Korea under Saddam and his erections, but they can now after Uncle went in to shoot the place up. Do you not see any difference between the elections under Saddam and under the new regime? [quote]I'm curious. I'm keen to know more. I'd also like to know about power in the caliphate. What was it that made, in your argument, the Roman republic more inclusive?

The elections.


Quote:

You've already said erections. I've countered your erections with a Shura. It's even-Steven right now.

Do you consider a dictatorship in which the dictator talks to people to be just as inclusive as a democracy? Does your argument hinge on not being able to tell the difference between pre and post Saddam Iraq?


Quote:

All FD can say about this is, yes but maybe one day they will.

Our purchases are fueling it. The reason China for example is making so many of our goods is because of the increasing inclusiveness of their economy. The enourmous market available to poorer nations is making the choices they face starker than before. There are plenty of even poorer places we don't buy things from, and this is ultimately due to them being less inclusive.[/quote]

How about Bangladesh, FD? They now make most of our clothes.

Are they inclusive! Why or why not?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:41am: Do you consider a dictatorship in which the dictator talks to people to be just as inclusive as a democracy? The Roman Republic was a democracy was it? No it wasn't. Good, now we all agree on that, perhaps you can actually answer K's question - how is the Roman Republic's non-democratic system of elections more "inclusive" than the Caliphate's non-democratic system of shura (consultation)?

FD won’t day, G. He’s converted to Islam.

He’s evading.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:41am: Do you consider a dictatorship in which the dictator talks to people to be just as inclusive as a democracy? The Roman Republic was a democracy was it? No it wasn't. Good, now we all agree on that, perhaps you can actually answer K's question - how is the Roman Republic's non-democratic system of elections more "inclusive" than the Caliphate's non-democratic system of shura (consultation)?

It was more politically inclusive. To answer your next question, because it had elections. It did not have to have universal suffrage to be more inclusive, because it was competing against far more backwards systems. There were far more people having a say in Rome than it would be possible to acieve through 'shura.' Shura is basically window dressing on dictatorship.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 9:17pm:

Frank wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 5:35pm: When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle. It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant. Marx’s slant was most certainly not monomaniacal, Frank. It was dialectic. His argument was that the struggle between two opposing forces drives history; the struggle between empires, classes and competing economic superstructures. It’s fairly hard to argue the historical momentum from the French revolution on was not about class struggle. It’s impossible to argue that the Roman republic and its classes of patricians, plebians and slaves was not driven by class struggle too.

It was monomaniacal alright, a bit like Mohammed's revelations: they both thought that their ideas were the final answer and solution to all the troubles that went before them. Marx though that the class struggle will end with the triumph of the proletariat whose dictatorship will eventually lead to such enlightenment that there will be no classes and therefore class struggle and no dialectics becuase the opposites will have been dissolved (that's what communism is meant to be). Like all final prophets, he believed he was onto the end of history.

Frank wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 2:38pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 9:17pm: Frank wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 5:35pm: When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle. It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant. Marx’s slant was most certainly not monomaniacal, Frank. It was dialectic. His argument was that the struggle between two opposing forces drives history; the struggle between empires, classes and competing economic superstructures. It’s fairly hard to argue the historical momentum from the French revolution on was not about class struggle. It’s impossible to argue that the Roman republic and its classes of patricians, plebians and slaves was not driven by class struggle too.  It was monomaniacal alright, a bit like Mohammed's revelations: they both thought that their ideas were the final answer and solution to all the troubles that went before them. Marx though that the class struggle will end with the triumph of the proletariat whose dictatorship will eventually lead to such enlightenment that there will be no classes and therefore class struggle and no dialectics becuase the opposites will have been dissolved (that's what communism is meant to be). Like all final prophets, he believed he was onto the end of history.

Many do, Frank. Like Hegel, FD thinks liberal democracy is the end of history. His argument about inclusiveness is all about the inevitable transition towards what he calls democracy; or erections.

If the Muselman doesn't get there first. FD, you see, believes that Western liberal democracy is the default global political model, and in many ways, he's right. Western liberal democracy is the political model of our current stage of capitalism, which is the global economic superstructure.

This superstructure is led by the US, so it's no surprise where the world gets its political model from. When Mother ruled the show, the world got its colonial model from her. When Rome ran the shop - you get the idea.

For FD, the Muselman wants to take away the US's Freeeeedom by beheading decent white people and establishing a global caliphate. Cunning, no? All Muselmen, from the fake-reformist G to the sinister and evasive Abu and Falah, want to interfere with history's telos, which is erections.

FD's article comes down to two things: theocracy and erections, the caliphate and the Roman empire.

Clash of civilisations, innit: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. FD, you see, is a Hegelian.

It is a jolly world, no?

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 2:16pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 9:57am: freediver wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 7:41am: Do you consider a dictatorship in which the dictator talks to people to be just as inclusive as a democracy? The Roman Republic was a democracy was it? No it wasn't. Good, now we all agree on that, perhaps you can actually answer K's question - how is the Roman Republic's non-democratic system of elections more "inclusive" than the Caliphate's non-democratic system of shura (consultation)? It was more politically inclusive.

How? You've written 8000 words about the Roman empire and Arab inbreeding, but you won't write anything about the very point you're making.

Should we Google taqiyya?

No that's a bore now.

Maybe we could Ban Them, Jolly blah blah no ?

Yawn

Paging FD spoon feeding needed again.  ::)

Mattyfisk wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:44pm:

How?

Elections.

Getting the hang of this yet K?  ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 5:44pm: How? Elections. Getting the hang of this yet K?  ;D ;D

I think I am, G. But what if they have erections in a caliphate?

What then?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 6:25pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 5:44pm: How? Elections. Getting the hang of this yet K?  ;D ;D I think I am, G. But what if they have erections in a caliphate? What then?

Just top each other.

Storm wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 7:33pm:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 6:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 6:25pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 5:44pm: How? Elections. Getting the hang of this yet K?  ;D ;D I think I am, G. But what if they have erections in a caliphate? What then? Just top each other.

Yes, Matty, but someone must be the bottom.

FD’s saying it’s Whitey. Do you want to play Mother?

Mattyfisk wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

Frank wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 2:38pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 9:17pm: Frank wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 5:35pm: When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle. It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant. Marx’s slant was most certainly not monomaniacal, Frank. It was dialectic. His argument was that the struggle between two opposing forces drives history; the struggle between empires, classes and competing economic superstructures. It’s fairly hard to argue the historical momentum from the French revolution on was not about class struggle. It’s impossible to argue that the Roman republic and its classes of patricians, plebians and slaves was not driven by class struggle too.  It was monomaniacal alright, a bit like Mohammed's revelations: they both thought that their ideas were the final answer and solution to all the troubles that went before them. Marx though that the class struggle will end with the triumph of the proletariat whose dictatorship will eventually lead to such enlightenment that there will be no classes and therefore class struggle and no dialectics becuase the opposites will have been dissolved (that's what communism is meant to be). Like all final prophets, he believed he was onto the end of history. Many do, Frank. Like Hegel, FD thinks liberal democracy is the end of history. His argument about inclusiveness is all about the inevitable transition towards what he calls democracy; or erections. If the Muselman doesn't get there first. FD, you see, believes that Western liberal democracy is the default global political model, and in many ways, he's right. Western liberal democracy is the political model of our current stage of capitalism, which is the global economic superstructure. This superstructure is led by the US, so it's no surprise where the world gets its political model from. When Mother ruled the show, the world got its colonial model from her. When Rome ran the shop - you get the idea. For FD, the Muselman wants to take away the US's Freeeeedom by beheading decent white people and establishing a global caliphate. Cunning, no? All Muselmen, from the fake-reformist G to the sinister and evasive Abu and Falah, want to interfere with history's telos, which is erections. FD's article comes down to two things: theocracy and erections, the caliphate and the Roman empire. Clash of civilisations, innit: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. FD, you see, is a Hegelian. It is a jolly world, no?

Karnal do you disagree with anything I have actually said?

Do you think the Caliphate was more inclusive than the Roman Republic?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 9:22am:

Mattyfisk wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 5:31pm: Frank wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 2:38pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 9:17pm: Frank wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Mattyfisk wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 5:35pm: When Marx was asked the cryptic philosophical question, what is?, he answered with a quick, one-word answer: struggle. It's just NOT class struggle, which was his monomaniacal slant. Marx’s slant was most certainly not monomaniacal, Frank. It was dialectic. His argument was that the struggle between two opposing forces drives history; the struggle between empires, classes and competing economic superstructures. It’s fairly hard to argue the historical momentum from the French revolution on was not about class struggle. It’s impossible to argue that the Roman republic and its classes of patricians, plebians and slaves was not driven by class struggle too.  It was monomaniacal alright, a bit like Mohammed's revelations: they both thought that their ideas were the final answer and solution to all the troubles that went before them. Marx though that the class struggle will end with the triumph of the proletariat whose dictatorship will eventually lead to such enlightenment that there will be no classes and therefore class struggle and no dialectics becuase the opposites will have been dissolved (that's what communism is meant to be). Like all final prophets, he believed he was onto the end of history. Many do, Frank. Like Hegel, FD thinks liberal democracy is the end of history. His argument about inclusiveness is all about the inevitable transition towards what he calls democracy; or erections. If the Muselman doesn't get there first. FD, you see, believes that Western liberal democracy is the default global political model, and in many ways, he's right. Western liberal democracy is the political model of our current stage of capitalism, which is the global economic superstructure. This superstructure is led by the US, so it's no surprise where the world gets its political model from. When Mother ruled the show, the world got its colonial model from her. When Rome ran the shop - you get the idea. For FD, the Muselman wants to take away the US's Freeeeedom by beheading decent white people and establishing a global caliphate. Cunning, no? All Muselmen, from the fake-reformist G to the sinister and evasive Abu and Falah, want to interfere with history's telos, which is erections. FD's article comes down to two things: theocracy and erections, the caliphate and the Roman empire. Clash of civilisations, innit: Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. FD, you see, is a Hegelian. It is a jolly world, no? Karnal do you disagree with anything I have actually said? Do you think the Caliphate was more inclusive than the Roman Republic?

No.

Why were the republic’s erections more inclusive than the caliphate’s systems of inclusiveness?

Cat got your tongue?

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

But you haven’t said how things were run in the caliphate, FD. In large populations, erections are not participatory at all. Majority rules.

And before you say Roman citizens could stand for office in the republic, they couldn’t. This was reserved for patricians. You might as well say the Roman republic was a one-party state.

Your argument would have North Korea as more inclusive than the Roman republic because more people get the vote.

And this, I would say, is why your theorist avoids erections as the key determinant of political inclusivity. Erections merely give people the illusion of participation. In most of the utopian political models proposed by the West, erections weren’t an issue. Plato’s republic, Moore’s Utopia, even Marx’s communism -.erections are absent. This is because, like the Roman republic, these writers all saw class as the main factor in political inclusiveness. Indeed, Muhammed’s caliphate owed more to Plato’s republic than it did to modern ideas of liberal democracy.

Cunning, no?  Like Plato’s unelected philosopher kings, the rulers of the caliphate were direct descendants of the prophet.

Not unlike North Korea, eh? But according to you, they’re a democracy.

Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution.

Quote:

But you haven’t said how things were run in the caliphate, FD. In large populations, erections are not participatory at all. Majority rules.

Do you think 'minority rules' would be more inclusive?


Quote:

Your argument would have North Korea as more inclusive than the Roman republic because more people get the vote.

This is my argument again:

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

Can you explain how your BS about North Korea is my argument?


Quote:

And this, I would say, is why your theorist avoids erections as the key determinant of political inclusivity.

He uses the term political inclusivity to deal with people who cannot tell the difference between democracy and elections under Saddam or North Korea, and who try to use their comprehension problems as an argument.


Quote:

Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution.

And people use wishy washy western liberal morals to cynically smear Islam, right Gandalf?

You’re just repeating, FD, you’re not providing an argument. Of course your one-word political axiom, erections, has you championing the inclusivity of North Korea and Saddam.

They had/have erections. This is your sole criteria for the superiority of the Roman republic over the caliphate. I’ve asked you to define, clarify, explain and discuss, but you won’t. You just keep coming back with your outraged, camp rebuttals. How very dare you.

But I’m curious. Why are you even comparing the Roman republic with an Arab dynasty 700 years later? You originally said your argument was that the Roman empire was more politically inclusive than its contemporaries.

Why are we even discussing the caliphate?

Oh look, here I go repeating myself again, without mentioning elections:

Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run.

We are discussing the Caliphate because you keep comparing it to the Republic. Perhaps you would like ask me again about why North Korea or Saddam's Iraq were less inclusive than other modern democracies, despite having elections?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 12:33pm:

Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution.

This is how people get parliaments and erections the world over. The US got theirs through a revolution, Western Europe got its erections after the 1848 revolutions, Britain got universal suffrage after WWI, when the rest of Europe was turning to communism.

FD believes liberal democracy just evolves as if by some gravitational historical force. Liberal democracy has always arisen as a negotiated payoff by rulers to their subjects to stop them revolting. France, Germany, Britain, Russia, all established the political systems they have today through bargains with revolutionaries. In Russia, the revolutionaries reneged, but they’re back to the duma, which has been taken over by a new form of tzar.

Today, liberal democracy is the default position because the interests of capital demand it. Elections and forms of political inclusivity are often IMF loan conditions, as they were in Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia and Thailand. Here,, economic forces demand the payoff of liberal democracy to stop political unrest and sovereign risk.

This is being challenged today by the rise of China, and in Europe, Putin. We can include the failure of the Arab Spring. With economic and political insecurity, people are prepared to accept dictators again. Perhaps the best example of this is occurring with the popular appeal of Donald Trump in the heart of the empire.

People are prepared to give up freedoms if they can be made to believe its about sticking it to the lower classes, in the US’ case, Mexicans and the Muselman.

Unlike FD,  who also supports freedoms being taken away for this end, I can’t see liberal democracy being the dominant political model for much longer. It’s certainly not the end of history as Fukuyama (and FD) once held.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

Oh look, here I go repeating myself again, without mentioning elections: Because of the much larger number of people having a say in how things are run. We are discussing the Caliphate because you keep comparing it to the Republic. Perhaps you would like ask me again about why North Korea or Saddam's Iraq were less inclusive than other modern democracies, despite having elections?

I didn’t ask, FD, but you didn’t answer either.

We’ll ask and answer now, shall we? Why was the Roman.republic more politically inclusive than Saddam’s Iraq?

We’re discussing the caliphate because it’s in your essay. Why did you include the caliphate and Arab inbreeding in an essay on the political legacy of Rome?

I’m curious.

Mattyfisk wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 1:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 12:33pm: Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution. This is how people get parliaments and erections the world over. The US got theirs through a revolution, Western Europe got its erections after the 1848 revolutions, Britain got universal suffrage after WWI, when the rest of Europe was turning to communism. FD believes liberal democracy just evolves as if by some gravitational historical force. Liberal democracy has always arisen as a negotiated payoff by rulers to their subjects to stop them revolting. France, Germany, Britain, Russia, all established the political systems they have today through bargains with revolutionaries. In Russia, the revolutionaries reneged, but they’re back to the duma, which has been taken over by a new form of tzar. Today, liberal democracy is the default position because the interests of capital demand it. Elections and forms of political inclusivity are often IMF loan conditions, as they were in Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia and Thailand. Here,, economic forces demand the payoff of liberal democracy to stop political unrest and sovereign risk. This is being challenged today by the rise of China, and in Europe, Putin. We can include the failure of the Arab Spring. With economic and political insecurity, people are prepared to accept dictators again. Perhaps the best example of this is occurring with the popular appeal of Donald Trump in the heart of the empire. People are prepared to give up freedoms if they can be made to believe its about sticking it to the lower classes, in the US’ case, Mexicans and the Muselman. Unlike FD,  who also supports freedoms being taken away for this end, I can’t see liberal democracy being the dominant political model for much longer. It’s certainly not the end of history as Fukuyama (and FD) once held.

So the 1848 revolutions were an example of dictatorships using elections to consolidate their power?


Quote:

Why did you include the caliphate and Arab inbreeding in an essay on the political legacy of Rome?

Who said it was about the political legacy of Rome?

Sorry, FD, is your essay about our noble Western system of democracy ot the genetically determined backwarrdness of the Muselman?

It’s a little hard to gather.

You'll figure it out eventually Karnal.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 12:33pm:

Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution.

Are you saying that Tsarist Russia is a classic example of modern democratic ideals?

Apparently even the 1948 revolutions were a trick to stave of revolution and consolidate dictatorships.


Mattyfisk wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 1:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 12:33pm: Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution. This is how people get parliaments and erections the world over. The US got theirs through a revolution, Western Europe got its erections after the 1848 revolutions, Britain got universal suffrage after WWI, when the rest of Europe was turning to communism.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 21^st, 2016 at 8:36pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 12:33pm: Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution. Are you saying that Tsarist Russia is a classic example of modern democratic ideals?

no.

I should have phrased it better - elections can be a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships - eg Tsarist Russia, Assad in Syria, and without a doubt, FD's beloved Roman Republic.

The poor of Rome went on strike several times to demand greater political rights. They got them. During the early stages of the Republic there was a conscious effort to avoid a return to monarchy. Thus, there was a conscious effort to distribute power broadly among the people, and the complexity of the constitution reflects this.

Does that mean it somehow doesn't 'count' Gandalf? Is democracy only a good thing if it is arrived at entirely without cynicism?

---

An interesting video showing global population growth over the last 2000 years (starting about 40 seconds in).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khFjdmp9sZk

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 8:55am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 21st, 2016 at 8:36pm: polite_gandalf wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 12:33pm: Elections are a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships. Classic example, when Tsar Nicholas II allowed elections to stave off revolution. Are you saying that Tsarist Russia is a classic example of modern democratic ideals? no. I should have phrased it better - elections can be a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships - eg Tsarist Russia, Assad in Syria, and without a doubt, FD's beloved Roman Republic.

But anything can be a cynical tool to consolidate and protect dictatorships.

Why should democratic ideals be denigrated simply because they can be hijacked?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 9:38am:

Why should democratic ideals be denigrated simply because they can be hijacked?

Who said that? Not me.

Establishing the elected Duma in Russia after the 1905 revolution was undeniably a positive development, but it doesn't mean that Nicholas II was a democrat - he wasn't. And it doesn't mean his motivation in establishing it wasn't entirely cynical and self-preservative - it was.

So what is your point Gandalf? Or are you just complaining that politicians are cynical? Do you think you are contradicting my position here?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:13pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 22nd, 2016 at 9:38am: Why should democratic ideals be denigrated simply because they can be hijacked? Who said that? Not me. Establishing the elected Duma in Russia after the 1905 revolution was undeniably a positive development, but it doesn't mean that Nicholas II was a democrat - he wasn't. And it doesn't mean his motivation in establishing it wasn't entirely cynical and self-preservative - it was.

Few politicians are true democrats in the heart, I'd imagine...

When you spend your life trying to attain political power, it would be a hard proposition to expect these people to be (at the 3:00AM of their soul) delighted by the proposition that one day, suddenly - sometimes overnight - they will certainly fall from power via the democratic process and, due to the principles and machinery of democracy, will almost certainly never be able to return.

Stories are legion of such discarded politicians descending into serious depression due to post-political 'relevance deprivation syndrome'.

Democracy guards against the unbridled ambitions of politicians - they don't have to like it - But its all we've got to protect us from the leader who equates loss of power with death (a common psychological syndrome) and a would-if-he-could fight for his life to preserve his status.

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:19pm:

So what is your point Gandalf? Or are you just complaining that politicians are cynical? Do you think you are contradicting my position here?

This latest point of mine was in response to something karnal said.

Not everything's about you FD - believe it or not.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 1:13pm:

Establishing the elected Duma in Russia after the 1905 revolution was undeniably a positive development, but it doesn't mean that Nicholas II was a democrat - he wasn't. And it doesn't mean his motivation in establishing it wasn't entirely cynical and self-preservative - it was.

Another thing with a monarchical head of state...

The monarch (by definition) cannot be a democrat... They relinquish their role as head of state by either abdication or death... (I think its nearly universally true that modern constitutional monarchs cannot participate in the democratic process at all).

So the fact that Nicholas II was not a democrat is exactly as anyone would expect.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 22^nd, 2016 at 3:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 22nd, 2016 at 1:13pm: Establishing the elected Duma in Russia after the 1905 revolution was undeniably a positive development, but it doesn't mean that Nicholas II was a democrat - he wasn't. And it doesn't mean his motivation in establishing it wasn't entirely cynical and self-preservative - it was. Another thing with a monarchical head of state... The monarch (by definition) cannot be a democrat... They relinquish their role as head of state by either abdication or death... (I think its nearly universally true that modern constitutional monarchs cannot participate in the democratic process at all). So the fact that Nicholas II was not a democrat is exactly as anyone would expect.

The Russians ended up replacing Nicholas II with a president, but the fact that Putin is not a democrat is exactly as anyone would expect too.

This is because Russia's experiment with democracy during the Yeltsin years were marked with chaos, corruption and financial collapse. They were, however, the most democratic period Russia has ever experienced to date.

Putin came to power on a ticket of restoring order. Many Russians actually wanted a dictator in power again. They certainly got this in Putin.

When given the option, people can indeed vote for less democracy - for less political inclusiveness. The knuckleheads on this site prove this time and time again. They want a political process that excludes people. They want to ban, kill and nuke everyone who disagrees with them.

Democracy is about including citizens, but it can be tricky. As Yeltsin found, it can be hard to get things done through endless committees and layers of government.

Trump will find the same if he ever becomes president in the US. In the US, the constitution is taken seriously. The president does not have uniform powers to create domestic policy. He or she has to work with a congress, a senate, their various committees, the agencies, the NGOs, the lobbyists, and on and on.

Political inclusion comes at a cost - red tape. This cost can be exploited by players like Putin, and in the US, the tabloid-fueled anti-democratic forces that have led to the rise of Donald Trump. In Europe, it may well lead to the collapse of the EU, which is certainly the aim of the far-right nationalist groups.

Quote:

Democracy is about including citizens, but it can be tricky. As Yeltsin found, it can be hard to get things done through endless committees and layers of government.

Usually the less they do, the better.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 6:56pm:

Quote: Democracy is about including citizens, but it can be tricky. As Yeltsin found, it can be hard to get things done through endless committees and layers of government. Usually the less they do, the better.

And the less they do, the less "inclusive" a society is.

The heavy legacy of the Reagan/Thatcher years is the ever-shrinking wealth in the hands of the majority of citizens. This project was exported to the developing world through the carrot of IMF loans, and it’s led to the concentration of the world’s capital. It also led directly to the GFC, which has seen even more wealth concentration, higher corporate bonuses, and in the US, no financial regulation.

Thus, it will all happen again. This is the cycle of an economy without restraint.

Quote:

And the less they do, the less "inclusive" a society is.

Unless of course they do things like build gas chambers.


Quote:

The heavy legacy of the Reagan/Thatcher years is the ever-shrinking wealth in the hands of the majority of citizens.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? Do you consider yourself poorer than your parents?


Quote:

This project was exported to the developing world through the carrot of IMF loans

What 'project'?


Quote:

and it’s led to the concentration of the world’s capital

Evidence?

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

Quote: And the less they do, the less "inclusive" a society is. Unless of course they do things like build gas chambers. [quote]The heavy legacy of the Reagan/Thatcher years is the ever-shrinking wealth in the hands of the majority of citizens.

Do you have any evidence to back this up? Do you consider yourself poorer than your parents?


Quote:

This project was exported to the developing world through the carrot of IMF loans

What 'project'?


Quote:

and it’s led to the concentration of the world’s capital

Evidence?[/quote]

My parents had a proportionately higher level of discretionary income than my children do.... wealth is perhaps in some cases defined by how you waste it.

When discussing comparative wealth, you need to look at a lot of factors, including opportunity cost of home purchase, car purchase, etc, transport costs, costs of living etc.

When we have private roads and privatised power supply that costs us hugely more than the old public roads and power etc, these all eat into comparative wealth.

I'd like to see some solid figures on these things.  What I do know is that upward pressure on working incomes is permanent and much higher than it was back then, and there are more people these days doing the con jobs to get a quick buck than there were then, which raises the bar for everyone.

I remain astounded that Australia rates 10th or something for 'wealth' in the world - compared to who?  Faroffistan?

The entire concept of wealth needs to be looked at close and across the board... not just at the lovely incomes of some while the rest struggle.

Quote:

My parents had a proportionately higher level of discretionary income than my children do.... wealth is perhaps in some cases defined by how you waste it.

At the same age? Did you know your parents when they were your children's age?

As far as I can tell every generation, including the current one, gets better quality cars and more of them, bigger houses at a younger age that are also of a much higher standard (a lot of this is mandatory), work less hours and have all sorts of gadgets that their parents would have considered magical.

Karnal's gripe relies on an absence of perspective. It is the standard socialist trick of inventing a problem that does not really exist to justify a solution that would only make it worse.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 12:59pm:

Quote: My parents had a proportionately higher level of discretionary income than my children do.... wealth is perhaps in some cases defined by how you waste it. At the same age? Did you know your parents when they were your children's age? As far as I can tell every generation, including the current one, gets better quality cars and more of them, bigger houses at a younger age that are also of a much higher standard (a lot of this is mandatory), work less hours and have all sorts of gadgets that their parents would have considered magical.

No, FD, Australians work more hours that they ever have. Quality of life is not determined by the amount of gadgets one has.

Your Hegelian belief in the telos of liberal democracy is a myth. The reason people all over the world are up in arms over their economic situation, from the US to Russia, is that real wages have decreased. The situation has worsened in many developing countries.

This is not a socialist argument, but many of those pushing it, from Trump to Putin, are indeed proposing socialist solutions. Trump proposes trade walls, tariffs and money printing. His pitch to capture disgruntled working class men is captured in the slogan, "making America great again".

Australia is one of a few countries in the world which has seen a rise in real wages and working conditions. Try pushing your argument in South Africa, the Philippines, or in the host of developed countries that are still recovering from the global financial crisis. 

If they don't laugh at you, they'll chop off your head.

In most parts of the world, life for the majority of people is not getting better and better. Australia is one of the few countries where it has - for now.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 12:59pm:

Quote: My parents had a proportionately higher level of discretionary income than my children do.... wealth is perhaps in some cases defined by how you waste it. At the same age? Did you know your parents when they were your children's age? As far as I can tell every generation, including the current one, gets better quality cars and more of them, bigger houses at a younger age that are also of a much higher standard (a lot of this is mandatory), work less hours and have all sorts of gadgets that their parents would have considered magical. Karnal's gripe relies on an absence of perspective. It is the standard socialist trick of inventing a problem that does not really exist to justify a solution that would only make it worse.

And umm FD, he's avoided the above highlighted section.

In fact, it's as if this paragraph hasn't even been posted. :o

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 4:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2016 at 12:59pm: Quote: My parents had a proportionately higher level of discretionary income than my children do.... wealth is perhaps in some cases defined by how you waste it. At the same age? Did you know your parents when they were your children's age? As far as I can tell every generation, including the current one, gets better quality cars and more of them, bigger houses at a younger age that are also of a much higher standard (a lot of this is mandatory), work less hours and have all sorts of gadgets that their parents would have considered magical. No, FD, Australians work more hours that they ever have. Quality of life is not determined by the amount of gadgets one has. Your Hegelian belief in the telos of liberal democracy is a myth. The reason people all over the world are up in arms over their economic situation, from the US to Russia, is that real wages have decreased. The situation has worsened in many developing countries. This is not a socialist argument, but many of those pushing it, from Trump to Putin, are indeed proposing socialist solutions. Trump proposes trade walls, tariffs and money printing. His pitch to capture disgruntled working class men is captured in the slogan, "making America great again". Australia is one of a few countries in the world which has seen a rise in real wages and working conditions. Try pushing your argument in South Africa, the Philippines, or in the host of developed countries that are still recovering from the global financial crisis.  If they don't laugh at you, they'll chop off your head. In most parts of the world, life for the majority of people is not getting better and better. Australia is one of the few countries where it has - for now.

OK, so it does not apply to Australia. What countries does it apply to? I assume you would not say this about China either.

And where are you getting this from? Green Left Weekly?

Karnal? Are you just making this up?

Bump for Gandalf:


freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2017 at 7:34pm:

Quote: benefiting the Caliphate economy So why did the Caliphate barely register an increase in living standards? Do you remember arguing for pages and pages that it was because they didn't have Italy, as if Roman wealth could be attributable to some giant gold mine that the Muslims didn't know about? [quote]And I see FD is once again peddling his beloved 'depopulated Mediterranean coastline due to muslim slave-traders' fairy tale. We'll just ignore the fact that the Mediterranean slave traders didn't start until about the 17th century under the Ottomans

Crap. Muhammed was a slave trader. His immediate succesors invaded Spain, reintroducing sex slavery as a core of the economy.


Quote:

on the fact that FD's own favourite economic data compiled by Ian Morris - does not reveal any evidence whatsoever of any depopulation or economic decline caused by the muslim raids/settlements that happened along some Mediterranean coastlines during the period he is talking about

It does not attempt to measure this. It does however show that the best Islam could do in terms of living standards was lock western civilisation into the post apocalyptic mess for 1000 years, until Europe managed to get it started again, despite the best efforts of Muslims to turn everything to poo.


Quote:

On the contrary, historical evidence clearly shows that such places experienced relatively more prosperity under Muslim rule. All this has been shown to FD before.

What you ahve shown me is a remarkable effort in mental gymnastics by trying to argue that the cause of the Caliphate's dismal economic performance compared to the Romans, despite having a far bigger empire, was their inability to capture Italy.[/quote]