tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post5982851110886991654..comments2023-08-09T04:20:22.205-07:00Comments on deretour: Debating video "end of monarchies" on FBHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-74306638228758153662010-11-27T01:40:24.787-08:002010-11-27T01:40:24.787-08:00The continued debate on same thread tends towards ...The continued debate on same thread tends towards questions on other thread, and thus will be posted there.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-22181340462481171382010-11-24T04:40:38.606-08:002010-11-24T04:40:38.606-08:00"Well, it is not a hope - it is a fact here,...<i>"Well, it is not a hope - it is a fact here, that they have that freedom. Unfortunately some of them don't appreciate it very much. They demand special privileges and freedoms, just like the homosexuals."</i><br /><br />In a way yes.<br /><br />But remember: they are not asking for bigamy as homos are asking for gay marriage.<br /><br />They are asking to keep the freedoms to dress as they seem fit (Sikhs in Britain have real privileges, about turbans in uniform and daggers where men are supposed to lack weapons - but ok, keeping a dagger used to be a freedom for Christians too even here), and the freedom to build prayer houses of their religion.<br /><br />People who accuse them of demanding "special privileges" usually mean that they want girls to marry young - as they did even earlier among us - or boys to be taught Qoran and Qoranic Arabic: as Catholic Christians used to be taught the Bible and Latin. Or childrens' dole for ten children when in fact they do have ten children rather than for two as people having two children ask for the childrens' dole for two children.<br /><br />Sometimes it is also about the Cantine, yes, I agree if parents want children to eat Hallal lunch, they can pack the Hallal lunch for them. But in some places packing a lunch is something parents are not allowed to do, school lunch being compulsory. That includes Sweden.<br /><br />I am more seriously worried about two things: a) the everyday ingerence of adapted, Western style, Muslims in social and political matters, as well as French journalism, b) each Mosque being, in case of war, a rally point that makes expulsion hard. By contrast, veils would rather help identifying the ones to expulse.H G Lundahlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-84842755466656146192010-11-24T04:27:53.315-08:002010-11-24T04:27:53.315-08:00"The radical left thinks it will emerge victo...<i>"The radical left thinks it will emerge victorious over its bourgeois enemy, but they forget that Muslims hate atheism and feminism more than they do nationalism and Christianity."</i><br /><br />True, or possibly once upon a time true. Maybe some are no longer forgetting that, but hating the Christian version more than the Moslems version of the negation of their values.HGLhttp://gmb1lou.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-28285457505921828022010-11-24T04:24:50.562-08:002010-11-24T04:24:50.562-08:00By contrast, the need for wheat distribution actua...By contrast, the need for wheat distribution actually lowered during what is now Middle Ages, indeed so much that the measure was forgotten. St Genevieve in her youth was probably distributing wheat to paupers, who had to line up. By the time of St Joan of Arc, people had come to think of such herding as somthing done to sheep, not to men. St Genevieve was no longer active in the office of her father who was decurion, but she was - like St Joan of Arc - a shepherd.<br /><br />Was this because the Middle Ages had a laissez-faire capitalism? No. Certain types of gain were prohibited, one was prohibited to Christians. No one was allowed to sell cheaper because paying ones labor poorer than all the other businessmen, only Jews were allowed to take interest on money loans.<br /><br />Interesting enough, the laissez-faire exception in "favour" of Jews was, in a way, in favour of a Jewish welfare state within the ghetto. A rich Jew was rich to give money to poor Jews, not in secret but before all, discussing with other non-poor Jews which poor Jew ought to be given an extra task in order to better his situation and so on.HGLhttp://filolohika.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-3685527557570737862010-11-24T03:46:46.453-08:002010-11-24T03:46:46.453-08:00To start with, not one but two corrections in your...To start with, not one but two corrections in your terminological set-up.<br /><br />1) US has had a monarchy from the start. It is called Presidency. Is monarchic palace is known as the White House, it is in a city named after your first monarch, George Washington, who, unlike what George III was once the war with France was over, was not a "king in name only".<br /><br />2) Laissez-faire capitalism is not one alternative where the welfare state is the other. Laissez faire means the state does not protect the businesses that are against each other. Welfare state means the state taxes both the businesses and their employees to pay a dole to the guys who got either out of business or out of job by the operation of laissez-faire capitalism. They are two steps of one process. And of one that gives no or only small freedoms to the small business owner.<br /><br />The men in "Responsible Rich" got their bilions of dollars by laissez-faire capitalism. In the Roman Empire they might have earned less, since Diocletian carefully graded work in 19 classes of different remuneration. This was kept up by Constantine and Theodosius. And continued in the jurandes up to English Reformation or French Revolution or Spain 1820 and so forth. There, they would not have been paupers, necessarily, but they had had no expectation of such riches (and we have them in Europe too).<br /><br />The same men in "Responsible Rich" advocated the keeping up of Inheritance Duty to Bush Jr. It was kept up. It is financing welfare state type measures. In Rome there was a welfare state type measure about wheat, but your house you usually owned even as a pauper, even if it was a hut. In US or Europe now? No. Hence aggravated need for welfare measures.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-36694315384467510102010-11-24T03:33:55.586-08:002010-11-24T03:33:55.586-08:00and further, here beginning with quote from me:
&...and further, here beginning with quote from me:<br /><br />"Only way this secret Catholic could get Catholics some religious freedom was by handing it to very left wing protestant sects at same time."<br /><br /><i>Well, it would have been interesting to see what may have happened in Maryland, where the Religious Toleration Act was passed in 1649. Maryland was a colony of Catholic refugees from Britain.<br /><br />I say "may have" because the act was null and void once the English Civil War broke out. The Protestant colonists attacked and suppressed the Catholic colonists, who didn't get their liberties back until after the American Revolution. Still, I find it fascinating that the first legislative attempt at religious tolerance in America was spearheaded by Catholics.</i> <br /><br />"Might explain your foible for laissez-faire capitalism."<br /><br /><i>Foible? Because no legitimate, rational argument is possible, right? <br /><br />To me, laissez-faire does not mean saying yes to corporate evil, but no to government interventions that support and subsidize that evil and harm the common good. To have anything more than laissez-faire in practice is to ultimately grant special privileges to the few at the expense of the many, and to store up fiscal burdens on the government that will eventually lead to ruin. <br /><br />People hate laissez-faire because it sounds like individualism. But I reject individualism as a way of life. I think statism is the main cause of individualism, because it creates in everyone's minds an expectation that the state will take care of that poor man you see on the street. It will find him a job, heal his illness, pay for his rent, put his children through school, etc. I think laissez-faire would reinforce the value of family and friends in a number of important ways.</i>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-26485995795550730622010-11-24T03:32:08.609-08:002010-11-24T03:32:08.609-08:00Response of Joe Hargrave:
Hans,
If your claim i...Response of <b>Joe Hargrave:</b><br /><br /><i>Hans, <br /><br />If your claim is that the US never existed under a monarchy, then it doesn't really change much - then it is just proof that a country doesn't need a monarchy at all to be prosperous, peaceful and free. Either way you slice it, monarchy isn't responsible for what we had before communist subversives began wrecking it from the inside.</i> <br /><br />"I sympathise with your hope of giving Muslims the freedom a Muslim régime would not give your forefathers."<br /><br /><i>Well, it is not a hope - it is a fact here, that they have that freedom. Unfortunately some of them don't appreciate it very much. They demand special privileges and freedoms, just like the homosexuals. They take full advantage of the weakness and anti-Western hatred of the radical left against conservatives, nationalists, and Christians. The radical left thinks it will emerge victorious over its bourgeois enemy, but they forget that Muslims hate atheism and feminism more than they do nationalism and Christianity. <br /><br />The Muslims are putting their weight behind one side of the great cultural and political divide in the West - on the side of social democracy against liberal democracy. Once they've crushed liberal democracy, they will then mop up the pathetic weaklings on the left who helped them against the right, and establish their caliphate. <br /><br />I don't blame Europe for the measures it has taken against Islam.</i>Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3188764845452746737.post-81386068757077583472010-11-23T11:12:57.391-08:002010-11-23T11:12:57.391-08:00also with Joe Hargrave on other blog because had o...<a href="http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2010/11/liberty-and-ecology-vs-malthusianism.html" rel="nofollow">also with Joe Hargrave</a> on other blog because had on FB.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com