Search results

Prussia was absolutist on paper (no more absolute than a fair few of its neighbours), but for much of the 19th century the lion's share of the power was held by the Chancellor. The German Empire Bismarck created was far more of a Constitutional Monarchy, for all its faults, than an absolute one...

To add to this, there's a reason the initial French Revolutionaries, whilst still monarchists of a stripe, had a raging boner for England's Parliamentary Monarchy. Absolutism or excess in anything is the undoing of all things, and Louis XIV's rotten legacy left France in tatters.

Depends. If they want to live in a civilisation and not Somalia, they'll probably need to observe it at least.

Keeping the free market in mind, especially for small and medium sized businesses, is fundamentally a good idea. Low tax, low intervention economies clearly do the best. However, sometimes the Government does have to step in. Businesses doing very stupid shit need to be slapped around from time...

That's probably not going back far enough for the origins of that sentiment. It likely predates Sumer and Akkad.

Libertarianism=liberty Liberty=freedom And it would seem freedom=prosperity. Look, I understand. You have a problem with the post-1945 order. So do I. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater will not make things any better. That aside, the primary problem isn't liberty, it's an...

Indeed, libertarianism creates economic prosperity. It is not driven by economic prosperity.

0_0 Good grief, I never realised it was that bad.

In fairness, I think he's talking about the Jim Crow laws instead of Slavery. Those laws were rather shit, but they aren't the same thing as slavery.

Where did I say that? Jim Crow laws being codified law sets an alarming precedent. If a person wants to be an asshole, that's down to them (and to an extent, the business they own), but state enforced assholery? That's intolerable.

No. "Rules for thee but not for me" are an affront to Common Law. Do they? England seemed to manage that not too badly for a few hundred years. By the way, have you at all stopped to consider that enforcing discriminatory laws requires an, if not more, intrusive government as well? The Jim...

A free market on a more national instead of global scale? That's essentially my stance on it too. Again, not a bleeding heart libertarian (Hi, misplaced in time 19th century High Tory here). I'd actually put in a tariff or two to protect home grown British industry, but not enough to be a...

Because citizens of the United States were being denied rights held by their fellow countryman on account of their skin colour. That is unjust.

What logical next step? Equal rights is mission accomplished for libertarians, but like what seems to be all pre-20th century political ideology, they haven't got a clue how to deal with socialists (in their case, primarily because that would involve exercising power to stop these people, and...

Because the liberals of yesteryear got caught napping and the left, as always, stole the word (they love word games). Perhaps it's high time that was taken back?

Again, this is ascribing points to the ideology that most of its adherents (American leftists are not liberals. Stop taking part in lefty word games) probably don't believe. In the mind of a liberal, economic liberty serves the liberty of wider society, to make men free. A true liberal worth...

Hence why those systems flourished for thousands of years. God damn, when in terms of human happiness and justice the Bronze Age has got it beaten outright, you know Communism is shit. This also adds credence to the argument of "you can have a flourishing civilisation without going overboard...

Neither. I have libertarian leanings, but I am not a point blank libertarian. I just take issue with attributes being rather unfairly ascribed to them. OG Classical Liberals were Christians, and quite fervent about it (the founding fathers brought up god, a lot). Adam Smith, as father of...

Most liberals with any stones would shoot that down in good order because equality before the law is the only real equality that can be achieved. Equality of outcome is a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that simply due to the skill set of the individual leading to unique outcomes. How, in any...

I'm not a bleeding heart libertarian (indeed, I reckon I've got High Tory leanings), but this is a tad bit unfair. When liberals say "equality", they mean "equality before the law" which is a world away from socialism's "equality of outcome." This is, in part, what I think the matter of gay...