NationStates Jolt Archive

On internet forums, I often find that there are alot of intelligent people, but not necessarily as much intelligent debate. I believe that this could be caused by the fact that discussions are based on a system of cyclical rebuttal in which posters tend to be rather reactionary. In such a system, noone ever really posts her/his entire opinion on an issue. Instead she/he tends to post one liners, clichés, and other relatively short arguments. From personal experience, I think that many of the arguments that have impressed me the most (even some with which I have disagreed) were expressed in books, articles, and other media in which there is no chance of rebuttal.

Therefore, I have decided to try an experiment. Post on any topic you like. The topic may be as broad or as narrow as desired. Express the entirety of your views on that topic. Do Not respond to another post in any way. Such a response will be considered off topic. Have fun! :fluffle:

Okay. How about spelling?

R-E-B-U-T-T-A-L

Rebuttal.

It is most unfair that they are no longer going to produce blue smarties. They were my favourites.

(see An Archy - It doesn't work, does it.)

I love chocolate. But I cant eat it because then I'll get fat. But its soooooo good.

This one time, at band camp...

It seems to me that real life conversations are just as likely to become sidetracked. It's not like you deliver a thesis outlining your beliefs and then defend it.

Anything? About any obscure subject?

The reform movement in England that existed between 1258 and 1265 achieved its primary aim, but its later moves only resulted in failure.

The primary aim of the reformers in 1258 was the removal of King Henry III's foreign advisors, primarily the Lusignans, and the re-establishment of the close relationship between the King and the English barony, as opposed to newly arrived foreign magnates. Under Henry's minority, the English barony had enjoyed large-scale control over the government of the state, with an early pre-cursor to Parliament being one of the primary methods of making decisions. When Henry reached majority, the barons can't have expected to maintain the same level of control, but they expected to remain at the forefront of any consultation the King would undertake as to government policy.

Henry's constant exluding of the English barony at the expense of his foreign favourites was one of the primary sparks for reform. With the Provisions of Oxford in 1265, the reformers succeeded in removing the Lusignans et. al., and even managed to guarantee themselves a massive say in government. All Royal authority was to be exercised through a council of 24; 12 appointed by the magnates, 12 by the King, and Parliament was guaranteed to be called three times a year.

However, the main focus of the reformers was removing what they say as foreign influence, and gaining more say in government for themselves. Once this was achieved, the impetus and focus of the movement was lost, and this paved the way for Henry to re-establish his position.

In 1259/60 he went to France, taking some of the councillors with him. This split an already shaky council, and made them ineffective when he announced in February of 1260 that Parliament would not be meeting. Henry also managed to obtain a Papal Bull in 1261 absolving him of his oath on the Provisions of Oxford, giving him legal authority to disband the council and re-assume all aspects of his Royal authority.

Simon de Montfort led a resurgent rebel force, capturing most of southern England by 1263, and in 1264 Henry was defeated at the Battle of Lewes. It seemed the reformers had won a final and decisive victory, but just fifteen months later Henry's son Edward (the future Edward I) escaped from captivity and led a Royalist force to defeat the reformers at the Battle of Evesham. Edward's victory was made easier by defections from de Montfort's side.

The defectors had become disillusioned with de Montfort, believing that he had fallen into the same trap as Henry had. De Montfort had become King in all but name after Lewes, and had begun favouring his family at the expense of the other magnates. This was a replication of Henry's favouring of his Lusignan relatives, and alienated many of his former supporters. Importantly, de Montfort did do one thing that reappeared in some form after the rebellion was crushed; the idea of a representative Parliament. Of course, representative meant a very different thing then than it did now; boroughs and shires were to be represented by Knights and burgesses. This Parliament of Oxford in 1265. This was called without Royal approval, but in 1295 Edward would use it as the basis for his Model Parliament.

The defeat at Evesham also resulted in the death of de Montfort, and the figurehead for the remaining rebels. Many other rebel leaders were killed in the immediate aftermath. The reformer's cause quickly disintegrated, and Henry was quick to pardon those who were involved and remained alive in order to win them over to his side.

One of the primary goals of the reform movement had been achieved; Henry moved back to giving patronage to English barons and abandoned his foreign relatives. However, very few of the reformers other ideas and achievements survived beyond even 1261, let alone 1265. The only thing beyond the expulsion of Henry's foreign favourites that could be said to have come out of the movement was the idea of a representative Parliament in some form, which would be visited again by Edward with his Model Parliament in 1295.

Therefore, I believe that the reform movement in England between 1258 and 1265 achieved its primary aim, but little else of long-term significance.

I think that the primary motivation of people who post on message boards such as these is the desire to issue a strong rebuttal. This conflicts with the way the media is constructed and the attention span of fellow posters. rebuttal is fun.

My feet smell bad because I am human.

Anything? About any obscure subject?

The reform movement in England that existed between 1258 and 1265 achieved its primary aim, but its later moves only resulted in failure.

*snip*

Therefore, I believe that the reform movement in England between 1258 and 1265 achieved its primary aim, but little else of long-term significance.




On Knowledge and Physiological Attraction


Knowledge is sexy. :fluffle:

My topic is crayons. Now remember, dont response to this, it is serious.

I like crayons because they are colorful, my favorite color is blue-green because its like two colors except its one. How do they do it? Crayons are also fun to write and draw with. I make pretty pictures. I tried to eat a crayon once but it tasted icky. I wont do that agian until I find a better tasting color. Whatever you do dont eat brown. Thank you.

Economic Systems

I believe that the most favorable economic system is unregulated capitalism. As such, I believe that a person has the right to ownership of anything she/he creates, discovers, or recieves in a free and honest agreement.

I've heard it said that, if a poor person lacks other opportunities, then an agreement for employment becomes absolutely necessary, and therefore cannot be labeled as "free." The actions of the potential employer, in this instance, would then be considered exploitive. I ask, however, can this lack of opportunity be blamed on the potential employer in this agreement? If not, then the actions of the potential employer regarding this agreement have not made the poor individual less free. In fact, by offering an opportunity for employment the potential employer has helped to alleviate the original lack of opportunity. If such actions are exploitive, then either our definition of exploitation is incorrect, or exploitation is not always an undesirable action.

Secondly, I'd like to address the idea that capitalist property is theft. I've come accross two claims with regards to this idea. First, is the claim that maintaining ownership of capitalist property is dependant on the threat of violence, and therefore such maintenance does not reflect the capitalist ideal of freedom. This, however, applies to all forms of property, and, in fact, to all systems of distribution as well. That is, such force is also required in the maintenance of private property or in the maintenance of a system of equal distribution of wealth. In consideration of this claim, I present this scenario: One man creates a product using nothing but his own effort and skill, and another man tries to usurp that product. The first man threatens the second man with the use of violence if such an attempt at usurpation is made. Who innitiated this force in this situation? I say the second man initiated force by threatening usurpation of the product of the first man. In short, theft is theft, property is not theft. Secondly, there is a claim that capitalist property does not meet the requirements for true property. If this claim holds true then my argmuments against the first claim do not hold. I admitt that the requirements for property presented in this argument are in no way inconsistant. However, I simply disagree with those requirements. At the beginning of this post, I said "a person has a right to ownership of anything she/he produces, discovers, or recieves in a free and open agreement." These are my requirements for true property. There is no inconsistancy in these requirements either. Seeing as how there is no inconsistancy in either set of requirements, I believe that we must admitt that our ideas of true property are simply incompatible and agree to disagree. While I hold my requirements of property to be axiomatic, I respect the differance in opinions on what qualifies as true property.

Thirdly, I will adress regulation. I firmly believe that regulation of businesses for the sake of consumers and workers is idiotic. The consumers and workers can effectively regulate businesses by not entering agreements they find to be disadvantageous. In this, I support market solutions to market problems, such as collective bargaining and the Better Business Bureau (which is admittedly not a completely market solution, but is rather mostly within the market). I believe that when the government regulates business it arbitrarily makes our decisions for us. At best, this can be harmless, if decision the government makes for us is the same as that which we would make for ourselves. There are, however, many different opinions as to what qualifies as a favorable decision in any particular circumstance. I say, "to each her/his own" and conclude that regulation is rarely a wise decision.

Environmental regulation is the exception to this rule, because people not involved in an agreement that leads to polution will suffer from that polution. This is called a negative externality. In affect, negative externalities are a violation of the property rights of the third party. Regulation of negative externalities, therefore, is a protection of those property rights. It is entirely different from other forms of regulation in that it does not make a decision for the workers/consumers, but rather limits the ability of people to make agreements which violate the rights of a third party. Therefore, environmental regulation, unlike most other forms of regulation. is favorable.

Finally, I will adress redistrobution. While I understand that government forced redistribution is a violation of the property rights of the rich, I do not understand why anyone makes such a fuss about it. The fact is that redistribution, unlike regulation, often works to achieve its purpose (to improve the quality of life for the poor.) I certainly agree that the current system of welfare is vastly innefficient. If we made redistribution more simple, by simply taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (Robin Hood!!!) this inefficiency would not exist. Furthermore, many of the rich are already willing to give a significan portion of their wealth to the less fortunate. For these people, redistribution is harmless. Since Capitalism in practice is essentially a system of policies that work to achieve their purpose, and since government redistribution can work, I do not greatly object to this policy, especially if it could be used as a political compromise to end regulation.

In conclusion, I believe that capitalism is a great creater of wealth. Furthermore, it tends to distribute wealth in a way that I consider a to be entirely fair. I admitt, however, that government redistribution is an effective policy in achieving its purpose. Therefore, I despise regulation (with the exclusion of environmental regulation and other negative externalities) while I admitt that redistibution is not so bad.

I would like say that I expected this thread to be more serious in tone and that many of the responses have been rather spamish. Nevertheless, I said that you may post on any topic you desire, and I will maintain that position. I will politely ask, however, that more people respond with serious and thought provoking posts. I have greatly enjoyed those posts which have been serious in nature.

Secondly, I understand that, after I have posted on such a controversial topic as economic systems, the temptation to rebut will be very great. I ask that you remember that this thread is based on non-rebuttal. So if you want to present your own views on economic systems, please try to do so in a holistic and non-reactionary fashion. In fact, I would love to see a different opinion on this issue expressed in those ways.

i frequently read how the russian winter "did in" napoleon. it is often referred to in relation to the german invasion of the soviet union in ww2. "one doesnt invade russia in winter" is considered as obvious as "don't start a ground war in asia"

however napoleon wasnt "done in" by the harsh russian winter; he was done in by the harsh russian PEOPLE.

napoleon had a plan for what to do about winter. it was a pretty good plan. he planned to spend it IN MOSCOW. he even set up residence in the kremlin. moscow is the ideal place to spend a russian winter. it was a beautiful city.

the russians burned it to the ground

napoleon had no choice but to flee. there was now NO place to spend the winter. his only avenue was retreat. THEN the harshest winter in a long time did his army in. well that plus the russians picking off the stragglers.

to sum up. the russian winter did not destroy napoleon's army; the russian people did.

so what was the point of this exercise?