NationStates Jolt Archive

So, which country is the greatest country on Earth? Overall?

EDIT: And why?

Australia.

And this thread needs a poll.

*suddenly transforms into hooligan* EN-GA-LAAAND ENGALAND ENGALAAAAAAAAAAAAAND....

*suddenly transforms into hooligan* EN-GA-LAAAND ENGALAND ENGALAAAAAAAAAAAAAND....

*transforms into boring loon* there is no coutry called england blah blah blah

And this thread needs a poll.

Because there are only 9 countries on Earth. 10 if we don't have an "other country" option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormyr

:D

I dont know.

I have never left the United States of America so my opinion would be biased.

there is no coutry called england blah blah blah

Since when?

i thought it was supposed to be bhutan.

The Principality of Outer Baldonia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Outer_Baldonia)

The United States of Europe. ;)

Because there are only 9 countries on Earth. 10 if we don't have an "other country" option.

Because you only need one option don't you. Well you could use more then two but it would all say the same thing. :p

Since when?

I am not be serious here, however, it is something I have had to argue with people before basically there has been no country called England since the act of the Union.

I am not be serious here, however, it is something I have had to argue with people before basically there has been no country called England since the act of the Union.

England is still technically a country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

I dont think there is one, since we's all be biased in one way or another simply because we love or hate our country, and there is nowhere in the world that isnt owned unless ure born in the middle of the pacific or mars or sumin lol.

England is still technically a country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

Thank you very much, I wasn't saying it wasn't I was saying some boring loons try to argue that.

there is no coutry called england blah blah blahSince when?

Since 1 May 1707.

Since 1 May 1707.

That didn't stop England existing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

The Vatican. They have men in tights.

Are there any about that will pay for me good money to live there without my having to do any work?

If so I choose one of them

Spain, I have spoken.

Spain, I have spoken.

Too many pasty English folks :wink:

Too many pasty English folks :wink:

and to European :)

I do not foresee this ending well. Through the course of it's short life, it'll play host to a pissing contest. Nonetheless, I'll give NSG the benefit of the doubt and allow this to go on. That being said, Canada is the best country. :p

I do not foresee this ending well. Through the course of it's short life, it'll play host to a pissing contest. Nonetheless, I'll give NSG the benefit of the doubt and allow this to go on. That being said, Canada is the best country. :p

To many French people.

Too many pasty English folks :wink:

Spain is the flavor of Europe.:tongue:

Too many French people.

I didn't realise that Canada was an anagram for 'France'. :tongue: Besides, there aren't THAT many French people here. At least where I am. We keep them tucked away in Quebec where they gather around and speak about how English Canada keeps screwing them over...

Spain is the flavor of Europe.:tongue:

Caramel according to Googles first hit. Lucky Spain

Belarus.

Spain is the flavor of Europe.:tongue:

The flavour being barely swallowable. :p

I didn't realise that Canada was an anagram for 'France'. :tongue: Besides, there aren't THAT many French people here. At least where I am. We keep them tucked away in Quebec where they gather around and speak about how English Canada keeps screwing them over...

And even those are not referred to as French, but as Quebecois. :D

Belarus.

If I hadn't read your previous posts I'd think you were joking.

The flavour being barely swallowable. :p

*traps you in her torero cape*

:p

*traps you in her torero cape*

:p

*Escapes, taking Aztec gold for church altars with him*

I didn't realise that Canada was an anagram for 'France'. :tongue: Besides, there aren't THAT many French people here. At least where I am. We keep them tucked away in Quebec where they gather around and speak about how English Canada keeps screwing them over...

And even those are not referred to as French, but as Quebecois. :D

Fine everyone pick on me then. :(


:tongue: Well let's see now Cnada isn't the best country on Earth because it is to cold there. That should do try and argue your way out of that one. :p

Ryleth.

I do not foresee this ending well. Through the course of it's short life, it'll play host to a pissing contest. Nonetheless, I'll give NSG the benefit of the doubt and allow this to go on. That being said, Canada is the best country. :p
too cold

similar to the "not enough water" disqualifier for australia.

*Escapes, taking Aztec gold for church altars with him*

<_<

Moresnet

too cold

similar to the "not enough water" disqualifier for australia.

Only because we are going through a drought at the moment once that is broken we shall take our rightful spot where we belong.

Saudi Iraqistan

And even those are not referred to as French, but as Quebecois. :D

They may be Quebecois but so long as Quebecers persist in calling the rest of Canada "English", they remain "French". It's only fair.

:tongue: Well let's see now Cnada isn't the best country on Earth because it is to cold there. That should do try and argue your way out of that one. :p

too cold

similar to the "not enough water" disqualifier for australia.

Define "too cold". That's quite vague. Besides, part of the US fit in that description, as well as Northern Europe and Asia.

Then again, not all of Canada could be considered "too cold". Vancouver rarely experiences the "true" Canadian winter. They get rain and it hovers around 10C. Cold winter varies. Besides, it's not cold when summer comes. Quite the contrary. Where I am, it gets up to 30C on average, never mind on really bad days. Even northern Canada gets quite warm during the summer.

They may be Quebecois but so long as Quebecers persist in calling the rest of Canada "English", they remain "French". It's only fair.

Lol! :D

Define "too cold". That's quite vague. Besides, part of the US fit in that description, as well as Northern Europe and Asia.

Which is also why (but not the only reason) why the countries in these regions are the best.

Then again, not all of Canada could be considered "too cold". Vancouver rarely experiences the "true" Canadian winter. They get rain and it hovers around 10C. Cold winter varies. Besides, it's not cold when summer comes. Quite the contrary. Where I am, it gets up to 30C on average, never mind on really bad days. Even northern Canada gets quite warm during the summer.

You guys have Celine Dion, any country that produces something like that can not possibly be called a great country let alone the greatest. :)

so long as Quebecers persist in calling the rest of Canada "English",

What an uberfail.


Where I am, it gets up to 30C on average, never mind on really bad days. Even northern Canada gets quite warm during the summer.

Yeah, it's hot for a few weeks, and there are flies everywhere. Not for me, thankyou very much.

You guys have Celine Dion, any country that produces something like that can not possibly be called a great country let alone the greatest. :)

That's all you got?

Yeah, it's hot for a few weeks, and there are flies everywhere. Not for me, thankyou very much.

Sure, if you hang out in a damp area such as a swampy green belt then yes, there is an insect issue. Winnipeg is the area for that. If you're in Toronto or somewhere else with low moisture, there are few if any. In fact, there are next to no insects here.

Hot for a few weeks, but then it's warm on the time before and after. We do get all four seasons and if you're lucky, there is a mid-winter thaw when the temperature goes up; the snow melts. Or you could be in a place like Calgary or other cities in Alberta that get chinooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_winds).

At least we don't have boring weather.

Only because we are going through a drought at the moment once that is broken we shall take our rightful spot where we belong.
if global climate change increases your rainfall in the interior you are SO there!

if global climate change increases your rainfall in the interior you are SO there!

Interior? Our desert is what makes us great, I was more talking about the effects it has had on the Murray-Darling system as well as how the rain forests are drying out and ceasing to become rain forests.

They may be Quebecois but so long as Quebecers persist in calling the rest of Canada "English", they remain "French". It's only fair.





Define "too cold". That's quite vague. Besides, part of the US fit in that description, as well as Northern Europe and Asia.

Then again, not all of Canada could be considered "too cold". Vancouver rarely experiences the "true" Canadian winter. They get rain and it hovers around 10C. Cold winter varies. Besides, it's not cold when summer comes. Quite the contrary. Where I am, it gets up to 30C on average, never mind on really bad days. Even northern Canada gets quite warm during the summer.
excuses, excuses. thats like claiming that because hawaii is a tropical paradise then the US counts as a tropical paradise.

although the US cant be the best because its "too powerful"

Spain, I have spoken.

The Basques disagree. Also, the Franco stain is still too fresh.

However, it does indeed have a nice climate, nice people and some nice designs.

The Netherlands.

excuses, excuses. thats like claiming that because hawaii is a tropical paradise then the US counts as a tropical paradise.

But 'too cold' was not defined. It was used broadly. It would be unfair to label it as 'too cold'. After all, if it was, BC would not be warmer than the rest of Canada in the winter, or cooler in the summer. Further, saying it's 'too cold' doesn't tell me where in Canada it's 'tool cold'.

The Basques disagree. Also, the Franco stain is still too fresh.

You don't need to tell me that twice.:(

However, it does indeed have a nice climate, nice people and some nice designs.

Yes, we do. :)

But 'too cold' was not defined. It was used broadly. It would be unfair to label it as 'too cold'. After all, if it was, BC would not be warmer than the rest of Canada in the winter, or cooler in the summer. Further, saying it's 'too cold' doesn't tell me where in Canada it's 'tool cold'.
if you dont know that canada is too cold, youre canadian.

EVERYWHERE in canada with (perhaps) the exception of vancouver is too cold in winter.

The Netherlands.

Sadly, we have had a sharp decline in the general feeling of tolerance/acceptance towards people of all faiths, sexual preferences and skincolours in the past few decades. In addition our climate sucks ;)

Flavor Country.

Sadly, we have had a sharp decline in the general feeling of tolerance/acceptance towards people of all faiths, sexual preferences and skincolours in the past few decades. In addition our climate sucks ;)

But your government seems damned good.

Finland.

Cue Adunabar's Finland bashing in 3..2..1...

Canada?

Canada could've been the best. it could've had British Culture, American Technology and Fench Cusine...

instead it got American Culture, French Technology and British Cusine. :p

The best country is the one everyone is in right now.

instead it got American Culture, French Technology and British Cusine. :p


I thought it was French Culture, British Technology and American cuisine.

But your government seems damned good.

A coalition of a relatively liberal Christian party, a more strict Christian party and the Dutch equivalent of the labour party ? Which has fallen a few times already ?
Better than the US system true -but "damned good" ?

Besides, polls show that if there would be elections held today, Wilders' party would be by far the biggest.

I thought it was French Culture, British Technology and American cuisine.

There is such a thing?:eek2:

I thought it was French Culture, British Technology and American cuisine.

not when I was there... tho that was over twenty years ago...

Finland.

Why would you think an insignificant country full of ugly people who speak a weird language and shoot each other is a great nation?

There is such a thing?:eek2:

http://www.breakfastblogger.com/2007/12/16/bacon-weave/ Yep.

http://www.breakfastblogger.com/2007/12/16/bacon-weave/ Yep.

Ewwww!

Ewwww!

There's a version with cheese as well. Delicious.

Canada?

Canada could've been the best. it could've had British Culture, American Technology and Fench Cusine...

instead it got American Culture, French Technology and British Cusine. :p

The best country is the one everyone is in right now.

I thought it was French Culture, British Technology and American cuisine.

You're both wrong.

Culture... whatever we decide to add to the haphazardly woven quilt.

Technology... whatever science pulls out of its ass.

Cuisine... a mélange of years of immigration.

There's a version with cheese as well. Delicious.

I think I'm gonna be sick.:(

Why would you think an insignificant country full of ugly people who speak a weird language and shoot each other is a great nation?

*turns into Vanishing Shame* dats reelly mean!!

I think I'm gonna be sick.:(

Wait until you see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_fried_bacon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Chicken_fried_bacon_homemade.jpg

Wait until you see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_fried_bacon

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Chicken_fried_bacon_homemade.jpg

*vomits*

Sealand!

There is such a thing?:eek2:

http://www.amazon.com/Daniels-Spirit-Tennessee-Cookbook-drink/dp/1558530010

This book has a large collection of what might be described as American cuisine. It would only cover a small area of America but still. It has some beautiful meals in there (nothing like that bacon weave) and many quite healthy. I wish I was at my parents place right now to give you a few examples.

Don't let the name fool you many of the recipes don't contain that drink and come from Miss Mary, I wish I had been alive to be able to try some of these meals.

Asians are better at pork belly. Americans just cut pork belly into strips of bacon, then do things with that. Asian cuisine makes it into all sorts of wonderful things.

*turns into Vanishing Shame* dats reelly mean!!
That was obviously a joke. An Englishman calling Finns ugly. Come on.

Wait until you see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_fried_bacon

Why do they call it Chicken fried bacon? Why not just deep fried bacon?

That was obviously a joke. An Englishman calling Finns ugly. Come on.

That's what I was thinking.

Why do they call it Chicken fried bacon? Why not just deep fried bacon?

It looks so nasty, and I like bacon.

That was obviously a joke. An Englishman calling Finns ugly. Come on.

And what country are you from?

That was obviously a joke. An Englishman calling Finns ugly. Come on.

You underestimate NNLDI.

Chicken-fried steak is a popular southern U.S. dish.

That's what I was thinking.

Says the man whose country is descended from our reject criminals?

Tone down the nationalism NNLDI, or your thread will get closed for sure.

Says the man whose country is descended from our reject criminals?

And we still beat you at cricket.

But then again I am in the state of SA, a colony that never took criminals from Mother England. At least the criminals had some beauty, and were able to refine it with our sun and sand.

Chicken-fried steak is a popular southern U.S. dish.

They deep fry steak?

What is wrong with these people?

They deep fry steak?

What is wrong with these people?

I don't know, but obviously they've never had the pleasure of eating a Beaver Tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_tail_(pastry)). :) Delicious.

I don't know, but obviously they've never had the pleasure of eating a Beaver Tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_tail_(pastry)). :) Delicious.

For a minute there I thought you meant a real beaver tail and I was thinking I would like to try this one day.

Then read what it actually was and now I am thinking I want to have one of them now.

Why would you think an insignificant country full of ugly people who speak a weird language and shoot each other is a great nation?

I knew you'd say that.

And, we don't shoot each other all the time. I mean, how would I still be alive if school shootings were common?

There is such a thing?:eek2:

how do you think fat americans got fat?

For a minute there I thought you meant a real beaver tail and I was thinking I would like to try this one day.

Then read what it actually was and now I am thinking I want to have one of them now.

They're so good. I particularly enjoy the cinnamon-sugar one... mmmmm...

See, Canada is a good place, after all. ;)

how do you think fat americans got fat?

Gay atheist abortionlovers sneak into their bedrooms at nigh to inject them with evilutions. How else ?

how do you think fat americans got fat?

More due to inactivity than diet. The thing is, we used to eat really heavy in the old days. Lots of meat, lots of potatoes, lots of butter. But we did a lot of exhausting farm work and manual labor.

Then we started to do less work but the diet stayed the same.

More due to inactivity than diet. The thing is, we used to eat really heavy in the old days. Lots of meat, lots of potatoes, lots of butter. But we did a lot of exhausting farm work and manual labor.

Then we started to do less work but the diet stayed the same.

actually, the diet did get worse. Transfat, lots of fried foods, fatty foods, etc.

While the activities did help us get obese, it's not the only factor. ;)

The quality of a country is directly proportional to the length of the line of people waiting to get in.

Tuvalu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuvalu)

Tone down the nationalism NNLDI, or your thread will get closed for sure.

What nationalism? I haven't even said England is the greatest country on Earth. I'm just insulting other people. :)

They're so good. I particularly enjoy the cinnamon-sugar one... mmmmm...

See, Canada is a good place, after all. ;)

haha, I will have to visit if only just to get myself one of these.

I'll go for Britain. Important historical figures, my favourite alcoholic drinks, influential metal bands, the drinking of tea...

I'll go for Britain. Important historical figures, my favourite alcoholic drinks, influential metal bands, the drinking of tea...

Yeah, but Britain isn't a country, it's an island.

Yeah, but Britain isn't a country, it's an island.

To have this debate or not to have this debate again? :D

Anyway Britain is not a country it is a town in the USA.

Anyway Britain is not a country it is a town in the USA.

In West Virginia, IIRC.

Yeah, but Britain isn't a country, it's an island.

Oh yeah? Well, you wanna know what I think about that? I completely agree. I should have said the UK.

In West Virginia, IIRC.

Just Virginia.

Canada.

Or maybe Chile or Brazil.

Anyway Britain is not a country it is a town in the USA.

And America is a tiny village in the Netherlands ;)

Ruffy, you're not just saying these countries because there are threads on them, therefore making them the only countries you could think of, surely?

Brazil, because it's...well, we're talking about Brazil. Who needs a reason? :tongue:

Brazil, because it's...well, we're talking about Brazil. Who needs a reason? :tongue:

I do. Brazil is extremely far from being the greatest country on Earth.

This is weird, I was thinking about what NSG would say about this topic as I was walking to class today. I'd say the USA because of its military power and the influence policy and events in the U.S. have on the rest of the world. (I'm not suggesting that the U.S. is the focus of the whole world, but its major role cannot be denied) I guess it would probably depend on what your definition of 'great' is though.

This is weird, I was thinking about what NSG would say about this topic as I was walking to class today. I'd say the USA because of its military power and the influence policy and events in the U.S. have on the rest of the world. (I'm not suggesting that the U.S. is the focus of the whole world, but its major role cannot be denied) I guess it would probably depend on what your definition of 'great' is though.

Channelling? :eek:

I don't know, but obviously they've never had the pleasure of eating a Beaver Tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_tail_(pastry)). :) Delicious.

I've always wanted to try one of those.

Channelling? :eek:
Maybe :p

I do. Brazil is extremely far from being the greatest country on Earth.

Natural beauty, great diversity in cultures, wonderful cuisine, fascinating history, great people, a President with a nice beard...what's not to love? :p

(And no, I haven't been to Brazil...yet.)

Natural beauty

That's being destroyed incredibly quickly.

great diversity in cultures

Read racial tension and violence.

I really don't think there is such a thing as the "greatest" country. Every country has good points and bad points. It all comes down to preference.

Read racial tension and violence.

Which is nothing like that witnessed in countries such as the U.S.A., Russia, etc.

Which is nothing like that witnessed in countries such as the U.S.A., Russia, etc.

It's worse than in America.

What a pointless question. We couldn't even come to a consensus on what criteria to judge on, let alone objectively measure them.

Accomplishes nothing but overinflated jingoism.

It's worse than in America.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Someone posted a great article, I'll see if I can find it.

What a pointless question. We couldn't even come to a consensus on what criteria to judge on, let alone objectively measure them.

Accomplishes nothing but overinflated jingoism.

Your hyperbole aside, well D'uh

Have a bit of fun with it Neo.

Абха́з (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia)ия

Just because... :p

USA! USA! USA! (Take that Europe!)

USA! USA! USA! (Take that Europe!)

Europe's a country now?

Deutschland.

There. I said it. Live with it.

Deutschland.

There. I said it. Live with it.

*lives with it*

Europe's a country now?

I know it isn't, I just realize that a lot of the posters on here are from Europe. And since I disagree with all of Europe on matters of government policy and public fashion, I'm afraid the US wins.:p

There isn't one.

And since I disagree with all of Europe on matters of government policy and public fashion, I'm afraid the US wins.:p

Seeing as Europe has governments ranging from Communist states, right wing democracies right down to Oligarchies, that means you disagree with pretty much every political ideology. *Asplodes*

Seeing as Europe has governments ranging from Communist states, right wing democracies right down to Oligarchies, that means you disagree with pretty much every political ideology. *Asplodes*

Pretty much any one running a government at the moment, yeah.:tongue:

Seeing as Europe has governments ranging from Communist states, right wing democracies right down to Oligarchies, that means you disagree with pretty much every political ideology. *Asplodes*

Which country is communist? Belarus differs little from when it was the Byelorussian SSR, but it isn't a communist state.

Pretty much any one running a government at the moment, yeah.:tongue:

don't worry, someday they'll all learn the wisdom and virtue of crackpotism.

Sorry, sorry, "libertarianism"

don't worry, someday they'll all learn the wisdom and virtue of crackpotism.

Sorry, sorry, "libertarianism"

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Which country is communist? Belarus differs little from when it was the Byelorussian SSR, but it isn't a communist state.

The state runs the economy, I'd call that Communist.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

a well developed sense of realism and common sense? I'm not sure if you'd call that something "wrong" though.

don't worry, someday they'll all learn the wisdom and virtue of crackpotism.

Sorry, sorry, "libertarianism"

Flamebait much?

a well developed sense of realism and common sense? I'm not sure if you'd call that something "wrong" though.

I mean the way you are, the way you act towards other people.

I mean the way you are, the way you act towards other people.

That I believe people should be capable of demonstrating a well developed sense of realism and common sense? I'm not sure if you'd call that something "wrong" though.

The state runs the economy, I'd call that Communist.

It does (for the most part), but that doesn't make it Communist. I don't think Belarus adheres to any specific ideology other than generic authoritarianism.

Flamebait much?

I'm sorry, disagreeing with a political philosophy is wrong now? Wow, a whole bunch of this forum is in for a RUDE awakening.

Or maybe on a political discussion board, discussing my opinions of a political theory is pretty par for the course, no?

Europe's a country now?

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/europe_worste_country_ever.jpg

That I believe people should be capable of demonstrating a well developed sense of realism and common sense? I'm not sure if you'd call that something "wrong" though.

You know full well what I'm on about.

I'm sorry, disagreeing with a political philosophy is wrong now? Wow, a whole bunch of this forum is in for a RUDE awakening.

Or maybe on a political discussion board, discussing my opinions of a political theory is pretty par for the course, no?

Insulting people who follow a political philosophy is wrong.

It does (for the most part), but that doesn't make it Communist. I don't think Belarus adheres to any specific ideology other than generic authoritarianism.

it's, arguably, at least "communist like". Though I suppose the most technical definition is a "planned economy" state.

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/europe_worste_country_ever.jpg

Lol. What are those red dots?

Lol. What are those red dots?

The parts were Europe sucks the most.

Insulting people who follow a political philosophy is wrong.

I'm not insulting those who follow a philosophy. I said nothing negative about him. I'm insulting the philosophy. It's a crackpot philosophy. A totally unworkable political ideology. A golden calf of selfishness and utter disconnect from social obligations.

Now if people who follow that philosophy feel indirectly insulted by my insulting their ideology, that's not really within my realm of control.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

He's arrogant to the point of blocking out even the possibility that other views might even do so much as function on a basic level.

The parts were Europe sucks the most.

Whoever put them there was a genius.

You know full well what I'm on about.

yes, you're on about your impression that something is "wrong with me".

That's entirely your own problem, I fear.

yes, you're on about your impression that something is "wrong with me".

There must be, for you to act so arrogant, and to treat Wilgrove in such a sickening manner.

Insulting people who follow a political philosophy is wrong.

Yes, and if he'd said "libertarians are morons," you'd have a point. Saying "libertarianism is a crackpot philosophy" is no different from saying "conservatism is foolish" or "opposing stem cell research is irrational" or "racism is bad." I'm not sure how you think political discussion works if you can't criticize a friggin' ideology.

He's arrogant to the point of blocking out even the possibility that other views might even do so much as function on a basic level.

It is not arrogant to not believe that a rock can quote Shakespeare. It is not arrogant to not believe that cats can fly. It is not arrogant to not believe that if i hop on one foot, spin counter clockwise, and cluck like a chicken, a blueberry pie will appear in front of me.

In short, it is not arrogant of me to disbelieve in the impossible.

There must be, for you to act so arrogant, and to treat Wilgrove in such a sickening manner.

I'm sorry, wilgrove isn't here, and I fear you're being a bit off topic, aren't you?

In fact, I'm quite sure "what is wrong with you?" classifies as flaming according to the forum rules? I'm quite sickened by your behavior.

Yes, and if he'd said "libertarians are morons," you'd have a point. Saying "libertarianism is a crackpot philosophy" is no different from saying "conservatism is foolish" or "opposing stem cell research is irrational" or "racism is bad." I'm not sure how you think political discussion works if you can't criticize a friggin' ideology.

Come now, you know what he's referring to. If someone claimed that the Democratic party followed a crackpot philosophy, Neo Art would claim that said poster was denying facts and detached from reality. It's the hypocrisy more than the actual event.

NSG101: "I'm not calling you a moron, I'm saying that anyone who would believe/act the way you do must be a moron...why, do you admit to believing/acting that way?"

It is not arrogant to not believe that a rock can quote Shakespeare. It is not arrogant to not believe that cats can fly. It is not arrogant to not believe that if i hop on one foot, spin counter clockwise, and cluck like a chicken, a blueberry pie will appear in front of me.

In short, it is not arrogant of me to disbelieve in the impossible.

Not an expert on Libertarianism, but I think having a small government is more likely to work than any of your strawmen are likely to happen.

It is not arrogant to not believe that if i hop on one foot, spin counter clockwise, and cluck like a chicken, a blueberry pie will appear in front of me.


Try it sometime when I'm around. *gets to baking* ;)

NSG101: "I'm not calling you a moron, I'm saying that anyone who would believe/act the way you do must be a moron...why, do you admit to believing/acting that way?"

Moronic? no, I wouldn't say moronic. Just...deluded. After all, if someone believed that dogs could fly and cats could talk, wouldn't we call that a deluded belief?

Not an expert on Libertarianism, but I think having a small government is more likely to work than any of your strawmen are likely to happen.

if you think libertarianism equates only to "small government" then your non expert status on the topic is pretty obvious.

It's considerably more, and considerably crazier, than that.

NSG101: "I'm not calling you a moron, I'm saying that anyone who would believe/act the way you do must be a moron...why, do you admit to believing/acting that way?"
Neesika, the end of the world may be happening.

We agree.

Moronic? no, I wouldn't say moronic. Just...deluded. After all, if someone believed that dogs could fly and cats could talk, wouldn't we call that a deluded belief?

It is silly to compare any belief you disagree with to "dogs flying".

Come now, you know what he's referring to. If someone claimed that the Democratic party followed a crackpot philosophy, Neo Art would claim that said poster was denying facts and detached from reality. It's the hypocrisy more than the actual event.

Seriously man, what kind of arguement is that?

Person A: Your philosophy is unworkable and an utter failure.
Person B: Well yeah? I bet if I said that about your philosophy youd disagree!
Person A:....Ummm...yeah.

It is silly to compare any belief you disagree with to "dogs flying".

No, no. A workable libertarian government is about as likely.

It is silly to compare any belief you disagree with to "dogs flying".

When said belief is just as impractical and unfunctional? Not really.

Come now, you know what he's referring to. If someone claimed that the Democratic party followed a crackpot philosophy, Neo Art would claim that said poster was denying facts and detached from reality. It's the hypocrisy more than the actual event.

....wait, what? It's hypocritical to support one political philosophy while thinking another political philosophy is stupid and unworkable? Do you not get how totally silly that sounds?

So, which country is the greatest country on Earth? Overall?

EDIT: And why?

San Marino.

because:
1.they are rich
2.they can pwn everyone else when people start wanking about "oldest republic" etc.
3.they have pizza (the real stuff) and wine (the real stuff) without having Berlusconi or the Pope
4.no one wants to bomb them: who gives a damn about San Marino?

....wait, what? It's hypocritical to support one political philosophy while thinking another political philosophy is stupid and unworkable? Do you not get how totally silly that sounds?

well, in fairness, I WOULD claim that poster was denying facts. Mainly because I can look out my window at a democract controlled city, in a democrat controlled state, in a democract controlled country, and see it working.

When said belief is just as impractical and unfunctional? Not really.

So when did this thread become about rhetorical one liner ultra-simplistic dismissals of a massively broad range of the many different political philosophies that can be described as libertarianism?

San Marino.

because:
1.they are rich
2.they can pwn everyone else when people start wanking about "oldest republic" etc.
3.they have pizza (the real stuff) and wine (the real stuff) without having Berlusconi or the Pope
4.no one wants to bomb them: who gives a damn about San Marino?

is San Marino really an independent country? Always thought it was a, at least, de facto territory of Italy.

....wait, what? It's hypocritical to support one political philosophy while thinking another political philosophy is stupid and unworkable? Do you not get how totally silly that sounds?

Really, I do love that arguement. Its the same as, 'Well, I bet if George Bush did what Obama was doing youd have supported him!'

It completely ignores the reality of the situation. Yes, I might agree with you, if you changed everything you believe in.:p

Neesika, the end of the world may be happening.

We agree.

Don't worry, the world is safe. I'm just commenting on the way we like to dance around calling each other names here, as though our intentions aren't perfectly clear. It amuses me. I'm not really disagreeing with Neo Art, I'd just be a bit more direct (and probably warned).

So when did this thread become about rhetorical one liner ultra-simplistic dismissals of a massively broad range of the many different political philosophies that can be described as libertarianism?

when a poster says that any country that functions in a way that disagrees with his political philosophy is wrong.

If he states that a country that does follow those philosophies would be "better", surely I'm allowed to disagree?

I'm sorry, wilgrove isn't here, and I fear you're being a bit off topic, aren't you?

I was talking about your conduct in general, and the way you treat him is despicable.

In fact, I'm quite sure "what is wrong with you?" classifies as flaming according to the forum rules?

Well then, you're just as guilty as me. You said pretty much the same thing in the execution thread.

I'm quite sickened by your behavior.

Care to say why?

So when did this thread become about rhetorical one liner ultra-simplistic dismissals of a massively broad range of the many different political philosophies that can be described as libertarianism?

When the OP wasnt interesting and was just a bunch of nationalistic dickwaving. *nods*

Seriously man, what kind of arguement is that?

Person A: Your philosophy is unworkable and an utter failure.
Person B: Well yeah? I bet if I said that about your philosophy youd disagree!
Person A:....Ummm...yeah.


Heres the difference though. The democratic party has run governments before. And run them well. When was the last time a libertarian ran anything?

Never? Might there be a reason for that? Oh, right. Because it doesnt fucking work.
And here it comes. "Your philosophy is something only a crackhead would believe in."
"Same goes for your little liberal Keynesian economics, and large government position!"
"Shut the fuck up noob, you're detached from reality. Go back to your cave!"
That is a very breifly put, and likely much milder on both sides, version of what would happen. In fact, it's what you're doing now. In way, you've proved my point.

When was the last time a libertarian ran anything?


Never? Might there be a reason for that? Oh, right. Because it doesnt fucking work.
"It's never been done before, so it doesn't work."? KoL, come on, at least make a statement, something that makes sense.

When said belief is just as impractical and unfunctional? Not really.

Libertarianism is as nonfunctional? Nonsense. I would probably not like a fully Libertarian government, but to compare it to "talking-cats" is preposterous, when you support a man who is claiming to cut the deficit while he spends more than any other President in the history of the United States.

is San Marino really an independent country? Always thought it was a, at least, de facto territory of Italy.

Yeah, it's separate.

I was talking about your conduct in general, and the way you treat him is despicable.



Well then, you're just as guilty as me. You said pretty much the same thing in the execution thread.



Care to say why?

Lol, irony-meter is broken!

I was talking about your conduct in general, and the way you treat him is despicable.


Can we get off how the whole "Neo Art is mean to Wilgrove!!11" shit? Seriously? Its totally irrelevent to the point and its over, its done, its been delt with.

....wait, what? It's hypocritical to support one political philosophy while thinking another political philosophy is stupid and unworkable? Do you not get how totally silly that sounds?

No mature person calls all political opposition "crackpots".

....wait, what? It's hypocritical to support one political philosophy while thinking another political philosophy is stupid and unworkable? Do you not get how totally silly that sounds?

See above post. I'm saying the way Neo Art criticizes other political philosophies (which is fine) but then acts like anyone who doesn't agree with him is detached from reality, is denying facts, and all that other crap he spouts at such occasions, is hypocritical.

Gay atheist abortionlovers sneak into their bedrooms at nigh to inject them with evilutions. How else ?

You forgot to insert "marxist" somewhere.

When the OP wasnt interesting and was just a bunch of nationalistic dickwaving. *nods*

How was the OP nationalistic dickwaving?

"It's never been done before, so it doesn't work."? KoL, come on, at least make a statement, something that makes sense.

actually, it makes perfect sense. Societies evolve for a reason. Most political philosophies we see today are products of a more gradual social and political evolution. We have our forms and systems because, for the most part, they've evolved in time tested fashions.

The fact that it hasn't been shown to work, given that, is a fairly good indication that it won't.

And here it comes. "Your philosophy is something only a crackhead would believe in."
"Same goes for your little liberal Keynesian economics, and large government position!"
"Shut the fuck up noob, you're detached from reality. Go back to your cave!"
That is a very breifly put, and likely much milder on both sides, version of what would happen. In fact, it's what you're doing now. In way, you've proved my point.


Differene is, I have historical and emperical evidence of Keynesian and big goverment philosophy working. Libartarians have jack shit. So you coud say Im detatched from reality, if you, you know, ignore reality.

So, which country is the greatest country on Earth? Overall?

EDIT: And why?

*Juvenility at hand*

Your Mom.

She's that big, and was that good last night.

*Ends Purile Juvenile foolishness*

*Juvenility at hand*

Your Mom.

She's that big, and was that good last night.

*Ends Purile Juvenile foolishness*

And on that note, I feel like the thread should end:D

Natural beauty, great diversity in cultures, wonderful cuisine, fascinating history, great people, a President with a nice beard...what's not to love? :p


Trannies, mosquitoes, snakes and spiders. Eeuch.

Better Russia, the country where you get vodka, cheap girls and real AKs (or real girls and cheap AKs?). And the Prime Minister wants to teach you judo.

;)

The fact that it hasn't been shown to work, given that, is a fairly good indication that it won't.

So essentially, anything that's new and hasn't been shown to work won't work? Bullshit.

See above post. I'm saying the way Neo Art criticizes other political philosophies (which is fine) but then acts like anyone who doesn't agree with him is detached from reality, is denying facts, and all that other crap he spouts at such occasions, is hypocritical.

actually, by definition, no, it's not. Hypocrisy is about being inconsistent. There's nothing at all inconsistent about saying "I believe I am right, if you disagree with me, you're wrong".

In fact, that's entirely consistent. If I believe I am right, and you disagree with what I believe, it's entirely consistent with my beliefs to likewise believe you to be wrong.

No mature person calls all political opposition "crackpots".

That's nice, seeing as no one did so.

San Marino.

because:
1.they are rich
2.they can pwn everyone else when people start wanking about "oldest republic" etc.
3.they have pizza (the real stuff) and wine (the real stuff) without having Berlusconi or the Pope
4.no one wants to bomb them: who gives a damn about San Marino?

Not having Berlusconi is always a plus.

Differene is, I have historical and emperical evidence of Keynesian and big goverment philosophy working. Libartarians have jack shit. So you coud say Im detatched from reality, if you, you know, ignore reality.

1770's:
Monarchist: "I have evidence of Monarchy working, and doing well. You have no evidence that Representative Democracy has ever worked, or will ever work. Therefore, you are wrong."

when a poster says that any country that functions in a way that disagrees with his political philosophy is wrong.

If he states that a country that does follow those philosophies would be "better", surely I'm allowed to disagree?

Couldn't you have defended these European countries, rather than going off on a whole tangent about libertarianism? This thread is quite obviously jacked now.

That's nice, seeing as no one did so.

Seriously, I must have missed the rule that says that I cant think an idea is stupid without believing that everyone who likes that idea is a drooling moron.

Trannies, mosquitoes, snakes and spiders. Eeuch.

Nah, that's Thailand. ;)

(Sorry, couldn't resist. :tongue: )

So essentially, anything that's new and hasn't been shown to work won't work? Bullshit.

are you saying you're a child rapist? Disgusting.

Or, how about we stick with what people have said, and not what we'd like to pretend they said?

I said it's a good indicator. And, perhaps, one that creates a fairly firm presumption. You're of course free to rebut that presumption, show how the indication is wrong. However, when one wishes to claim something CAN work, and has no factual or historical record to show that it HAS worked, the battle is theirs to fight uphill.

Seriously, I must have missed the rule that says that I cant think an idea is stupid without believing that everyone who likes that idea is a drooling moron.

What's wrong with being a drooling moron? My dog is one. :(

1770's:
Monarchist: "I have evidence of Monarchy working, and doing well. You have no evidence that Representative Democracy has ever worked, or will ever work. Therefore, you are wrong."

um...Rome? Pretty fucking stupid Monarchists.

is San Marino really an independent country? Always thought it was a, at least, de facto territory of Italy.

Totally independent. They simply use the same currency Italy uses (first lira now euro) and have a treaty with Italy for military defense: if San Marino gets attacked and Italy doesn't (eeeh?), Italy is to provide military defense. That's all.

Vatican City is more a de facto territory of Italy than San Marino, as San Marino has its own police force and its own judiciary, while the Vatican uses the Italian Police and judiciary for criminal matters.

btw, I wikied a bit and found that San Marino is a full member of:
United Nations
International Court of Justice
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Council of Europe
International Committee of the Red Cross
International Criminal Court (ICC)

Moreover, I'm not saying that SIMPLY because it hasn't worked doesn't mean it CAN'T work. I'm saying that those who are saying it CAN work, without a historical basis for saying so, has to work hard to prove it.

And every libertarian argument I've seen try to do that has failed.

Not really. See CM's post about democracy.

CM just totally ignored Rome and Athens when he made that post.

But most importantly, no one is saying because it hasnt happened yet it cant work. You just have to prove it will. And I have yet to see a libertarian do that.


Thus, why should I believe you that it will? You cannot address our theories as having equal validation, because mine is actually being implimented and working.

Neo Art said Libertarianism was a crackpot ideology. Saying so suggests that you would have to be a crackpot in order to support Libertarianism. Such is calling people crackpots.

....and if I say "watermelon tastes like crap," that suggests that you would have to enjoy the taste of crap to eat a watermelon, which is calling everyone who eats watermelon a scat-loving pervert. HOW DARE I.

CM just totally ignored Rome and Athens when he made that post.

Since when was Rome a democracy? And Athens only allowed votes for males over 30, so it wasn't really much of a democracy.

....and if I say "watermelon tastes like crap," that suggests that you would have to enjoy the taste of crap to eat a watermelon, which is calling everyone who eats watermelon a scat-loving pervert. HOW DARE I.

That is not an apt comparison. "Liberalism is a mental disorder" is obviously not an insult to liberals. :rolleyes:

*lives with it*
*lives in it*
NSG101: "I'm not calling you a moron, I'm saying that anyone who would believe/act the way you do must be a moron...why, do you admit to believing/acting that way?"
It's a tarp, isn't it?

All right folks. I don't want to have to bring out my minion army to keep the peace, so let's tone down the rhetoric before someone's feelings get hurt and they bring out the blow torch.

Since when was Rome a democracy?

During the time it was a 'Republic'. Fine, it wasnt a 'democracy', it was a Republic.:rolleyes:

And Athens only allowed votes for males over 30, so it wasn't really much of a democracy.

Oh fucking please. Every state has had a voting age, and every state and one time or another only allowed men to vote. By your logic, for a few years Russia was a democracy and the following countries werent:

Women's Sufferage:
Soviet Russia (1917); Canada (1918); Germany, Austria, Poland, and Czechoslovakia (1919); the United States and Hungary (1920); Great Britain (1918 and 1928); Burma (now Myanmar; 1922); Ecuador (1929); South Africa (1930); Brazil, Uruguay, and Thailand (1932); Turkey and Cuba (1934); and the Philippines (1937).
http://www.britannica.com/women/article-9077370

MODEDITED for de-squabblification.

CM just totally ignored Rome and Athens when he made that post.

From someone who likes Rome as much as I, you think I ignored them? Rome was not a Democracy. Athens was not representative.

But most importantly, no one is saying because it hasnt happened yet it cant work. You just have to prove it will. And I have yet to see a libertarian do that.

Because of the circular arguments you make, and those are the same ones people believe. 'Libertarianism doesn't work, because it has never been proven to work, and you shouldn't elect them so they can prove that it works, without them first showing you proof that it works.'

Thus, why should I believe you that it will? You cannot address our theories as having equal validation, because mine is actually being implimented and working.
See above.

That is not an apt comparison. "Liberalism is a mental disorder" is obviously not an insult to liberals. :rolleyes:

"Watermelon tastes like crap" is probably quite offensive to someone who deeply loves watermelon. "American Idol is a stupid TV show" is offensive to people who really like American Idol. "The Yankees suck" is offensive to Yankees fans. You cannot really rationally argue that it is terribly unfair to criticize a philosophy without arguing that it is terribly unfair to criticize anything that anyone cares about - which would leave conversation on this site pretty much limited to, "So........how's the weather there?"

During the time it was a 'Republic'. Fine, it wasnt a 'democracy', it was a Republic.:rolleyes:


There CAN be a big difference KoL.

Oh fucking please. Every state has had a voting age, and every state and one time or another only allowed men to vote. By your logic, for a few years Russia was a democracy and the following countries werent:
Athens was a direct Democracy. Not Representative.

"Watermelon tastes like crap" is probably quite offensive to someone who deeply loves watermelon. "American Idol is a stupid TV show" is offensive to people who really like American Idol. "The Yankees suck" is offensive to Yankees fans. You cannot really rationally argue that it is terribly unfair to criticize a philosophy without arguing that it is terribly unfair to criticize anything that anyone cares about - which would leave conversation on this site pretty much limited to, "So........how's the weather there?"

What if I said, "watermelon is the fruit that stupid persons eat" in a watermelon thread?

During the time it was a 'Republic'. Fine, it wasnt a 'democracy', it was a Republic.:rolleyes:

Don't roll your eyes as if I'm being pedantic, Rome was no more a democracy than Burma is now.

Women's Suffrage snip

They weren't full democracies, but they were certainly more democratic than Athens.

Trostia (http://nstracker.jfsoftware.com/index.php?nation=trostia), of course. 13.2 billion people can't all be wrong, right?

Yes, there's a 68% income tax, but it's the price you get for justice. About 25.4 trillion. Presumably that includes prison hospitals and prison schools, where you might find education or medical care. But hey, there's no socialism! And it's super secure from attack, because it's a fictional country and therefore does whatever I say it does and is whatever I say it is.

The difference between me and certain individuals in this thread (who may have claimed a nation, say the US, as 'the greatest'), is that I recognize the above fact.

Don't roll your eyes as if I'm being pedantic, Rome was no more a democracy than Burma is now.

Riiiiiight.

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.[4][5] The word originates from the Latin term res publica.

Sounds like the Roman Republic to me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic


They weren't full democracies, but they were certainly more democratic than Athens.

How so? They allowed male citizens of a certian age to vote. Thats exactly like most democracies throughout history.

Hell, Sparta was technically a democracy. The King was merely a hereditary war leader, and a council made all the decisions, and all Spartan male citizens were on that council. You can be a democracy without being a liberal democracy.

I understand if you want to try and ignore history so youre not wrong, but....

During the time it was a 'Republic'. Fine, it wasnt a 'democracy', it was a Republic.:rolleyes:
The Roman Republic wasn't a democracy because different classes had different representation by law: the Senate wasn't elected by all the elector citizens, the plebs were represented by the tribuni alone (until Marius iirc).

Classical Athens, on the other hand, was closer to being a democracy.

And as much as I am a commie, there's no way the Soviet Union in 1949 was more democratic than, let's say, Switzerland only because soviet women voted and swiss women didn't.
Clearly womens' suffrage goes in the direction of a higher level of democracy, but it's not enough.

Riiiiiight.Sounds like Rome to me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic


You clearly don't understand the difference between a Republic and a democracy.

Riiiiiight.



Sounds like the Roman Republic to me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

He's not arguing that it wasn't a Republic, he's arguing that it's not a Democracy (And I'm arguing it wasn't representative).




How so? They allowed male citizens of a certian age to vote. Thats exactly like most democracies throughout history.

Hell, Sparta was technically a democracy. The King was merely a hereditary war leader, and a council made all the decisions, and all Spartan male citizens were on that council. You can be a democracy without being a liberal democracy.

I understand if you want to try and ignore history so youre not wrong, but...
Can't speak for him, but Athens, while a democracy, was not a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, which was what my example deals with. (This is where this subdebate got started right? It's all so convoluted...)

You clearly don't understand the difference between a Republic and a democracy.

No, see, I do. I already took it back and said "Oh, ok. Rome was a Republic." The fact that you keep pushing this just shows that your nitpicking, and its the last refuge of the defeated.


I notice you also dropped the whole "Athens wasnt a democracy!" thing. Good. It was laughable.

Lol...and when he was, briefly, it was anything but 'chummy'.

Before my time I suspect.

North Korea,

It's the only country that is neither raping the world nor getting raped by the world.

This thread has been temporarily closed for maintenance. There is a debate going on here, and I see no reason why it should be stifled just because a bunch of folk would rather squabble. The thread will reopen when I've cleaned up.

EDIT: Reopening. I think you will see, from what I've already deleted, what sort of nonsense I'm getting rid of.

DON'T post any more of it.

I am not kind to people who spit on my clean floor.

This thread has been temporarily closed for maintenance. There is a debate going on here, and I see no reason why it should be stifled just because a bunch of folk would rather squabble. The thread will reopen when I've cleaned up.

EDIT: Reopening. I think you will see, from what I've already deleted, what sort of nonsense I'm getting rid of.

DON'T post any more of it.

I am not kind to people who spit on my clean floor.

*spits* Erm... That is a toy banhammer... Right?:tongue:

And as much as I am a commie, there's no way the Soviet Union in 1949 was more democratic than, let's say, Switzerland only because soviet women voted and swiss women didn't.
Clearly womens' suffrage goes in the direction of a higher level of democracy, but it's not enough.
No youre right, and thats exactly the point I was making.

Can't speak for him, but Athens, while a democracy, was not a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, which was what my example deals with. (This is where this subdebate got started right? It's all so convoluted...)
No, it was a direct democracy, something arguably more 'democratic'.

Sealand
http://www.sealandgov.org/

No, it was a direct democracy, something arguably more 'democratic'.

But the point I've been trying to make is that REPRESENTATIVE Democracy had no supporting proof for it in the mid-late 1700's, and it was strongly opposed by some. Same with Libertarianism. Not saying the idea is as great, but the circumstances are similar.

But the point I've been trying to make is that REPRESENTATIVE Democracy had no supporting proof for it in the mid-late 1700's, and it was strongly opposed by some. Same with Libertarianism. Not saying the idea is as great, but the circumstances are similar.

No, theyre not. Because direct democracy, the basis for representative democracy had worked. Thus, it had some sort of historical support.

The basis for libertarianism, anarchy (really, libertarianism is just anarchy-lite), has no historical support since humans stopped living in caves.

No, theyre not. Because direct democracy, the basis for representative democracy had worked. Thus, it had some sort of historical support.

The basis for libertarianism, anarchy (really, libertarianism is just anarchy-lite), has no historical support since humans stopped living in caves.

Actually, Libertarianism does have some support. Politically, it is similar to the late 1700's to early 1800's of the USA. I will not claim that, however, because they are as far apart as Direct and representative Democracy; they have little in common, but enough to make a general supporting statement.

Actually, Libertarianism does have some support. Politically, it is similar to the late 1700's to early 1800's of the USA.

Oh, you mean when the government regulated the economy and practiced protectionist policies and such? And had laws outlawing adultry? Real libertarian.:p

Right, that's it!

If you lot can't play nicely, then I'm taking the wheel.

I say Germany.

Yes, you heard me, Germany.

Went there a couple of years back (Berlin & Brandenberg), friendly people, clean streets, efficient transport, decent weather (for November).

Discuss. In a genteel fashion, please.

Oh, you mean when the government regulated the economy and practiced protectionist policies and such? And had laws outlawing adultry? Real libertarian.:p

It was far less regulated than it is today.

Oh, you mean when the government regulated the economy and practiced protectionist policies and such? And had laws outlawing adultry? Real libertarian.:p

Like I said, they're about as close as Direct and Representative Democracy.:p

It was far less regulated than it is today.
Only if you ignore the complete lack of social freedoms in many areas.
Like I said, they're about as close as Direct and Representative Democracy.:p
No, theyre not. While the market was probably 'freer' (domestically at least, there was still a lot of protectionism going on) there was not nearly as many social freedoms. Which, if youre prepared to admit what I more or less suspect, that the whole social freedoms bit that libertarians talk about is just something to make their selfish pure free market small government ideology more palletable, and that they really only give a damn about the market, then sure, Ill agree with you.

Only if you ignore the complete lack of social freedoms in many areas.

I meant the economy. Of course, social freedoms were few and far between, especially compared to today.

No, theyre not. While the market was probably 'freer' (domestically at least, there was still a lot of protectionism going on) there was not nearly as many social freedoms. Which, if youre prepared to admit what I more or less suspect, that the whole social freedoms bit that libertarians talk about is just something to make their selfish pure free market small government ideology more palletable, and that they really only give a damn about the market, then sure, Ill agree with you.
Hardly. I will admit that the time I was talking about was not very Libertarian in the modern sense. While I will admit that the case you laid out about only caring for the market may be true for some Libertarians, it is not indicative of all Libertarians. I suppose the real point I'm trying to make is that Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy are as far apart as the Holy Roman Empire and the actual Roman Empire.:D

I meant the economy. Of course, social freedoms were few and far between, especially compared to today.

So, the early US was not really libertarian at all. Thank you.

I suppose the real point I'm trying to make is that Representative Democracy and Direct Democracy are as far apart as the Holy Roman Empire and the actual Roman Empire.:D

Except that theyre really not that far apart at all. Representative Democracy is the natural evolution of direct democracy.

Hard to say. Some are obviously at the bottom, but of the modern self-proclaimed "democracies," its hard to say. They all have their flaws, corruptions, and forms of opression and incompetance in the political system.

So, the early US was not really libertarian at all. Thank you.

Economically, it was libertarian, compared to today.

Economically, it was libertarian, compared to today.

But libertarianism is far, far more than simple economic liberties. In fact, it could be argued that under a libertarian philosophy, economic freedom is just a means to an end, to bring about greater personal, social freedoms.

Economic freedoms, absent social freedoms, are not libertarian at all.

It's sorta like saying an apple is more like a rock than a banana. Sure an apple generally may resemble, in a very casual way, more of a rock than a banana does. But neither one of them really share any real similarities to rocks in the slightest.

But libertarianism sf far, far more than simple economic liberties. In fact, it could be argued that under a libertarian philosophy, economic freedom is just a means to an end, to bring about greater personal, social freedoms.

Economic freedoms, absent social freedoms, are not libertarian at all.

It's sorta like saying an apple is more like a rock than a banana. Sure an apple generally may resemble, in a very casual way, more of a rock than a banana does. But neither one of them really share any real similarities to rocks in the slightest.

I know that. But my point stands, it was economically libertarian compared to today. Socially, of course, it was not libertarian at all.

I know that. But my point stands, it was economically libertarian compared to today. Socially, of course, it was not libertarian at all.

Fine, but no one is having that discussion. We're talking about if it was a libertarian state. And it clearly wasnt.

I think you will see, from what I've already deleted, what sort of nonsense I'm getting rid of.
Paradoxical. That sort of thing makes the universe collapse on itself. No more of it!
Right, that's it!

If you lot can't play nicely, then I'm taking the wheel.

I say Germany.

Yes, you heard me, Germany.

Went there a couple of years back (Berlin & Brandenberg), friendly people, clean streets, efficient transport, decent weather (for November).

Discuss. In a genteel fashion, please.
Nothing to discuss. I called it first - and I agree with you.

Paradoxical. That sort of thing makes the universe collapse on itself. No more of it!



It was (of course you believe me) intentional. See, there was dissension in the General fold ...


I tried to raise your spirits faint,
According to my custom old,
With quip and quibble quaint.
But all in vain the quips you heard,
You lay and sobbed upon the rocks,
Until to kind GN occurred
A startling paradox.

A paradox?

A paradox,
A most ingenious paradox!
We’ve quips and quibbles heard in flocks,
But none to beat this paradox!

Adapted from The Pirates of Penzance, by Gilbert and Sullivan.

It was (of course you believe me) intentional. See, there was dissension in the General fold ...


I tried to raise your spirits faint,
According to my custom old,
With quip and quibble quaint.
But all in vain the quips you heard,
You lay and sobbed upon the rocks,
Until to kind GN occurred
A startling paradox.

A paradox?

A paradox,
A most ingenious paradox!
We’ve quips and quibbles heard in flocks,
But none to beat this paradox!

Adapted from The Pirates of Penzance, by Gilbert and Sullivan.
:hail: How could I not believe you. A modding poet, a versing mod, alas, thine powers to behold! (You have taken me by surprise, I have to admit. I didn't expect that. Well played!)

Trust this thread to turn from something for people to have a laugh in to a thread why people are fully justified in calling beliefs moronic. Thanks NSG.

Right, that's it!

If you lot can't play nicely, then I'm taking the wheel.

I say Germany.

Yes, you heard me, Germany.

Went there a couple of years back (Berlin & Brandenberg), friendly people, clean streets, efficient transport, decent weather (for November).

Discuss. In a genteel fashion, please.
Oh, Reginald...I disagree!

I know that. But my point stands, it was economically libertarian compared to today. Socially, of course, it was not libertarian at all.
Economically liberal...not libertarian. Libertarian is a modern political philosophy involving high levels of social freedom by means of limited government and economic freedom. Liberal refers to the economic right.

One cannot have libertarianism without both economic and social liberties.

The country of the poster's birth, and/or current residence...

provided it isnt being discriminated, oppressed, etc.. by it...


'Merika obviously, lol...

Greatest country in the world? America, hands down, from sea to shining sea.

There is such a thing?:eek2:

Of course there is. Go to Memphis or Nashville and try the smoky pulled pork you can get there, or Texas if you prefer your BBQ to be beef. While you're in Texas, stay for the chili. Which, now that I think of it, is probably Spanish in origin, but we've done a lot with it in the intervening years, you might be surprised. Plus, we're the country that gave the world the burger.

http://www.breakfastblogger.com/2007/12/16/bacon-weave/ Yep.

That's one of the greatest things I've ever seen. I'm going to have to try that.

Brazil pwns all. This is a self-evident truth.