What is your controversial historical opinion?

Status
Closed

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,950
Spain
If by drinking and driving you mean drinking enough that you would be over the limit in, for instance, most European countries then I'm sorry but that is not freedom, that is sheer arrogance - "my will is so important I must be free to endanger other people by drinking and driving" (and whether you have had an accident yet or not, doing that does increase the risk of an accident).
So the state (as representative of the whole population) must not impose its moral standards on you, but you can impose your behaviour on others.


Rather like the slave owner whose freedom to own other people meant he stole even more fundamental freedoms from those people.
(Before you mention 2018 yet again, a great many people realised that contradiction in 1860 too).
And that is where your 'ultra-liberalism' would lead - dictatorship by those strong enough to impose their freedom on other people and restrict their freedom, if there is no state power to redress that balance.
Mr Johminitt,

May I ask you... if you are liberal and like liberalism? Yes I drink and never had problem because I know the responsability...when the State imposes an arbitrary limit of alcohol in blood (0.8 in the golden age of freedom, until the 90s) 0.2 under the parameter of democratic totalitarianism .. exerts a previous violence on people. On individualism.

You can penalize "for damages" ... not for "principles" ... if people from a "race" or ethnicity commits more crimes than others in proportion to its population ... Do we establish prior controls? If a drunkard has an accident ... OK.. he must to pay... but if another drunkard drives and has never had a single problem...he does not have to submit to the state's prior control.

But What Hell is the State to control nothing? LEVIATHAN... not ony is enough to pay money to it... beside to live according what it is desired by it...and to believe in its morale and all that Fck limitation of the Freedom.
 
Jun 2015
5,498
UK
For as long governments exist, they will control. it's what they do. Who defines what good or bad control is?

Evil government, saying I must pay taxes for worthless **** like schools, hospitals, roads, the armed forces, etc. and saying i must follow "laws" for the "common good"....
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,950
Spain
So could slaveholder A take slaveholder B's slaves as his own? Why not? Oh yeah....the evil oppressive state defining property rights.
My dear friend...

If Slave-holder A or the A car holder takes B car holder.. he is stealing... Ok... We are talking about not killing, stealing or raping...

We are talking about the Democratic totalitarism!..the Mega State! The LEVIATHAN...The democratic totalitarism believe democray must regulate all the aspect of the Human existance.. from Sexual activities to thinking about the "correct language"... imposing the LEVIATHAN morale that is "chosen" by everybody when they vote each 4, 5, 6 years.. in polls...

Democratic Totalitarism tall about "tolerance"... but only if you think as the majority... not tolerance at all if you think different.. you can see what some people have told me only because I am talking about the Southern rights not to be pissed off by the State..

The Leviathan is controlled by an oligarchy non aristocratic...and sanctifies its power with the expression is "will of the people" as the Narodna Odbrana...demagogues, corrupt, people who live like leeches from public funds taken out of the producers' plunder ...control the Monster...

I don´t care if they live as leeches but I don´t stand they impose their morals, limit freedom and tell people how they should live their lives.
At least, the Southerners.. had the courage to face LEVIATHAN.

 
Last edited:

Viperlord

Ad Honorem
Aug 2010
8,069
VA
It seems as though we are spilling a lot of proverbial ink under the assumption that Martin has some kind of internally consistent ideology here, when in truth the noted examples he applies this to - African-American enslaved people, Leopold's victims in the Congo- tell the whole story here. Combine that with a defense of an expansionist slaver regime (this should put paid to the notion that freedom, even from government, actually matters to Martin), and what can only be deliberate falsehoods about Grant and Lee's relationships to slavery, and what do we have? A cheap bizarro- libertarian mask for bitter racism and callous selfishness.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,183
Sydney
.
@ notgiveaway
"For as long governments exist, they will control. it's what they do. Who defines what good or bad control is?"


This touch at my personal reading of history

the dichotomy between "the Left" and "the Right" had lost it's descriptive power



It is more accurate to examine the ineluctable conflict between the governed and the governance , the set of people in the society governing structure .
it take from the governed as levies , taxes , work obligations... to manage and protect but do not create wealth itself

as society grow , those taxes grow until it reach the level of an insufferable burden
the governance evolve into a caste , expressing it's contempt for "the rabble"and create a whole religious ,judicial , military artistic and sumptuary hierarchy



ancient writers have commented on this , such as Ibn Kaldun in his description of the conflict between the Sown and the Build .. village versus the City
eventually , a set of crisis bring the whole edifice crashing down

nowadays "The Left " has risen to run the governance in many countries and behave in the same predatory way ,increasing the taxation burden on the wealth producers , while "the Right" is the revolutionaries
 
Jul 2018
59
United States
It seems as though we are spilling a lot of proverbial ink under the assumption that Martin has some kind of internally consistent ideology here
Oh I think his ideology is woefully inconsistent, which is what I was trying to get him to admit. He neglected to respond to my last comment, which asked him to tell me why he thinks it's OK for a society to punish murderers, thieves, and rapists, but not slave owners. The fact that he's now trying to leave the conversation might suggest he recognizes this inconsistency. But at this point... we're :deadhorse:
 
Aug 2012
1,453
On the subject of Stalin, I feel people go the easy route with him and continually attempt to portray him as an opportunist who used the Bolshevik revolution to gain power, and cared little for its actual aims. It's easier to think of him in those terms than acknowledge he was a committed Marxist from his youth, a member of the Communist intelligentsia who penned numerous articles on the subject, and a man capable of personal bravery who helped fund the revolution through piracy and bank robberies.


He may very well have been "evil", he certainly killed enough innocent people to qualify for that label, but what he wasn't was a cynic with no core beliefs. Everything he did he rationalized through a sincere commitment in Marxism.
That his quasi-monarchical rule perhaps contradicted such teachings does not take away from the fact that Stalin himself was a true believer, and it's important to recognize this to get a better handle on the man.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
5,950
Spain
Really I´ve read one thing it is possible to change my mind... Did Confederacy confiscate propieties to citizens? farms, land etc? If CSA confiscated.. so they were not fighting in defense of the individuals face to the State and goverment.. but they were fighting to built another Leviathan as totalitarian as the Washington´s one.

The citizens had the right to their public support for the Union without reprisals being adopted for them ... because freedom of expression is protected by the constitution.

In that case.. I hope what I read it is wrong... CSA would have been as the USA... Two Leviathans fighting to impose their will to the individual.
 
Jun 2016
1,588
England, 200 yards from Wales
Mr Johminitt,

May I ask you... if you are liberal and like liberalism? Yes I drink and never had problem because I know the responsability...when the State imposes an arbitrary limit of alcohol in blood (0.8 in the golden age of freedom, until the 90s) 0.2 under the parameter of democratic totalitarianism .. exerts a previous violence on people. On individualism.

You can penalize "for damages" ... not for "principles" ... if people from a "race" or ethnicity commits more crimes than others in proportion to its population ... Do we establish prior controls? If a drunkard has an accident ... OK.. he must to pay... but if another drunkard drives and has never had a single problem...he does not have to submit to the state's prior control.

But What Hell is the State to control nothing? LEVIATHAN... not ony is enough to pay money to it... beside to live according what it is desired by it...and to believe in its morale and all that Fck limitation of the Freedom.

Mr Martin76, good morning.
Yes I suppose I am liberal, but not simple-minded. I also think there are things (like personal morality) the state should not control, I also think people in power should be watched sceptically, but that doesn't mean the state should control nothing. Like many important matters it is not a simple yes or no, but striking a balance.
Re the drunken driving, what you are saying is it's OK to drive drunk if you 'have never had an accident', until you have one - but that is too late, you might have killed several people in a motorway crash.
The only way to reliably stop some selfish and stupid people driving dangerously drunk is to have a limit. Where that limit is set is part of that balance to be struck.
In the UK over the 50 years since drink-driving laws were introduced road deaths have gone down from 1640 (1979) to 200 (2015).

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/life-saving-drink-drive-law-turns-50
So we should sacrifice 1440 lives a year so that selfish people can be free to drink as much as they like and drive?


It's the old principle, your freedom is important and should not be limited, until it starts to limit the freedom of others - and then either some authority must strike a balance, or the strongest (or most arrogant) is being more of a tyrant than a civilised state is.
 
Last edited:
Status
Closed

Similar History Discussions