What is your controversial historical opinion?

Status
Closed

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,030
Spain
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.


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.
Good morning, John

Ok.. John, maybe yu are right... in that case maybe it would be better to go to live to a uninhabited island.. and to stablish an Ultra-liberal society without State... without taxes... only based on personal initiative and individual freedom.

Well in any case... We have derivaded... sorry very much.. from the ACW to talk about Ultra-liberalism and School of Vienna.

Regards
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,030
Spain
Dear Dose..

Sorry not to have seen your questions before.. I couldn´t see your post.

In your opinion, why should they be kicked out the community? By your reasoning, isn't it their right to adhere to their own morality, undisturbed by the state? If a killer believes it's OK to kill, who is the State (or society) to tell him he can't do so?
I think to kill is an illegal act that will only admit in self-defense or in case the victim expresses his will to be executed (Euthanasia, for example). To kill is illegal from Summer and Babylon.
However if one parson want to be help for suicide... Yes I admit.. it is his own will.. his freedom... Goverment can´t interfere the will of a citizen.

It seems like you agree with me in that there's a line where the state can intervene. That line is (at least) where someone's morality is extremely harmful to others. Thus, it's OK to prohibit killing, raping, theft, and, yes, owning other people.
Not morality.. we only based if the act is banned or not.. Of course, you are right and me. Today Slavery is illegal... so not issue about that.. It is a crime.. so yes it is prohibited..

In 1861.. was not a crime,,, as it was not an offense for 90 centuries . it was full legal...and recognized not only in USA but many places.

How had the competence to put end the Slavery.. of course, the owners! As easy as to renounce their slaves publicly and freely.

Have the State the Power to kidnapp the children to a family... from my point of view...No way!

Also, "out of the community"= "in jail." Right?
Not Jail...to work for community.. if he is a killer (and victim doesn´t want the money) the rest of his life working for( community. From an economic point of view is the best.

If a serial killer is caught, where does he go?
Only it depends what families of victims want...Imagine it is possible for a victim to earn 80 millions euros... maybe the family prefer the money... What do Family earn because the guy is in a Jail? I don´t understand what family won....nothing.. Victim is not going back...your life.. unfortunatly has changed.. ok.. but if you win 80 millions euros... not only it has changed for bad...

Sincerely I don´t understand... or free or working for community... but only the families of victim decided...or executed if they decided.... but never in a jail!... it is anti-economic.. Please!

. Surely it's not a good idea to let a serial killer walk free because he can afford to pay his bail.
That only depends on the victim´s family will and money the killer has...If it a serial killer and victims are diveded...they should to reach an aggrement between them... while the serial killer working for community.

I understand a victim want Talion law... and don´t see the money he can earn...ok.. so talion.. but the victim....Not police...controlled by State...how many serial killers are protected by the State?

In Europe we have few cases.. and I guess in USA others cases too.

so the family of the victim and the rest of society "wins" security
with the excuse of security, liberticidal and totaliary laws are approved ...breaking the Individual rights.

In any case.. I see the Secession war as a fight between individual and government, between the rights of ciitzen and the rights of administracion.. between the liberalism and the power of the State... between the person and the Colectivity....
But if CSA confiscated and imposed their standards on citizens ... in that case .. it would also be another small Leviathan.

And not the War between Freedom and State.

Well now I ´ve finished. In this thread. I only wanted to say my opinion... nothing more and we have derivaded...

A plesasure and regards for everybody.

PP: This section is about historical contreversy... not about economic and social philosophy.. Sorry very much. I leave the thread.
 
Jun 2016
1,666
England, 200 yards from Wales
Good morning, John

Ok.. John, maybe yu are right... in that case maybe it would be better to go to live to a uninhabited island.. and to stablish an Ultra-liberal society without State... without taxes... only based on personal initiative and individual freedom.

Well in any case... We have derivaded... sorry very much.. from the ACW to talk about Ultra-liberalism and School of Vienna.

Regards
We have deviated, but it's an interesting general principle, applicable to many things besides slavery.
As for your island - fine, as long as you are the only person there. As soon as there are others there is the potential for one person's freedom restricting another's - they may come to agreement, if not there is either violence or setting some sort of arbitrator - an authority. Classic Hobbes (or, ina less authoritarian form, Spinoza - Social Contract).


However if one parson want to be help for suicide... Yes I admit.. it is his own will.. his freedom... Goverment can´t interfere the will of a citizen.
On that one I'd agree with you - as it doesn't harm others.


Not morality.. we only based if the act is banned or not.. Of course, you are right and me. Today Slavery is illegal... so not issue about that.. It is a crime.. so yes it is prohibited..
If the only question is whether something is banned or not the law could never change, you can't criticise law against assisted suicide, it's banned and that's that. Things that were illegal become legal (homosexuality), things legal become illegal (drink driving) because there are ethical considerations by which the law can be judged apart from what is legal at the moment.


How had the competence to put end the Slavery.. of course, the owners! As easy as to renounce their slaves publicly and freely.

Have the State the Power to kidnapp the children to a family... from my point of view...No way!
So how did slavers and slave owners have the right to kidnap children and families into slavery?


Only it depends what families of victims want...Imagine it is possible for a victim to earn 80 millions euros... maybe the family prefer the money... What do Family earn because the guy is in a Jail? I don´t understand what family won....nothing.. Victim is not going back...your life.. unfortunatly has changed.. ok.. but if you win 80 millions euros... not only it has changed for bad...
But without a state power who will investigate the crime, find the killer and make them pay the fine?
Also, of course, how many killers have 80 million euros?
 
Jun 2015
5,581
UK
Viking battle prowess is overrated. The major threats were their raids, which more or less lessened in intensity once they settled in Normandy, Jorvik, Dublin, etc. The Great Heathen Army lost as many battles as it won, and Cnut conquered England with explicit English aid (Eadric Streona). Whether he could have done this without Eadric's help is moot. The Norse's major effects/contributions imho are linguistic, cultural (and not the days of the week since they called their chief god Odin, not Woden), and the fact they were the first Europeans to reach North America. The notion of them being tough in battle comes from English and French monks who wanted to paint a bad picture of them - which in itself is understandable.

The idea that West African kingdoms didn't know about the cruelty of the slave forts on the coast needs to end. Asante and Dahomey, like most large kingdoms in any era, had localised contacts who had to be there to collect taxes and implement laws. They could easily have asked their loyal chiefs near the forts what actually happened there, and they would have known. They DID know but didn't care. this bs is only made up to make the Europeans look bad, when the Africans were just as complicit. The slave trails in Africa were just as harsh as the forts, or the Middle Passage and plantations - https://omgvoice.com/lifestyle/slave-markets-ghana/

Celebrating the Battle of Agincourt is petty - considering the ENglish lost the wars in the end. It's like people in Germany today celebrating the Battle of France. It may have been a great victory at the time, but they still ended up losing.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,621
Sydney
.
On the Borgias , the tales of family incest and fratricidal murders with Lucretia poisoning her husbands to get back into bed with her Brothers and /or father are Italians tales grossly exaggerated
Caesar was by all acounts a very smart guy with a fine grasp on the nature of power , Machiavelli was a big fan
 
Aug 2010
15,254
Welsh Marches
That's all very well until one remembers that Rodrigo Borgia- Alexander VI- was supposed to the Pope rather than a member of the Mafia, not that it made much difference at the time.

Lytton Strachey on how Mandell Creighton (a bishop Church of England bishop!) approached these issues in his history of the papacy:

"Charming, indeed, are the ironies of history; and not the least charming those that involve the historian. It was very natural that Creighton, a clever and studious clergyman of the Church of England, should choose as the subject of his investigations that group of events which, centring round the Italian popes, produced at last the Reformation. The ironical fact was that those events happened to take place in a world where no clever and studious clergyman of the Church of England had any business to be. "Sobriety," as he himself said, was his aim; but what could sobriety do when faced with such figures as Savonarola, Cæsar Borgia, Julius II, and Luther? It could only look somewhere else. It is pleasant to witness the high-minded husband and father, the clever talker at Cambridge dinner tables, the industrious diocesan administrator, picking his way with an air of calm detachment amid the recklessness, the brutality, the fanaticism, the cynicism, the lasciviousness, of those Renaissance spirits. "In his private life," Creighton says of Alexander VI, "it is sufficiently clear that he was at little pains to repress a strongly sensual nature.... We may hesitate to believe the worst charges brought against him; but the evidence is too strong to enable us to admit that even after his accession to the papal office he discontinued the irregularities of his previous life." There is high comedy in such a tone on such a topic. One can imagine the father of the Borgias, if he could have read that sentence, throwing up his hands in delighted amazement, and roaring out the obscene blasphemy of his favourite oath."
 

Fiver

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,653
I think the Confederate States of America defended the individual freedom against the Union that defended the State´s imposition on the individual.
Perhaps you should read what the Confederates actually said.

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." - Georgia Declaration of Causes for Secession

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." - Mississippi Declaration of Causes for Secession

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection." - South Carolina Declaration of Causes for Secession

"Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time." - Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." - Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." - Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy

"We but imitate the policy of our fathers in dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates, and seeking a confederation with slave-holding States." - South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States

"Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. - Address of the Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

"Louisiana supplies to Texas a market for her surplus wheat, grain and stock; both States have large areas of fertile, uncultivated lands, peculiarly adapted to slave labor; and they are both so deeply interested in African slavery that it may be said to be absolutely necessary to their existence, and is the keystone to the arch of their prosperity." - Address of the Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

"The people of the slaveholding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery. " - Address of the Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention

"To evade the issue thus forced upon us at this time, without the fullest security for our rights, is, in my opinion, fatal to the institution of slavery forever. The time has arrived when the people of the South must prepare either to abandon or to fortify and maintain it. Abandon it, we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity, and domestic happiness." - Message of the Governor to the Tennessee Assembly

"The Black Republican party has for years continued to make aggressions upon the slaveholding States, under the forms of law, and in every manner that fanaticism could devise. and have now gained strength and position, which threaten, not only the destruction of the institution of slavery, but must degrade and ruin the slaveholding States, if not resisted. - Message of the Governor to the Alabama Legislature

"The Federal Government has failed to protect the rights and property of the citizens of the South, and is about to pass into the hands of a party pledged for the destruction, not only of their rights and property, but the equality of the States ordained by the Constitution, and the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race. -Letter of the Commissioner from Alabama to the Governor of Kentucky

"What Southern man, be he slave-holder or non-slave-holder, can without indignation and horror contemplate the triumph of negro equality, and see his own sons and daughters, in the not distant future, associating with free negroes upon terms of political and social equality, and the white man stripped, by the Heaven-daring hand of fanaticism of that title to superiority over the black race which God himself has bestowed? -Letter of the Commissioner from Alabama to the Governor of Kentucky

"Will the South give up the institution of slavery, and consent that her citizens be stripped of their property, her civilization destroyed, the whole land laid waste by fire and sword? It is impossible; she can not, she will not." -Letter of the Commissioner from Alabama to the Governor of Kentucky

"Wealth is timid, and wealthy men may cry for peace, and submit to wrong for fear they may lose their money: but the poor, honest laborers of Georgia, can never consent to see slavery abolished, and submit to all the taxation, vassalage, low wages and downright degradation, which must follow. " Open Letter from the Governor of Georgia
 
Status
Closed