I think the big issue is that, now that Americans are waking up and realizing how "free" they actually are, the powers that be are acting quickly to cement their position at the top.

It brings to mind the rise and fall of the Roman Empire; the Republic was no more but Augustus let the people believe their votes meant something, let them think the republic still functioned until, after generations, the emperors were too entrenched to be removed without violence.

It may not be too late for America, but it's following a similar course.

I'd really like to believe the optimists that believe our race will someday overcome it's petty evils but I look at history and just can't.

If history teaches us anything, it is that we never learn from history.

The Hitler's, Stalin's and roman empires of the future will all wrap themselves in pretty words and as did the monsters we remember and a sufficient number of our fellow humans will believe or accept it to give them the power to commit once again the same crimes that make up our planet's history. My only real hope is to try and stave that off for my and my children's generations.

I study this stuff. It's strange that Mericans have this romanticised view of their Constitution, Bill o rights, Puritans and the founding fathers, but the humans were just human, and the documents were just documents: Imperfect. Not holy writs and prophets. The USA did not get rich and prosperous on its founding father's ideals, but the backs of slave labour, massive natural resources and comparatively few wars at the beginning.

To think that "As one of Jefferson’s favorite books, Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ so luminously argued, there is no surer sign of a country’s cultural and political decay than obtuse blindness to its unmistakable beginnings" means one should look at the beginnings and say: "Wow everything was awesome then!" is romanticising history. All that stuff I mentioned above which you ironically called 'obtuse blindness' is deeply ingrained not only in the US' history but also the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I have read both documents, unfinished drafts, rewritings, documents about the discussions and much more such tedious stuff: It's all deeply political, partisan even then and not! perfection. I know that it's much easier to think that libertarianism is the goto-solution for everything, but it isn't. Nothing is.

Says the guy who doesn't know what a market is.

But I guess those founding fathers and framers of the Bill of Rights were just a bunch lunkheads.

Ironic quote of the day:
"As one of Jefferson’s favorite books, Gibbon’s ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ so luminously argued, there is no surer sign of a country’s cultural and political decay than obtuse blindness to its unmistakable beginnings." - Simon Schama

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Roman Emperors needed to establish legitimacy of their claim to the throne via a initial, successful, millitary campaign. I see an unfortunate parallel in our own time.

This is a modern myth. The Roman Empire stopped expanding in the beginning of the second century under Trajan, and continued to exist within these borders for almost 400 more years. There were often civil wars over successions, but most emperors ascended peacefully.


The Roman Empire reached its maximum extent in 117, but after that they still very often had to fight around the borders to keep/retake what they had.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Roman Emperors needed to establish legitimacy of their claim to the throne via a initial, successful, millitary campaign. I see an unfortunate parallel in our own time.

This is a modern myth. The Roman Empire stopped expanding in the beginning of the second century under Trajan, and continued to exist within these borders for almost 400 more years. There were often civil wars over successions, but most emperors ascended peacefully.


Ascending to the throne via civil war was more the context to which I was referring. Military strength was always the way in which they maintained their legitimacy, and expressed their power. We have had 40 years of conflict, only rarely been submitted to the consent of the people. Like DT points out, it isn't exactly like Iraq, but to me, it is in all the ways that matter.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Roman Emperors needed to establish legitimacy of their claim to the throne via a initial, successful, millitary campaign. I see an unfortunate parallel in our own time.


This is a modern myth. The Roman Empire stopped expanding in the beginning of the second century under Trajan, and continued to exist within these borders for almost 400 more years. There were often civil wars over successions, but most emperors ascended peacefully.

Did you skip your history class?

Dark Ages referred to the period of time ushered in by the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The decline of the Roman Empire refers to the societal collapse encompassing both the gradual disintegration of the political, economic, military, and other social institutions of Rome.

To be sure Christians have done their good part in making a mockery out of religion. This doesn't make the Bible wrong. Just piss poor examples that do more harm than good.

The irony of this is that our 21st Century world is no less dark. It is an individual darkness, which multiplies and grows as those who reject Gods walk. Our age is characterized by every intellectual and technological advance but our morals have turned backwards.

From 2 Timothy 3
1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

The Book of 2 Timothy was written in approximately A.D. 67 which is interesting that for something written so long ago appear so timely today.

I guess that if Nostradamus wrote it more would probably give it more credit.

>> ^TheGenk:

Didn't we have a christian dictatorship on this planet already? What was it called...? Ah yes, the fucking DARK AGE!

This is something Ms. Grey may have been shooting for, but this reminds me of Dirk Diggler's biographical movie within Boogie Nights...the one where he's talking about how popular he is and how many marriages he's saved. And how King Napoleon was constantly being conquered during the Roman Empire.

http://videosift.com/video/Dirk-Diggler-Documentary

"Christmas survived the Roman Empire."

*controversy

>> ^Retroboy:

What I found interesting was how stable the big mess of pre-German states was after the Holy Roman Empire disintegrated. I would have expected that whole region to be a colossal mussy bloodbath.


But it wasn't stable, and it was a colossal mussy bloodbath! They fought each other basically every other week in small skirmishes. But since they were small scale they usually didn't led to anything consequential.

Much like Japan's Sengoku Jidai period or the Warring Italian states during renaissance, from the surface the borders looked relatively calm but there were always constant action.

What I found interesting was how stable the big mess of pre-German states was after the Holy Roman Empire disintegrated. I would have expected that whole region to be a colossal mussy bloodbath.

I think you're overstating your case on the slavery thing, Morganth, especially in the Roman Empire of the first century, though you do have a point about the fundamental differences between the old/new slavery, i.e. the systematic destruction of entire nations for slave labor instead of it being just a natural byproduct of war/conquest. It is no accident that slaves were largely visually indistinguishable from the general populace, the Roman Senate knew and feared that if they were easily recognizable then they could easily identify each other and therefore join arms and rebel against their masters (to the ire of the prevailing opinion of the day which spawned numerous proposals of this which failed to pass many times in the Senate).

The majority of slaves in the time were the absolute property of their owners who reserved the right to whip, beat, and kill them with no fear of punishment (again though there were many "charitable" masters but your case is a bit overstated), pending the various forms of either outright or payed, formal or informal manumission if their masters even granted them that (not to mention the carrot-on-a-stick of just the possibility of a freedom which may never come kept slaves in line and obedient, removing the impetus of even trying to improve one's lot in life). This was no guaranteed right by any stretch of imagination. To say that the average slave was no worse off than the average citizen just had me honestly and genuinely scratching my head for a bit.

Your issue with Harris on slavery is a matter of degree not kind.

This argument is always framed wrong by both sides. See, gays already have the same marriage rights as the rest of us: a man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. Opponents make this argument but then continue with another that's not true: that gays are asking for special rights. Gays are not asking for special rights, they're asking for new rights.

If these are "new" rights, then how did an activist judge magically discover them in the old Constitution? I appreciate your forthrightness. The actual activists simply claim these rights have been hidden in there all along like the right to an abortion.

These new rights would apply to us all. Straight or gay, we could all marry whomever we wanted, genders be damned. You should be happy to gain rights in a time when they are being whittled away in the name of safety. Just because you have no desire to utilize those rights doesn't mean they have no value. I don't own a gun but I'm glad I have the right to.This is not about sexual orientation; it's about freedom from government control over your personal life.

But marriage is not about any one personal life. It's about two lives intertwining on every level, including matters of the State.

What kind of "conservatarian" are you that thinks the government should have this sort of power?

A realistic one.


(re: Freedom from Religion)
It depends on how you interpret "freedom from religion". If you interpret it as meaning I should be able to live my life without ever being exposed to anything religious, then no. That's obviously ridiculous.

Glad you feel that way, but you're in a shrinking minority. Los Angeles removed a tiny cross from their city seal, and there's now a huge court batle over the Mojave Memorial Cross.

What it's supposed to mean, and what is protected by the First Amendment, is that I can live my life without having religious beliefs imposed on me by the government.

You may think so, but "Thou shalt not steal" is the basis for many of our secular laws. You cannot "escape" religion, it's intertwined with everything.

The government cannot tell me I can's go out after sundown on Friday or go to work on Sunday. They cannot make eating pork and shellfish illegal, at least not on religious grounds.

They cannot make you do these things on overtly religious grounds, but under certain circumstances they can make you do or not do all these things and more. How about curfews in a riot zone? Now we're back to the "Thou shalt nots" in varying forms.

Same-sex marriage was legal and common in the Roman Empire up until the Christians took power and made it illegal. They also had anyone who was in such a marriage executed.

If gay "marriage" is such a capital idea, why was it until 50 years ago virtually unheard of in almost every society? And in those ancient, wizened societies that threw off the shackles of Christian oppression, why did gay unions not return right away? Gay "marriage" throughout history has been less than a footnote. Polygamy at least has a long and varied history.