Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orkeosaurus wrote:u mad?

I have no problem with hating racists. I pity them too they are a product of their parenting but the people that really get my goat are the one's who defend the right to be a racist.

At best these people are willfully ignorant.

At worst they make the practices that they defend look pale by comparison to what they would like to say.

Either way, they seek to re-normalize racist thought and behavior. Which is a lose-lose for society

I just finished my law school finals and found threads discussing both the 1st and 2nd amendment. I just can't escape this stuff.

As a quick note, certain narrow categories of speech have never been considered to be protected by the 1st amendment: the lewd & obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting or fighting words. Child pornography was added to this list relatively recently.

I'm not even going attempt to comment on the "which countries dick is bigger" argument going on.

efarrer wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:u mad?

I have no problem with hating racists. I pity them too they are a product of their parenting but the people that really get my goat are the one's who defend the right to be a racist.

At best these people are willfully ignorant.

At worst they make the practices that they defend look pale by comparison to what they would like to say.

Either way, they seek to re-normalize racist thought and behavior. Which is a lose-lose for society

I was actually commenting on your response to Phryxis (which isn't as angry any more )

theHandofGork wrote:I'm not even going attempt to comment on the "which countries dick is bigger" argument going on.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

efarrer wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:u mad?

I have no problem with hating racists. I pity them too they are a product of their parenting but the people that really get my goat are the one's who defend the right to be a racist.

At best these people are willfully ignorant.

At worst they make the practices that they defend look pale by comparison to what they would like to say.

Either way, they seek to re-normalize racist thought and behavior. Which is a lose-lose for society

I was actually commenting on your response to Phryxis (which isn't as angry any more )

I lost my temper. When I regained it, I edited my original post.

Yeah, I've done that before.

The US has been a success because it has fulfilled what most people assume to be its goals. But its difficult to call the UK less successful without presuming they had the same goals as the US.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure... It's still a 1st world country, still one of the most comfortable places to live in the entire world.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

We can debate all day what the "goals" of England are, but really, nations don't have goals. People do. To the extent nations do have a goal, it's to maintain dominance in terms of finance, military power and cultural integrity. The UK is doing fine in these categories, but it's not what it once was.

By comparison, the US is as powerful now as its ever been, though, in my estimation, it's probably in decline.

I pity them too they are a product of their parenting but the people that really get my goat are the one's who defend the right to be a racist.

There's a real "race industry" in the US these days. We obsess endlessly over racial conflict. There's nothing worse you can call somebody than "racist." It's really quite ridiculous. Americans are some of the most racially tolerant people on earth, certainly the most obsessed with being right on it. The amount of attention we pay to this issue is far out of balance with the actual problems it presents.

The race industry is just another political club that politicians use to secure power, and fire up their base. The fact that you're so outraged by people defending the right of free speech shows just how much they've ingrained you with their priorities...

But ask yourself, which is more important? That people not be racist, or that people have the right to free speech?

I think it's obvious, the answer is free speech. Free speech is critical to any form of social progress. Without free speech, you don't have Martin Luther King motivating a movement, you can't solve racism, you can't solve anything.

It's not that I like racists. It's that I like free speech even more than I hate them.

And believe me, I don't like racists. I just don't waste my time thinking about them, and I don't pat myself on the back for knowing they're wrong.

Phryxis wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure

That's very nice of you, I'm overwhelmed.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

Which is a lot more fun and much easier.

We can debate all day what the "goals" of England are, but really, nations don't have goals. .

Tell that to Geoff Hurst.

Phryxis wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure... It's still a 1st world country, still one of the most comfortable places to live in the entire world.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

Yes, it did.

Phryxis wrote:
We can debate all day what the "goals" of England are, but really, nations don't have goals. People do. To the extent nations do have a goal, it's to maintain dominance in terms of finance, military power and cultural integrity.

No, that's all false, and it suggests to me that you have little experience in international theory.

@Dogma- Instead of the blanket denial of Phryxis's views of national goals, "Why don't you enlighten in detail?".

I ask this because there is a difference between theory and fact. Some basis of substantiation might help for others to understand your statement.

reds8n wrote:

Phryxis wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the UK is some horrid failure

That's very nice of you, I'm overwhelmed.

It also went from being a dominant imperial power to being a second tier player in world affairs (behind the USSR and USA).

Which is a lot more fun and much easier.

Also much, much cheaper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- Instead of the blanket denial of Phryxis's views of national goals, "Why don't you elighten in detail?".

I ask this because there is a difference between theory and fact. Some basis of substantiation might help for others to understand your statement.

Take an undergrad BA in history, political studies or even sociology. There are too many way too many nuanced points for an internet discussion. A better idea would be for you to think about what happens to nations without national goals. Coasting along without a goal is as bad for a nation as it is an individual.

Phryxis wrote:

Only because the 'founding fathers' didn't set that out in the US constitution. But they could have. Quite easily.

It's a simple matter of faith, but it's not unfounded.

You can pretend like the FFs were a bunch of slave owning yokel jerks, and their ideas on government were unexceptional and arbitrary, but the fact remains that their system was the basis for what is the most powerful nation in the world today.

Who knows, perhaps it was a matter of abundant natural resources, happy geopolitical coincidences and general good fortune, but the fact is that the FFs set something in motion which was a massive success.

I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history, given that it starts with us beating you in two wars, and while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

That said, don't worry. We have people in office now who have even less respect for the founding than you appear to, and it won't be long before we join you in the grey, rainy irrelevancy you've spent the last 60 odd years in.

Before I examine what you posted in detail, I have a general question: What the feth are you even talking about? Who said anything about a comparison between the two nations? This is the problem with the biblical attitide towards the US constitution - you defend it like a religion. Hysterically. The Constitution is a piece of paper and the men who drafted it were just that - men.

Right.

I'm sure it's a bit frustrating for a Brit to see how proud Americans are of our history

Um, no - I don't give a gak. Americans have greatly mythologised their history, but it's not something that bothers me greatly.

given that it starts with us beating you in two wars

Um, mythology. The British Empire could have won that war even whilst fighting the French, but it would have meant widespread death and destruction: scorched earth tactics, something the British gov't and people would not have countenanced given the fact that it would have been fellow Brits they where slaughtering. The American War of independence was our Vietnam. The will just wasn't there to keep it going.
Remember, American forces barely won a land battle. But yeah, we lost. Bothered. It's only a big deal in terms of what happened subsequently. At the time the West Indies commercial output was DOUBLE that of the American colonies. You'll notice we kept them. The second war was draw.

while I could point out that you're being willfilly disrespectful by trying to diminish a group of men you know Americans greatly respect, I'll appeal instead to your logic: even if the FFs happened upon the formula by dumb luck, it's a formula that worked a lot better than what your country has been trying for the past 200+ years.

Now who's being disrespectful? All I said was that the constitution isn't the Bible. Which it isn't. Grow up.
The past 200 years encompasses the time when The British Empire was the most dominant world power in history. It was more powerful in relative terms at it's zenith than the US is now. The USAs power is mostly implied - 'we COULD crush you'. Funny how it never works out like that for you. The British Empire ruled the world in real terms. But yeah, it's declined dramatically post-WWII.
Again, not bothered. We're doing pretty well - you're the one who seems to have a chip on your shoulder.

No, that's all false, and it suggests to me that you have little experience in international theory.

Let's not just accuse people of being stupid without any supporting logic. It's not really very interesting.

Also much, much cheaper.

For whom, though? The US spent trillions of dollars on the military, preparing to win a European land war against the USSR. I'm sure Europeans will write this off as stupid Americans wasting their time and money on an overblown threat, but the fact is we fought an economic war with Russia, a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt. Europe repaid that service by forming the EU, so it could then compete more effectively against the US in the global market.

So, yeah, it's a lot cheaper to let somebody else handle your national security.

Coasting along without a goal is as bad for a nation as it is an individual.

Clearly true. However, nations, especially 1st world nations which experience frequent changes of leadership, don't have a single goal for very long, unless you reduce that goal down to the vague, obvious terms that I did earlier. Compare the goals of Bush to those of Obama. Totally different mentalities.

And, to be fair, I'm not really even sure if Obama does want to improve American economic, military and social dominance, so he might prove me wrong... But I think he's a special case.

Who said anything about a comparison between the two nations?

I didn't really mean to turn it into that. My post was a genuine comment, but because this is the internet, you took it in the worst possible way.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

But, I can truthfully see how the American fact/mythology would be irritating for a Brit. It's a story in which you're the first badguy, and you get vanquished. That's the facts of what happened, but it's legitimately annoying to be the "bad guy" and then have to watch the "hero" go stomping around, taking over all of whats yours.

I wasn't trying to say "we kicked your ass, SUCK IT." I was trying to say that I think you're being a bit of a flippant hater, but I can certainly see how you'd be annoyed by a history that views your own country as a bad guy.

Phryxis wrote:

Also much, much cheaper.

For whom, though? The US spent trillions of dollars on the military, preparing to win a European land war against the USSR. I'm sure Europeans will write this off as stupid Americans wasting their time and money on an overblown threat, but the fact is we fought an economic war with Russia, a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt. Europe repaid that service by forming the EU, so it could then compete more effectively against the US in the global market.

So, yeah, it's a lot cheaper to let somebody else handle your national security.

Out on a limb here. The war is over. You still spent into the 90s and beyond the % of your gdp preparing for the was that never came, after it was won. You continue to plan and spend at the same rate for a war against now imaginary foes. The current wars could be won at much less expense with more bodies.

Phryxis wrote:

Coasting along without a goal is as bad for a nation as it is an individual.

Clearly true. However, nations, especially 1st world nations which experience frequent changes of leadership, don't have a single goal for very long, unless you reduce that goal down to the vague, obvious terms that I did earlier. Compare the goals of Bush to those of Obama. Totally different mentalities.

And, to be fair, I'm not really even sure if Obama does want to improve American economic, military and social dominance, so he might prove me wrong... But I think he's a special case.

Huh?

Because your improving the health care situation and dealing with the forgotten war in Afghanistan is a bad thing on what level?

Phryxis wrote:

Who said anything about a comparison between the two nations?

I didn't really mean to turn it into that. My post was a genuine comment, but because this is the internet, you took it in the worst possible way.

Quite simply, I found your tone and attitude towards the American founders to be flippant and dismissive in away I don't think is appropriate. Was Leonardo Divinci just a guy scribbling out some drawings? Was Richard the Lionheart just some two bit warlord?

No.

Honestly, Yes, they were just that. In particular Richard, whose major lasting work was to die and allow his younger brother to take the throne and get neutered.

Phryxis wrote:

These were real, great men. To emphasize their human frailty, while accurate, is also not something worth doing, except in order to try to bring them down. They've become bigger than mere mortals because of the success they created. Just accept it instead of getting huffy. Yes, it's a mythology. It's the mythology of great men. Thinking yourself bigger than it doesn't actually make you bigger than it.

But, I can truthfully see how the American fact/mythology would be irritating for a Brit. It's a story in which you're the first badguy, and you get vanquished. That's the facts of what happened, but it's legitimately annoying to be the "bad guy" and then have to watch the "hero" go stomping around, taking over all of whats yours.

I wasn't trying to say "we kicked your ass, SUCK IT." I was trying to say that I think you're being a bit of a flippant hater, but I can certainly see how you'd be annoyed by a history that views your own country as a bad guy.

Something being mythology doesn't make it real.

The improving a health care bit is a very divided issue. Those for it think it's an improvement, the other 70% of the country (approximate) see it as a decline.

It's an improvement if you are a welfare leech but it's going to be made worst for middle class and upper class.

focusedfire wrote:@Dogma- Instead of the blanket denial of Phryxis's views of national goals, "Why don't you enlighten in detail?".

I ask this because there is a difference between theory and fact. Some basis of substantiation might help for others to understand your statement.

Do you think that Luxembourg aims to be a world power?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Let's not just accuse people of being stupid without any supporting logic. It's not really very interesting.

I didn't say you were stupid. Please don't attempt to twist my words.

dogma wrote:Do you think that Luxembourg aims to be a world power?

I think Luxembourg seeks the same goal as all other nations, that is to survive.

They also seek to grow because stagnation is death.

Now, a small nation surrounded by larger nations with superior military capabilities will keep their desire for expansion in check until the opportunity arises to do so without repercussion or until they are annexed/conquered.

If the physical expansion of borders is an impossibility then the small nation will ingratiate themselves with a powerful ally, will also attempt to expand economically or follow the Swiss's example of a form of both.

If they ever get the chance to expand with out committing national suicide, they will.

Fateweaver wrote:The improving a health care bit is a very divided issue. Those for it think it's an improvement, the other 70% of the country (approximate) see it as a decline.

It's an improvement if you are a welfare leech but it's going to be made worst for middle class and upper class.

So it should be possible for a person with a long term disease to be denied their existing coverage? And said person should be thus considered a welfare leach?

You have an unemployment rate of what 7% nationally maybe 10%, but 25 % have no coverage. There's a problem there, boy. The plan, while weak sauce compared to the rest of the planet, seeks to address that problem.

focusedfire wrote:
I think Luxembourg seeks the same goal as all other nations, that is to survive.

That isn't a universal national goal. Several nations have applied for annexation, or sought to integrate with larger adjacent countries. The EU is an excellent example of this behavior.

Note that attempts to 'survive' often involve the death of nationhood; indicating that the survival instinct individual, not national.

focusedfire wrote:
If they ever get the chance to expand with out committing national suicide, they will.

I doubt it. Their army is minuscule, and they have no navy or air force. There is no evidence in the electorate or political class of any desire for a Luxembourgian empire. All that we have which predicts their expansion is your assumption that states will expand if they have the opportunity; meaning we're at the point of tautology. I expect further discussion will force this to devolve into a consideration of human nature until we reach a similar tautology.

efarrer wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:The improving a health care bit is a very divided issue. Those for it think it's an improvement, the other 70% of the country (approximate) see it as a decline.

It's an improvement if you are a welfare leech but it's going to be made worst for middle class and upper class.

So it should be possible for a person with a long term disease to be denied their existing coverage? And said person should be thus considered a welfare leach?

You have an unemployment rate of what 7% nationally maybe 10%, but 25 % have no coverage. There's a problem there, boy. The plan, while weak sauce compared to the rest of the planet, seeks to address that problem.

This is OT so I'll just not continue this discussion. It might help some but it hurts others more than it helps. Unemployment is 9.9% nationally, some states are as low as 4.5% but some are as high as 17%.

I'm against it and my mind will not be changed. You obviously think it's a good thing, which is the opinion you are entitled too. I'd say it's worst than Canada's HC system and, I'm sorry, but your healthcare system sucks. It covers, in theory, more people than the current privatized system but it also requires people who don't WANT or NEED insurance to have it or pay a penalty (not to mention ludicrously mandatory coverage for such things as pre-natal care). Why does a woman who can never have kids have to make sure she has coverage for infants that she'll never have? Think I'm making it up? It's a clause and it's required coverage when you pay for a policy. If I won the $172M lotto tonight I don't need health care. If I break my arm I'm pretty sure that I can afford $5-6K US dollars to get mended.

This thread is about free speech, not healthcare so let's get this back on topic. K?

If you intended to avoid derailment, you should not have replied.

You still spent into the 90s and beyond the % of your gdp preparing for the was that never came, after it was won.

What did I already say? "a war we won, but not without amassing a great deal of debt, and a very casual attitude on the dangers of that debt."

The debt was not unavoidable, but the economic "solutions" to defeating the USSR in the marketplace are still with us, and are now taking their toll. Although, to be fair, they're taking a toll on Europe as well.

Because your improving the health care situation and dealing with the forgotten war in Afghanistan is a bad thing on what level?

I'm trying to find where I said that, but I just can't. When I say things, you don't notice. When I don't say things, you pretend I did. You want to have a conversation with me, or would you prefer to be left alone?

In particular Richard, whose major lasting work was to die and allow his younger brother to take the throne and get neutered.

I was trying to throw Britain a bone. After I posted, I realized I should have used Winston Churchill, who is, IMO, on a similar level to the founding fathers for vision, resolve and general politcal heroism.

Something being mythology doesn't make it real.

There's an interesting discussion there, but I sense that you'd rather not have it, in favor of trying to take carefully guarded potshots at anything I say.

Regardless, I stand by my point, which is that human beings mythologize their best and brightest, and the only reason to try to undo that mythologizing is haterism and hubris.

Some exception must be made for respectful and scholarly work, but the post I was responding to was nothing of the sort. It was trying to portray the ideas of the FFs as arbitrary and not motivated by any true wisdom or vision.

I didn't say you were stupid. Please don't attempt to twist my words.

I apologize, I know you didn't say I was stupid, but you did suggest I was uneducated, uninformed, or otherwise lacking intellectually, so in keeping with your view of me, I decided to use a simple word.

I think Luxembourg seeks the same goal as all other nations, that is to survive.

I agree. And further, I think all nations in human history have responded to this challenge by attempting to assert themselves economically, militarily, or culturally.

The US and UK happen to have a history of global domination in these areas, but all nations are trying to improve themselves.

The term "survive" is perhaps a better one, simply because the great majority of nations are nowhere near turning a corner into "dominance," but within a certain scope or region, they are.

So it should be possible for a person with a long term disease to be denied their existing coverage?

Well, at least it's not just me that you have imaginary arguments with.

So if government should stay out of social justice, then it should stay out of gay marrige and abortion rights as well right?I almost feel that the country I fought in to wars for is turning into a mocking lie.ll the wars we've fought for a people to be free, our goals of fairness and equality.... and a great deal of Americans would be ok if some people arn't arn't let into stores because of something silly.

Phryxis wrote:
The debt was not unavoidable, but the economic "solutions" to defeating the USSR in the marketplace are still with us, and are now taking their toll. Although, to be fair, they're taking a toll on Europe as well.

To be completely accurate, the current debt was the result of the same self-sustaining paranoia which drove the USSR into the ground.

Phryxis wrote:
Regardless, I stand by my point, which is that human beings mythologize their best and brightest, and the only reason to try to undo that mythologizing is haterism and hubris.

Also, an interest in accuracy and sound decision making. Mythology is easily manipulated. Note how conservative mythology was used to mask Neoconservative policy during the second Bush administration.

Phryxis wrote:
It was trying to portray the ideas of the FFs as arbitrary and not motivated by any true wisdom or vision.

Those qualities would not render their ideas non-arbitrary. An arbitrary statement is one motivated by the individual will; ie. something which does not follow from physical necessity.

Phryxis wrote:
I agree. And further, I think all nations in human history have responded to this challenge by attempting to assert themselves economically, militarily, or culturally.

The US and UK happen to have a history of global domination in these areas, but all nations are trying to improve themselves.

Self-improvement is not tacit to dominance, and again relies on a qualitative assessment of improvement or success.

Phryxis wrote:
The term "survive" is perhaps a better one, simply because the great majority of nations are nowhere near turning a corner into "dominance," but within a certain scope or region, they are.

So you agree that the determination of success is relative to the nation in question, and therefore its goals?

dogma wrote: That isn't a universal national goal. Several nations have applied for annexation, or sought to integrate with larger adjacent countries. The EU is an excellent example of this behavior.

Note that attempts to 'survive' often involve the death of nationhood; indicating that the survival instinct individual, not national.

I believe that I mentioned annexation, but I now see that I was vague. A nation faced with overwhelming issues will seek to be annexed as a means of preserving the existing cultural. When faced with utter annihaltion on one side and an opportunity to survive on the other, nations will usually chose annexation as an attempt to prolong the end of their cultural identity. Now this as with most things is not an absolute.

dogma wrote:I doubt it. Their army is minuscule, and they have no navy or air force. There is no evidence in the electorate or political class of any desire for a Luxembourgian empire. All that we have which predicts their expansion is your assumption that states will expand if they have the opportunity; meaning we're at the point of tautology. I expect further discussion will force this to devolve into a consideration of human nature until we reach a similar tautology.

Think of nations as inflatable swimming pools. The water inside represents the populace and the walls represent the borders that have been established. If something removes (pops) those borders the contents will flow out-ward untill a new border is established or the contents become stretched to thin to recognize as a notable quantuty(don't over-extend).

sexiest_hero wrote:So if government should stay out of social justice, then it should stay out of gay marrige and abortion rights as well right?

I believe the position held by Ron Paul on marriage is that as a religious or cultural institution, the government should leave it alone entirely. Presumably this would mean that the whatever legal abilities are associated with marriage could be entered into by any pair of people, although some would likely be abolished.

If the government stayed out of abortion it wouldn't be able to prohibit it, so I'm not sure what you're saying there.

I almost feel that the country I fought in to wars for is turning into a mocking lie.ll the wars we've fought for a people to be free, our goals of fairness and equality.... and a great deal of Americans would be ok if some people arn't arn't let into stores because of something silly.

The refusal to prohibit something legally isn't tantamount to thinking it's right to do it personally.

Do you want to make it illegal for an unmarried person to cheat on their partner? Do you think it's ethical to do so?

focusedfire wrote:
I believe that I mentioned annexation, but I now see that I was vague. A nation faced with overwhelming issues will seek to be annexed as a means of preserving the existing cultural. When faced with utter annihaltion on one side and an opportunity to survive on the other, nations will usually chose annexation as an attempt to prolong the end of their cultural identity. Now this as with most things is not an absolute.

I would consider that an attempt to biologically survive, not an attempt to preserve a culture. A nation which is annexed is just as surely dead on a cultural level as one which is scattered to the winds. Utter annihilation is not something which occurs.

focusedfire wrote:
Think of nations as inflatable swimming pools. The water inside represents the populace and the walls represent the borders that have been established. If something removes (pops) those borders the contents will flow out-ward untill a new border is established or the contents become stretched to thin to recognize as a notable quantuty(don't over-extend).

I fail to see how that analogy applies to the notion that nations always seek to survive.

dogma wrote:

focusedfire wrote:
Think of nations as inflatable swimming pools. The water inside represents the populace and the walls represent the borders that have been established. If something removes (pops) those borders the contents will flow out-ward untill a new border is established or the contents become stretched to thin to recognize as a notable quantuty(don't over-extend).

I fail to see how that analogy applies to the notion that nations always seek to survive.

I really hope that Iran doesn't figure out the technology to make thumb-tacks... that would be very bad.

dogma wrote:I fail to see how that analogy applies to the notion that nations always seek to survive.

It applies in that there is a natural set of rules in play that affect the nations behavior. Understanding this then you see that a government will be forced to adapt its plans to the natural behavior of its citizenry. The government is still going to follow the path for survival by setting a barrier further out to prevent its people from over extending to the point of national disolution.

Hence the nation expands when the opportunity arises.


And to the other part of the post, I never said the goal was to become a super-power, the goal is to avoid diminishment of the nation and if/when able to expand in an attainable manner.

focusedfire wrote:
It applies in that there is a natural set of rules in play that affect the nations behavior. Understanding this then you see that a government will be forced to adapt its plans to the natural behavior of its citizenry. The government is still going to follow the path for survival by setting a barrier further out to prevent its people from over extending to the point of national disolution.

The government is not equivalent to the nation, and there are many cases in which a nation displaces itself without an accompanying extension of state. The most personal is likely the immigration of Mexican citizens to the US.

focusedfire wrote:
And to the other part of the post, I never said the goal was to become a super-power, the goal is to avoid diminishment of the nation and if/when able to expand in an attainable manner.

No, you said that the goal of the nation is to survive and that, because stagnation if equivalent to death, all nations will seek to expand when presented the opportunity.

So if government should stay out of social justice, then it should stay out of gay marrige and abortion rights as well right?

I'm not a fan of the term "social justice" but regardless, no, government shouldn't stay out of it. It just shouldn't sacrifice free speech in the name of social justice. Instead, it should find ways to protect people's rights in all capacities.

Also, while I feel that an individual citizen has the right to behave in a racist fashion, I don't think the government should do so. I have no problem at all with the government placing restrictions on what it can do, and if it wants to place restrictions on itself acting in a racist fashion, I'm all for it.

I could bring up the obvious hypocrisy of Affirmative Action at this point, but whatever.

To be completely accurate, the current debt was the result of the same self-sustaining paranoia which drove the USSR into the ground.

I think we're saying the same thing... But to be even more explicit, it was the American (and west in general) use of capitalism that allowed us to win this fight. Our manipulation of debt allowed us to "bury" Kruschev and his pals, but it's also left us with major a problem and a slanted outlook on how markets should work.

Note how conservative mythology was used to mask Neoconservative policy during the second Bush administration.

Too loaded of a statement, and too much off topic to discuss here.

An arbitrary statement is one motivated by the individual will; ie. something which does not follow from physical necessity.

Rather than arguing semantics, instead try to understand what is being said.

The word "arbitrary" in this case is used to mean "capricious; unreasonable; unsupported," an accepted definition of the word.

The post I was responding to was implying that the FFs might have included a right to not be offended. This suggests that there was no particular awareness on their part as to what matters in a free society and what doesn't, and that Constitution and Bill of Rights were crafted in a "capricious" fashion with no real thought or wisdom guiding it.

So you agree that the determination of success is relative to the nation in question, and therefore its goals?

It depends how you mean it's relative... I feel that all nations are seeking economic, military and/or cultural strength. If by "relative" you mean that one nation might be seeking that relative to their equally small neighbor, while another might be seeking it relative to the entire world, then I agree.

Your example of Luxembourg... They're trying to maintain/expand their strength in those three areas. They have no aspiration of world dominance, but they do still seek to improve.

Your earlier point, that in some cases nations request annexation is also valid. I would counter that "nation" is perhaps better said "collection of people." Whena collection of people seek annexation, they're still attempting to strengthen themselves economically, militarily or culturally. They've simply decided that details of their official boundaries are less important than the three goals of all "groups of people."

I really hope that Iran doesn't figure out the technology to make thumb-tacks... that would be very bad.

I'm sure the IAEA is ALL OVER that. Cause they're so friggin efficient. You know.