God 2.0: The free market

This is for discussions about news, politics, sports, other games, culture, philosophy etc.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by duckzilla »

Just to say it: the idea of a "fair share" is highly subjective. You will always find people, both rich and poor, who do not believe that they get their "fair share".
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by Amsel_ »

umeu wrote:
Amsel_ wrote:
Show hidden quotes

That's not really the message I was trying to get across. I wasn't talking about being a "moderate" or a "centrist" and condemning "extremism." Quite to the contrary, I think that if someone knows that they are right then they have a bit of an obligation to uphold the truth. In some cases it's good to be a radical, a fanatic. It is much better to fight evil and do good with extreme zeal than to be apathetic in the face of atrocities.

The main point I was trying to make is that people seem to give more loyalty and interest to "ideas" like the free-market or humanism than to humans themselves. What I'm saying isn't even all that radical. If you question a social-democrat enough, he will [generally] show willingness to utilize the free-market. He will be satisfied with a certain level of social security, rather than total class-warfare. Libertarians are even more prone to redefine "libertarian" to meet their personal beliefs. I've seen libertarians support anti-trust laws, tariffs, even media regulation. Most people, across the board, are willing to abandon their oh-so-sacred symbols when the need arises. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't even waste our time with these golden calves. We should unite around our nation rather than divide among our parties.


I made a post about this before, and you've never answered it. But Why do you believe that something like a party is an arbitrary and empty ideal, while a nation isn't and is something to strive for. Why do we still waste our effort on nations then? Why not unite around the earth.

A nation is the binding of men in blood and spirit. It is the culmination of an entire people's struggle, their work, their love, and their hate. Nations are something intrinsic to the human condition, rather than imaginary things like parties. History does not have many examples of all of humanity uniting to achieve a goal, but there are plenty of examples of nations doing so. I propose embracing these human things. Others propose destroying this human thing, and then having imaginary parties and principles take its place. That is perhaps the best argument against "not wasting our effort on nations."

Furthermore, going "above" nations does not do away with nations, baring genocide; it does, however, lessen the strength and voice of nations. It means that instead of having people who can relate to people's problems, we have bureaucrats in New York that can only think in terms of money and regulation.
No Flag deleted_user0
Ninja
Posts: 13004
Joined: Apr 28, 2020

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by deleted_user0 »

Actually there aren't that many example of nations. Nations are actually a very modern phenomenon. You say it's an intrinsic condition, yet when I asked you to define it, you couldn't really come up with anything more than a few feeble examples that are far from sufficient to bind a group of people. If you were talking about familial bonds, clans or even ethnic groups, you are talking about something more intrinsic, about a bond deepened by continued interaction and proximity. But this isn't needed for a nation, and in fact nations were promoted with the very purpose of transcending these intrinsic bonds of family, village and ethnicity.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your matter of fact stating like it's obvious isn't that obvious at all.
Vietnam duckzilla
Jaeger
Posts: 2497
Joined: Jun 26, 2016

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by duckzilla »

Sorry Amsel, but that's emotional, nostalgic and dangerous bullshit.

"the binding of men in blood and spirit", which country do you have in mind? US inhabitants are not related by blood, Germans are definitely not united by spirit. Your definition of a "nation" is arbitrary. Of course it sounds nice, but that does not mean that it is true. Also, nations are not "something intrinsic". Family clans may be intrinsic, but the idea of a nation took millenia to unfold and wreak havoc whereever people started believing in it. The "nation" is, unfortunately, a currently existing social paradigm, which is only useful when you want to divide people into different groups with varying degrees of privilege.

I do not care about the lessening of the strength and voice of nations. Nations are crap. It is much more meaningful when individuals are heard without the need of forming a nation in the first place. That's why we are living under rule of law.
Whatever is written above: this is no financial advice.

Beati pauperes spiritu.
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by Amsel_ »

@deleted_user The concept of the Nation-state is a new concept. It came about from the Westphalia Treaties of 1648. The concept of a nation, however, is old, and is very similar to ethnicity. It is a way of defining a group of people. Thousands of years ago someone could be reading, and they would understand completely what "And I will make of thy seed a great nation" meant. You seem to be conflating the notion of the nation with nation-states. My support of nation-states only extends as far as it is useful against internationalism, and uniting a nation together to achieve common goals.

Nation-states are new, yes, but they developed naturally. As time goes on people must naturally develop new things. Once Kings and Popes became more trouble than they are worth, the nation-state was organically created. On the other hand, we have this notion of "humanity united" that has to be forced to the utmost degree by the most powerful people and countries on the planet. Yet it is always met with heavy resistance. Why is that? If nation's are arbitrary constructs then why will even the poorest, dumbest Kurd or Tibetan die for it? Why is it that arbitrarily drawn borders in Syria, Iraq, and Yugoslavia lead to such chaos, yet the Polish are able to keep peace naturally? If lumping everyone together in a regional country leads to disaster then why would it be any better on the international level? It seems to me that nations are much more intrinsic to humans than the international-state.

Thank you for discussing this issue civilly. It is hard to not come across as presumptuous on such a topic.
User avatar
No Flag fightinfrenchman
Ninja
Donator 04
Posts: 23505
Joined: Oct 17, 2015
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by fightinfrenchman »

Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
Image
No Flag Radix_Lecti
Dragoon
Posts: 413
Joined: Dec 3, 2017

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by Radix_Lecti »

DEUS VULT

+200 more stupid Youtube troll clips @amsel
User avatar
United States of America Amsel_
Howdah
Posts: 1855
Joined: Jan 29, 2018
ESO: The_Amsel

Re: God 2.0: The free market

Post by Amsel_ »

Radix_Lecti wrote:DEUS VULT

+200 more stupid Youtube troll clips @amsel

You're an odd one.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV