Guns of Infinity



It is draining we had exhaustion very easy in this country. But at the same time I feel weak to some of my friends that have the least will to try to run for local offices.


I have finally secured a security pass for the historic Trump-Duterte meeting! Just sad that I can’t see a Duterte-Putin meeting because he aint coming. Can’t wait to see how the show goes :3


Whilst I like the fact the the British opted to be honourable, I get the feeling like there were ulterior motives that must have prevented them ( probably didn’t want to deal with France again or war crimes or whatever). However, this would have meant, to raise money to replenish what they spent on on the Seven year war, they would have to raise taxes. Obviously, the government probably did not want to deal with unrest in their country, so they chose to raise the taxes in the Thirteen colonies ( That’s if I’m right, you can correct me people). So, ironically, even though I had come to that same conclusion a while back, the British actions in the Seven year war accelerated the revolution.


Doubtful. They’d already ethnically cleansed Acadia, so it wasn’t as if they couldn’t do the same with Quebec.

This is half-accurate. Parliament refused to raise taxes in the British Isles because they were already taxed to the point of near-collapse to raise armies to fight a war to protect the Thirteen Colonies, a war wherein the colonial militia were just a notch short of useless, and the colonies themselves contributed next to nothing financially thanks to standing policies of salutary neglect and an inefficient taxation system.

Considering that the American theatre of the war was started by a colonial militia officer (Colonel George Washington, you may have heard of him) who was leading a show of force to claim land for the benefit of the colonies, it could be argued that the colonies were being somewhat ungrateful in the decades following.


Entirely ungrateful for a world war essentially fought on our behalf…
I mean! No! I’m a Republican! A Patriot! Don’t Tread On Me!

In all seriousness, though, I think the Revolution was inevitable, but I think it could have been stalled or even eventually defeated if Parliament had offered a token concession, like letting Benjamin Franklin sit in the House of Commons and not be allowed to speak unless spoken to.


Related to the colonies and gratitude:

One thing that comes to mind me for me related to what was, implicitly if not explicitly, covered by “paying for their own defense” is that the war with Tripoli sure is a reminder that it’s nice to have a respectable navy when you want to trade anywhere and everywhere without pirates (Or French warships) making it not worth it.

I haven’t studied the French and Indian War (to refer to the North American part) enough to second the idea that land matters were entirely in the hands of the professionals (though given what we know of the militia, the “ranger” units seem the only semi-consistently useful colonial presence as far as that went), but it does seem worth praising the fleet considering that the merchants were half of those howling loudest about being taxed at all.


Pretty much.

The colonies were being compelled to uphold the obligations of being part of Great Britain, but they weren’t given the political rights that came with it. More or less, they were being treated like Ireland. A lot of this was the mismanagement of North and Germain, and given a more competent government, Britain might have managed to muddle through.


Just double checking. So in essence, modern democracies are no more ‘legal’, ‘free’ or ‘representative’ as ye olde feudal systems. There’s just an added layer of permeability to the caste of oppressors and they’re more concerned with giving themselves an air of legitimacy beyond divine right.

I always thought democracy was a crock (for many and varied reasons) , mind you. So this doesn’t surprise me. Just reassuring to know a legal professional substantiates my suspicion that all statehood remains institutionalized racketeering.


I think the other key ingredient was the the colonies of the day had developed enough economically to have an elite with comparable wealth to the British Lords but they could aspire to basically none of the privileges.


@Spire Would I be exaggerating in reading you as arguing that the only “free” government would be one where you could refuse to follow the laws of that state entirely if you desired, and the government would have no power to do anything to you (unless you specifically and personally gave it the power to do so) in response?


All forms of statehood need to draw upon a way to ensure the consent of the governed. Divine Right relies on the existence of a universally accepted objective morality. Without that, the state can either enforce its will through the symbol of a single person and their personal resources, or create a negotiated consensus between government and governed.

Whether that form of governance is in fact, superior to the others is subjective, but generally speaking, the idea of being able to mitigate the abuses of the powerful through popular institutional will generally renders the answer as “yes”.

That’s not necessarily a bad description, but the difference between statehood and racketeering remains the distinction that if you don’t pay protection money to the mob, the mob will break your kneecaps. If governed don’t pay protection to the state, it ceases to exist, and everyone else will break your kneecaps.

Absolutely. It certainly helps explain why so many of the “Founding Fathers” were social or economic elites.


Yes. :wink:

But as it stands I’m essentially held prisoner by a system founded on morals which are not mine (in my particular case not even my countrymen’s but the morals of a foreign occupying force and their domestic collaborators) written into laws I don’t support. With schools that teach children the lie that they live in the best of all possible worlds and a self serving political system only interested in maintaining the status quo and opposing change other than to placate the masses.

Marx was wrong. Politics is opium for the people.

And yes, I could move but most everywhere else is pretty much the same or worse. I’ll admit that but I fail to admit that this system does in any way represent me as one of the people it claims to represent. Never mind that these days the system is neither keeping me safe nor ensuring my freedom.


@Spire So what would be sufficiently free for you?

Just making sure I’m not misreading here, I’m not enough of a student of political philosophy to give an adequate - or even interesting - argument here.


Then why isn’t the system doing that over here? Angela Merkel basically opened the floodgates on foreign economic immigrants who she wasn’t even allowed to let in by EU regulations -never mind that it’s doubted she even had that power- and nobody is calling her to task. When on the other hand her government readily agrees with all the stupid EU stuff like regulation on the shape of cucumbers, never mind propping up failed states like the Greek kleptocracy, nobody takes her to task either.

I think it’s a safe assumption that of the 13% of voters who voted AfD in the last German election, 10% are the direct result of her policies. And she doesn’t even acknowledge it. The system won’t police itself because the 4 bourgeois parties all benefit from carrying on.


Two points:
1: Democracy is an ideal, not necessarily a reality. In its perfect form, popular will causes changes in policy, but if arguments over procedure and process have taught us anything, it’s that there is nowhere near a consensus regarding what that perfect form is.

2: Democracy is based on consensus, and policy resulting from the democratic process is designed not to be perfect for anyone, because that simply isn’t possible: worldviews are subjective and no single person’s idea of good and evil matches any other person’s view of good and evil. That means public policy is designed to be a “good enough” fit for as many people as possible, even if it alienates some. Just because you happen to oppose that public policy doesn’t mean everyone else does, and even if the popular will happens to be grasping, self-serving, and short-sighted, it’s still where the state derives its legitimacy from.

If the four “bourgeois parties” are unassailable in Germany (and it seems like they are, since 13% is still a pretty small minority), then that’s because the popular will has demanded it. If the majority of people approve of the current political establishment, the current political establishment will continue, because that’s where they derive their legitimacy.

The problem you seem to be facing is that any form of consensus governance isn’t about individuals as it is about the abstract concept of “the people”. So long as democratic norms are maintained, “the people” have the right to redress and change, not any single individual, because the second an individual imposes their own morality on a system which can only function effectively as a collective, you no longer have a political consensus, but one person having to force their worldview on everyone else.


Love Under Will.

On a slightly less populist note that’s a good question. If we were all grown-ups in this world it would suffice to go by a variation of Kant’s Imperative and not have any other laws or regulations. I realize this can’t work but that’s the theory.

In practice this is really just a lot of rhetoric to ultimately question the legitimacy of democratic forms of government. Seeing as these like to profess their love and guarantee of freedom as a means of legitimizing their rule. I’m not so much demanding freedom as trying to ‘prove’ their illegitimacy to my satisfaction.

Of course I’m obviously biased.


Do you mean taking the pressure off of southern European countries who were receiving well beyond their capacity of being able to sustain? The numbers of arriving migrants and refugees had been steadily on the rise well before the August statement and the peak in October happened far too early to be directly linked to Merkel. Contrary to belief the people travelling have been in transit for a long time and have planned for the migration even longer.

So unless there is a problem in preventing a humanitarian and economic disaster on the shores of countries already struggling financially, i don’t see what Merkel is to blame for here?

Not to say that she also led the charge on the Agreement with Turkey which did more to stop arrivals than any internal border-control or anti-migrant rhetoric could have.

So bringing the number down by some 700.000 is somehow encouraging these arrivals? I am confused here.

Aaaah. The original fake news, Euromyths…

Good thing that these things are so prevalent in modern culture that it has been necessary to use EU funds to deal with them


Wow 3 myths about cucumbers…I feel like something else may be at play here…a Eurobession with phallic vegetables perhaps??? I personally blame the Dutch.


It might be an English sabotage attempt. We all know how much they love their cucumber sandwiches.


Not a personal favourite, but its somewhat a national pastime for those over 60