Gyroscopic Investing

boglerdude wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.

I think you are confusing monarchism with oligarchy. That said there is a certain hereditary aspect given the staggering levels of wealth being transferred from one generation to another with little or no tax.

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am Ad, I'm curious...What were the problems with the Enlightenment? I hadn't heard that described negatively before.

Also, you could make a case that the history of the Roman Church's dominion prior to the Reformation was no better than what you described post-Reformation: it effectively shut down scientific and economic progress in Europe for centuries, spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, and in no small part contributed to a never-ending series of plagues among which was the Black Death. Living conditions at that time, if you weren't a member of the aristocracy, were possibly worse than they have been in any era in Europe's history. How exactly was post-Reformation worse?

The Counter Enlightenment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The Roman Church's record on science is decidedly mixed. Often it was excellent. The modern civil calendar, also known as the Gregorian Calendar, is an example of their contributions. At other times they were stubbornly stuck in the past. The Inquisition was a horror. But the crusades were just a natural reaction to the militant expansionism of Islam which set out to convert the world at sword point, and very nearly succeeded. The Reformation also had the effect of dividing Christianity in its hour of greatest peril. The newly Protestant states of Northern Europe generally refused to send military aid to the Catholic states in Southern Europe that were the front line in resistance to the Islamic invasions of Europe. I don't think the Roman Church can be blamed for the various outbreaks of plague.

Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:53 pm

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am Ad, I'm curious...What were the problems with the Enlightenment? I hadn't heard that described negatively before.

Also, you could make a case that the history of the Roman Church's dominion prior to the Reformation was no better than what you described post-Reformation: it effectively shut down scientific and economic progress in Europe for centuries, spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, and in no small part contributed to a never-ending series of plagues among which was the Black Death. Living conditions at that time, if you weren't a member of the aristocracy, were possibly worse than they have been in any era in Europe's history. How exactly was post-Reformation worse?

The Counter Enlightenment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The Roman Church's record on science is decidedly mixed. Often it was excellent. The modern civil calendar, also known as the Gregorian Calendar, is an example of their contributions. At other times they were stubbornly stuck in the past. The Inquisition was a horror. But the crusades were just a natural reaction to the militant expansionism of Islam which set out to convert the world at sword point, and very nearly succeeded. The Reformation also had the effect of dividing Christianity in its hour of greatest peril. The newly Protestant states of Northern Europe generally refused to send military aid to the Catholic states in Southern Europe that were the front line in resistance to the Islamic invasions of Europe. I don't think the Roman Church can be blamed for the various outbreaks of plague.

I don't know any good books on the matter, but I heard a good "debunk" of the Crusades being "defensive" by Youtube user "Three Arrows." Yes, I realize this is YouTube, but the guy seems pretty damn smart... It seems like a good primer on the topic but I'd be interested in a much deeper dive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejdlkfXwPQc

I'd also be curious to know your take on the church's involvement or non-involvement in rampant Antisemitism in Europe, both before and during the rise and fall of Fascism in Europe. Key being the rampant pogroms that were far more of a threat to Jews in Europe & Russia than in Jews in the Middle East.

Ad Orientem wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 10:53 pm

WiseOne wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2019 6:21 am Ad, I'm curious...What were the problems with the Enlightenment? I hadn't heard that described negatively before.

Also, you could make a case that the history of the Roman Church's dominion prior to the Reformation was no better than what you described post-Reformation: it effectively shut down scientific and economic progress in Europe for centuries, spawned the Crusades and the Inquisition, and in no small part contributed to a never-ending series of plagues among which was the Black Death. Living conditions at that time, if you weren't a member of the aristocracy, were possibly worse than they have been in any era in Europe's history. How exactly was post-Reformation worse?

The Counter Enlightenment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

The Roman Church's record on science is decidedly mixed. Often it was excellent. The modern civil calendar, also known as the Gregorian Calendar, is an example of their contributions. At other times they were stubbornly stuck in the past. The Inquisition was a horror. But the crusades were just a natural reaction to the militant expansionism of Islam which set out to convert the world at sword point, and very nearly succeeded. The Reformation also had the effect of dividing Christianity in its hour of greatest peril. The newly Protestant states of Northern Europe generally refused to send military aid to the Catholic states in Southern Europe that were the front line in resistance to the Islamic invasions of Europe. I don't think the Roman Church can be blamed for the various outbreaks of plague.

Still doesn't really answer my question...the Enlightment included things like Newtonian mechanics, the US Constitution, the concept of separation of church and state, individual liberties, and reason being the main path to knowledge. Of course there would be people who didn't like this at the time, but that doesn't mean they were negative developments. If you have an argument that they were I'd be interested to hear it.

Also yes, I do blame the Church indirectly for the outbreaks of plague. No, they didn't develop the bacteria in a secret lab or bring in the rats and fleas. But the feudal system with an aristocracy claiming legitimacy via the Church, that the serfs were not to question lest they be accused of heresy.
The degeneration of living conditions for non-aristocrats that resulted most certainly created the perfect conditions for an epidemic.

The US Constitution's explicit exclusion of religion as a basis for government is something we take for granted now, but it was a highly novel idea at the time. Contrast the preamble starting with"We the People..." to the Magna Carta: "John, by the grace of God King of England..."

See the difference? You as an ordinary person can question a secular government, but if you question John's authority you're acting against God. I personally see this as progress.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. I guess there's good and bad coming out of Mr M.B.S.

The more time I've spent learning about the time period being described the more I chalk it all up to "man." I agree that the Catholic Church became spectacularly corrupt; however, the reality is that good old fashioned power politics that have been around since we formed political systems of any sort were probably a larger factor than the Catholic Church. For at least some of the period I think we can consider the church as being more of the superpower of the day.

In other words, on the surface things seem based on religion (which no doubt was a significant ideological contextual factor) but ultimately the real drivers of the time period were secular (land, power, wealth...all the usual stuff).

Luther in his own unique way, was basically calling "it" for what it was.

https://antoniusaquinas.com/2016/05/01/ ... it-so-bad/

Feudalism, was it so bad?

Also, you might be interested in hans Hermann hoppe,s book " democracy The God that failed"

https://mises.org/library/democracy-god-failed-1

Or search for his YouTube lectures on the same subject

boglerdude wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.

If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.

I cannot tell if you are being facetious or not since we did not have federal income taxes until 1913 (I believe).

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:33 pm

boglerdude wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.

If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.

vnatale wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:07 pm I cannot tell if you are being facetious or not since we did not have federal income taxes until 1913 (I believe).

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:33 pm

boglerdude wrote: ↑Thu Oct 03, 2019 11:12 pm Billionaires are our monarchy. Singapore pays pays public servants millions to reduce bribery. Not sure yet if I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Singapore

Why is the president allowed to hide his tax returns, if youre not willing to be transparent dont run for office.

If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.

So you do know something about American history!
That puts you way ahead of most leftists.

I am a self-described moderate Independent. But from the view of someone on the right, I guess that looks left.

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:37 pm

vnatale wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:07 pm I cannot tell if you are being facetious or not since we did not have federal income taxes until 1913 (I believe).

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:33 pm

If the Founders had wanted Presidential candidates to be forced to make their tax returns public, they would have put that in the Constitution.

So you do know something about American history!
That puts you way ahead of most leftists.

I guess you make my point!

Please educate me on any of the ways Trump represented the conservative position prior to him opportunisticly deciding to run as a Republican?

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:06 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:09 am I am a self-described moderate Independent. But from the view of someone on the right, I guess that looks left.

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:37 pm

So you do know something about American history!
That puts you way ahead of most leftists.

If you support any of the current Democrats in preference to Trump, you are a leftist.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:06 am If you support any of the current Democrats in preference to Trump, you are a leftist.

On the contrary. That statement might've worked for Republican candidates prior to Trump. There must be plenty of people in the center who have a problem with Trump. Even some on the right do.

That's not to say that the far left isn't scary. It is.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:24 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:07 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:06 am If you support any of the current Democrats in preference to Trump, you are a leftist.

On the contrary. That statement might've worked for Republican candidates prior to Trump. There must be plenty of people in the center who have a problem with Trump. Even some on the right do.

That's not to say that the far left isn't scary. It is.

You don't have to like Trump.
But you do have to support him over any of the current Democrat Presidential candidates.
They are all insane or pretending to be insane.

That is quite the statement. I've not been around here long enough to get a take of who you are and where you stand on specific positions. I'd like to see how we differ on certain specific issues.

Several years ago a friend of mine and I had supper and we discussed all the issues. He always has voted for the Republican presidential candidate while I have always voted for the Democratic candidate. Yet on every issue we brought up we agreed!

Vinny

vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:25 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:24 pm

dualstow wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:07 pm

On the contrary. That statement might've worked for Republican candidates prior to Trump. There must be plenty of people in the center who have a problem with Trump. Even some on the right do.

That's not to say that the far left isn't scary. It is.

You don't have to like Trump.
But you do have to support him over any of the current Democrat Presidential candidates.
They are all insane or pretending to be insane.

That is quite the statement. I've not been around here long enough to get a take of who you are and where you stand on specific positions. I'd like to see how we differ on certain specific issues.

Several years ago a friend of mine and I had supper and we discussed all the issues. He always has voted for the Republican presidential candidate while I have always voted for the Democratic candidate. Yet on every issue we brought up we agreed!

Vinny

Sounds like either you or your Friend may be looking at the glass half empty or half full.
I try to not identify as a Dem or Rep or any Party, I just look at Politics from what I was taught/believe between right and wrong.
Good Luck

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:25 pm

vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:25 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:24 pm

You don't have to like Trump.
But you do have to support him over any of the current Democrat Presidential candidates.
They are all insane or pretending to be insane.

That is quite the statement. I've not been around here long enough to get a take of who you are and where you stand on specific positions. I'd like to see how we differ on certain specific issues.

Several years ago a friend of mine and I had supper and we discussed all the issues. He always has voted for the Republican presidential candidate while I have always voted for the Democratic candidate. Yet on every issue we brought up we agreed!

Vinny

By all means, start a new thread and we'll discuss whatever specific issues you want to discuss.

Thanks for the invitation. I shall do it gradually, issue by issue.

Vinny

shekels wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:49 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:25 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:24 pm

You don't have to like Trump.
But you do have to support him over any of the current Democrat Presidential candidates.
They are all insane or pretending to be insane.

That is quite the statement. I've not been around here long enough to get a take of who you are and where you stand on specific positions. I'd like to see how we differ on certain specific issues.

Several years ago a friend of mine and I had supper and we discussed all the issues. He always has voted for the Republican presidential candidate while I have always voted for the Democratic candidate. Yet on every issue we brought up we agreed!

Vinny

Sounds like either you or your Friend may be looking at the glass half empty or half full.
I try to not identify as a Dem or Rep or any Party, I just look at Politics from what I was taught/believe between right and wrong.
Good Luck

The only time I have been a member of a political party when I am a member of the Democratic party for less than 5 minutes so I can vote in their primaries. I live in Massachusetts so the Republican candidates generally lose no matter what the office.

Though I've always voted for the Democratic presidential candidate I have probably voted half and half for the Massachusetts state governor.

I too independent to be a member of a political party where you are seemingly supposed to be all believe all the same things about every issue.

It's just not the way we do things in businesses and organizations. We each make up our minds issue by issue and sometimes I may be on the same side of an issue with someone while be in the opposite side of someone on a different issue.

Vinny

vnatale wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:09 am I am a self-described moderate Independent. But from the view of someone on the right, I guess that looks left.

Vinny

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:37 pm

vnatale wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:07 pm I cannot tell if you are being facetious or not since we did not have federal income taxes until 1913 (I believe).

Vinny

So you do know something about American history!
That puts you way ahead of most leftists.

I’m a self described Reagan Republican which looks left...weird politics we have nowadays. I’ll just call a spade a spade, the R Party is now what used to be known as southern democrats. On its current path, I predict several western states will eventually flip to something other than red but not the current blue. At that point if it wants to remain a serious party it will have to reinvent itself. That’s not unusual historically. The state to watch closely is Texas. If it begins to turn, lights out for Rs on the national level as they are totally non competitive in CA. Given CAs electoral size it’s actually very difficult for any Republican to win the presidency.

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:21 am The state to watch closely is Texas. If it begins to turn, lights out for Rs on the national level as they are totally non competitive in CA. Given CAs electoral size it’s actually very difficult for any Republican to win the presidency.

So true. And sadly, the Californication of Texas continues.

dualstow wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:37 am

Kbg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:21 am The state to watch closely is Texas. If it begins to turn, lights out for Rs on the national level as they are totally non competitive in CA. Given CAs electoral size it’s actually very difficult for any Republican to win the presidency.

So true. And sadly, the Californication of Texas continues.

My personal views are pretty hardcore on this stuff. To Democrats I say boo hoo you keep losing at the electoral college level. You can fix that, be competitive outside the coasts. To Republicans who lost CA and the odds are good AZ and TX are going to flip in the next 10 years, boo hoo to you as well. You can fix that, be competitive in urban areas.

Ref CA, not my cup of tea. But, it works for the people who live there and that’s what democracy is all about.