((No love for Benjamin Rutledge.))
((Nor for the grandson of the greatest American in this TL so far.))
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
((Nor for the grandson of the greatest American in this TL so far.))
Republic and commonwealth are synonymous.
I'll send some chocolate, with a cabinet position or a card or something.
I'll send some chocolate, with a cabinet position or a card or something.
Last edited:
Actually commonwealths and republics are different. A commonwealth could have any form of government in the interest of that "common good", and examples from history and the modern world include republics, federations and confederations, and constitutional monarchies. That is, it is not necessarily a free system, as long as it has the pretense of of being for the "common good."
A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government where governing is done by a group of representatives of the people, whether wholly elected by the general public or not. That is, it guarantees rights, but also prevents mob rule, and the other harms of democracy and tyranny.
And Mr. Callahan, to say that I dislike the principle of a commonwealth on the sole basis that is sounds like welfare, is foolish, fallacious, and folly. I support the public's welfare; I simply differ on the machine by which to aid them. I do not believe that the government should be in the habit of creating dependents on itself, and also question the effectiveness, the quality, of said 'welfare.'
I believe the best form of welfare is a job, Mr. Callahan, not a handout.
A republic, on the other hand, is a form of government where governing is done by a group of representatives of the people, whether wholly elected by the general public or not. That is, it guarantees rights, but also prevents mob rule, and the other harms of democracy and tyranny.
And Mr. Callahan, to say that I dislike the principle of a commonwealth on the sole basis that is sounds like welfare, is foolish, fallacious, and folly. I support the public's welfare; I simply differ on the machine by which to aid them. I do not believe that the government should be in the habit of creating dependents on itself, and also question the effectiveness, the quality, of said 'welfare.'
I believe the best form of welfare is a job, Mr. Callahan, not a handout.
Last edited:
A republic or a commonwealth ((disregarding anachronistic connotations)) is not inherently any form of political structure, but are both formed on the basis of a 'common benefit'. A commonwealth of states would therefore be a mutual organisation for the benefit of all constituent parts (ie: the states). Your oligarchic conception of the republic would be included in that definition.
A commonwealth, as the name implies, is built on the principle of the common good, a collective idea, where the whole is more important than its parts; or, the individual is less important than the needs of the community, and the community, the state.
A republic, come from, Res Publica, meaning, 'for the people,' which bears no collective or individualistic connotations; however, our form of government, a federal republic built around the Constitution, is fundamentally built on individualism, and the equality under law.
As well, you implied democratic principles, which allow mob rule, and undermine the Rule of Law in favour of the Rule of Men, or, as I've said many times already, the Tyranny of the Majority.
Now, I am certain that are as firm a believer in equality as I am, Mr. Callahan: however, your belief in equality stems from equality in outcome; that is, that irregardless of the talent, or the efficiency, of one person to another, they are paid, or are treated equally. My view of equality is this: all men, have the opportunity to succeed. As Benjamin Franklin wrote "the Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." I support equality under the law, and the equality of opportunity, but I do not believe the government should be a guarantor of happiness, or your version of equality. For at that point, government has gone from giving people fair treatment, to weakening the strong, dumbing down the intelligent, and crippling the fast.
A republic, come from, Res Publica, meaning, 'for the people,' which bears no collective or individualistic connotations; however, our form of government, a federal republic built around the Constitution, is fundamentally built on individualism, and the equality under law.
As well, you implied democratic principles, which allow mob rule, and undermine the Rule of Law in favour of the Rule of Men, or, as I've said many times already, the Tyranny of the Majority.
Now, I am certain that are as firm a believer in equality as I am, Mr. Callahan: however, your belief in equality stems from equality in outcome; that is, that irregardless of the talent, or the efficiency, of one person to another, they are paid, or are treated equally. My view of equality is this: all men, have the opportunity to succeed. As Benjamin Franklin wrote "the Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." I support equality under the law, and the equality of opportunity, but I do not believe the government should be a guarantor of happiness, or your version of equality. For at that point, government has gone from giving people fair treatment, to weakening the strong, dumbing down the intelligent, and crippling the fast.
Disregarding most of the incorrect statements you just made, I will respond only to most important. The gross misinterpretation of my views.
Merit stems from a level playing field. Therefore I believe in equality before the law. But I also believe that a citizen has a right to a standard of opportunity in society, one which you are not necessarily opposed to as well. I do not believe the vital outcome is a quality and right to happiness provided by the state. I believe in giving each citizen the conditions to better themself through education, reasonably paid employment, health and sanitation without the requirement of belonging to a family of means. I believe that an unregulated economy and radical individualism will land us back into a quasi-feudal society.
Merit stems from a level playing field. Therefore I believe in equality before the law. But I also believe that a citizen has a right to a standard of opportunity in society, one which you are not necessarily opposed to as well. I do not believe the vital outcome is a quality and right to happiness provided by the state. I believe in giving each citizen the conditions to better themself through education, reasonably paid employment, health and sanitation without the requirement of belonging to a family of means. I believe that an unregulated economy and radical individualism will land us back into a quasi-feudal society.
A feudal society is hardly similar to my views. Feudalism is constricting, protectionist, mercantalist, and statist. My system, liberalized, free-trade oriented, capitalist, individualist, allows any man with talent and determination, to succeed on his own, relying on no-one else, and not being forced to provide for anyone else. Your system though, will put barriers on his progress; you will regulate his progress, subsidize the inefficiency of his rivals, and force him to carry the burden of the multitude of poor. For that matter, I do not believe in a wholly unregulated market; I simply support a more deregulated one. And what, in your opinion, is 'radical individualism?'
And what of democracy, which you did say you supported? Did you confuse republicanism with democracy? Or did you willingly advocate a system of mob rule, wracked with gridlock and inefficiency?
And what of democracy, which you did say you supported? Did you confuse republicanism with democracy? Or did you willingly advocate a system of mob rule, wracked with gridlock and inefficiency?
Feudalism was a system whereby individuals determine status by the amount of land owned and status of people they patronise, where people can gain status only by the patronage of others or the dominance of others. It's system that once focused on lands, but under an unregulated economy it would be capital that ruled. It is pre-statist, because the state was an evolution away from feudalism towards a more stable society. You propose a dystopia in which the common man is in a never ending struggle to climb the pyramid of wealth, and stands upon the backs of those unfortunate enough to be born to parents of lesser income.
I have said it before. There is no liberty in a country where social status can be achieved through wealth, rather than merit.
I have said it before. There is no liberty in a country where social status can be achieved through wealth, rather than merit.
Money does not come floating down from the door, Mr. Callahan. It is through merit that money is created, not the other way around. It is no dystopia, but a righteously difficult climb to the top through dedication and effort you seem to think is unfair. Perhaps you are merely the agitator of labor, nothing more?
No more than you are the agitator of the gentry, sir. I aim for honest competition, rather than a brutal class struggle.
I am confident that the American public is satisfied with my stance on the economy. I advocate no intervention in the economy that does not advantage the whole. Infrastructure, budget permitting; Education, to realise the potential of the next generation; Existing public services, that cannot be guaranteed by the market. I believe that a free populace and state government can work out the rest in a democratic manner.
I am confident that the American public is satisfied with my stance on the economy. I advocate no intervention in the economy that does not advantage the whole. Infrastructure, budget permitting; Education, to realise the potential of the next generation; Existing public services, that cannot be guaranteed by the market. I believe that a free populace and state government can work out the rest in a democratic manner.
Last edited:
The quick recap needs to be updated Gloa.
Also, I really liked that school textbook style speech you did. If anyone wants to make textbook sections for certain presidencies or chains of events, I'll be more than happy to link them to the front page. It would also be fun to see if people answered the questions.
Also, I really liked that school textbook style speech you did. If anyone wants to make textbook sections for certain presidencies or chains of events, I'll be more than happy to link them to the front page. It would also be fun to see if people answered the questions.
((From a turn of the century textbook:
"What campaign strategies did Eamon Callahan use to win his first presidential election?
In what ways was President Callahan the best president?"
Submit your answers in writing to the time mach... er... Science Office))
"What campaign strategies did Eamon Callahan use to win his first presidential election?
In what ways was President Callahan the best president?"
Submit your answers in writing to the time mach... er... Science Office))
See, Mr. Walsh, the beauty of it is; that man won't be making ten dollars! It could fifteen, twenty, possibly even a thousand, if he works hard. Do I believe the best should rise to the top? Absolutely; we need talented, industrious men, like Congressman Howard and Mr. Garrett, to lead our nation's business. Now, I am certain if you ask them whether or not they would be willing to fund charities and foundations for the poor, I am certain they would say they would. My sons have already began creating just such groups. The greatest advantage is; he bureaucracy won't run it. Yes, despite your fears of the market, it can allocate resources far better than government can.
Further, Mr. Callahan, how is my system not meritocratic; supporting the best, the brightest? If that is class warfare, are you implying that the poor are stupid, and the rich superior?
What is this great, unbridled fear of the free market? Why must the State, an inefficient, corrupt beast, become the chief provider of goods, of what you call 'welfare?' The market can much more easily, effectively and on a broader scale, help the poor. Your... Robin Hood-like mentalities astound me to no end.
((How Henry Jarvis, in his landslide victory, saved the Republic... I think it may be more accurate))
Further, Mr. Callahan, how is my system not meritocratic; supporting the best, the brightest? If that is class warfare, are you implying that the poor are stupid, and the rich superior?
What is this great, unbridled fear of the free market? Why must the State, an inefficient, corrupt beast, become the chief provider of goods, of what you call 'welfare?' The market can much more easily, effectively and on a broader scale, help the poor. Your... Robin Hood-like mentalities astound me to no end.
((How Henry Jarvis, in his landslide victory, saved the Republic... I think it may be more accurate))
Last edited:
Is it not the free market that offers free, fair, and efficient competition? Have the rivers of gold been created through benign government? No, it was through the industry of man. Your little state would dominate us in other ways, a society which emphasizes liberty deserves a free market, for what better system exists? Independence from the state is the best route for business, a state that should serve only to ensure the maintenance and construction of public infrastructure, help small families during crises, and subsidize education. That is sufficient to ensure society is well-kept, rather than ruinous government expansion.
Isn't exaggerating the gap between factory owner and worker an attempt to advocate dangerous thoughts? You may claim you are a man of the people, a new John Adams or Patrick Henry, but you are not one of them. Serving to dissatisfy the satisfied, what other things will you do to our perfectly acceptable society? Shall you, aside from expanding the social and economic role of government, strive to make sure every nook and cranny of our house is thoroughly examined? That our families lay prostate to the will of your government? Gentlemen, I see no need to support this man's cause. Let a gentler candidate arise from his party before considering such a platform, but not this!
Mr. Walsh seems to think the people of America suffer under our present system. He forgets we have advanced much from 1776, for we have made such great strides in industry and agriculture, that ten dollars now would be worth much more in their time! What man cannot have his bread and butter now, what wife her sugar and beef, what child his porridge and education? The great majority of our country enjoys the basic necessities of life and more, clearly a far cry from poverty. They enjoy this system, and so do I. What need do we have for government to be allowed to get its dirty hands on the status quo, to force change on a self-governing system? None, I tell you, none!
Isn't exaggerating the gap between factory owner and worker an attempt to advocate dangerous thoughts? You may claim you are a man of the people, a new John Adams or Patrick Henry, but you are not one of them. Serving to dissatisfy the satisfied, what other things will you do to our perfectly acceptable society? Shall you, aside from expanding the social and economic role of government, strive to make sure every nook and cranny of our house is thoroughly examined? That our families lay prostate to the will of your government? Gentlemen, I see no need to support this man's cause. Let a gentler candidate arise from his party before considering such a platform, but not this!
Mr. Walsh seems to think the people of America suffer under our present system. He forgets we have advanced much from 1776, for we have made such great strides in industry and agriculture, that ten dollars now would be worth much more in their time! What man cannot have his bread and butter now, what wife her sugar and beef, what child his porridge and education? The great majority of our country enjoys the basic necessities of life and more, clearly a far cry from poverty. They enjoy this system, and so do I. What need do we have for government to be allowed to get its dirty hands on the status quo, to force change on a self-governing system? None, I tell you, none!
Last edited:
Updated! I couldn't find a link for the Anti-monopoly Bill, though (and events in this primary - especially the character of the Federal Party - are still too fluid for me to record).The quick recap needs to be updated Gloa.
Also, I really liked that school textbook style speech you did. If anyone wants to make textbook sections for certain presidencies or chains of events, I'll be more than happy to link them to the front page. It would also be fun to see if people answered the questions.
((Very nice! Uhm... you forgot to put Mandrake on the Republican presidents list (add me while your at it ). I really can't help you with the Federalists. I think they're agriculturalists, support Democratic economic policy, and have no one view on Cuba, but I don't know for sure))
). I really can't help you with the Federalists. I think they're agriculturalists, support Democratic economic policy, and have no one view on Cuba, but I don't know for sure))
I have a question for all the candidates that support attacking cuba. Will we free Cuba or keep it? (( we have cores in Cuba a believe))
I've already stated we shall have a vote on the issue and we shall respect the wishes of the Cuban people.
Do I really have to call this with one vote for Glynn counting as the Federal primary?