Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ProZocK]

I think it had more with kings wanting more authority over their own countries, rather being co-rulers with the Church.

Yes, but if the people were fine and dandy with the inquisition, and loved the way it worked, would the king be capable of changing the power structure like that? The power base of the Church was mined by their actions.
But honestly, the main point of the Theocracy argument was the evolution of religion by itself. How many different groups do you have in every single major religion today? How long until a group that's extremely fundamentalist( every religion has those) start trying to make everyone think their way, and structures like the Inquisition are born?
Maybe I should be more clear about my "It does not work"argument. I don't mean its unimplementable, I mean that, when you compare it with The current power structure, most people would probably do not prefer it. And unless we start living in a society like the one in 1984 by George Orwell, people will force change.
As I said, Capitalism is not the best or forever, but a new system has to be created to replace it, the others we have today would not be better in any way. 

[DJ]

I don't think that kings cared much for opinions of commoners.

[ProZocK]

I don't think that kings cared much for opinions of commoners.

They didn't. But as the French revolution showed, when people get fed up they lash out. If they loved the inquisition and the rule of the church so much, would they not act to protect it?

[DJ]

Peasant rebellions were regularly squashed throughout Middle Ages and Renaissance.

[ProZocK]

Peasant rebellions were regularly squashed throughout Middle Ages and Renaissance.

And how many rebellions there were thanks to the King taking power form the church?
We can spend all day arguing that this worked for Spain on the middle ages for a limited period of time. But the fact is it made people more miserable then they were and people were glad it was gone. How is that a success? Do you prefer a Government that can kill you for your religious choices or one that takes religion out of the picture, since everyone can interpret in a different way.     

[DJ]

Well of course it's worse, I'm just arguing that it can work.

[ProZocK]

Well of course it's worse, I'm just arguing that it can work.

That is why I explained:

Maybe I should be more clear about my "It does not work"argument. I don't mean its unimplementable, I mean that, when you compare it with The current power structure, most people would probably do not prefer it. And unless we start living in a society like the one in 1984 by George Orwell, people will force change.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

     Socialism is beautiful, but Marx, while writing "The Capital" took heavily on Rousseau thinking that men is inherently good.

I would argue that man is inherently good, but is able to justify doing things really really well. People think that people in positions of power are horrible people. I know a few big oil execs and they are generally put in positions where doing some of their bullshit seems like a good option. Power corrupts holds true. The only person I know that I think isn't inherently good is my step grandmother whom is likely a psychopath by definition, so she doesn't count.

Of course, being able to justify doing anything is kind of just a loophole; it's effectively the same thing.

I would argue that there is no inherent concept of "good". Morality is a cultural phenomenon that exists to produce a workable society, and can only be relied upon when enforced with a proverbial headsman's axe. Of course, the issue is far more complex than "people are thieving, lying murderers who can only be trusted not to cut your throat when you have a gun to their head", and consequences take many more shapes than formal punishment (losing face in the eyes of one's peers, social alienation, destroying social bonds, etc).

I would also argue that power doesn't corrupt: corruption empowers. Corruption is a means to an end, and in the case of someone who would not otherwise behave in a corrupt manner, but begins doing so after acquiring power, it can be assumed that they do so because that power has made the results of corruption palpable, that the office they obtained has brought them into social circles wherein they have the opportunity to profit from corruption, or that their new found power has left them beyond reproach, so they may behave as they wanted without fear of consequences. There is no intrinsic property to power that causes it to corrupt, but corruption is always a path to power, whether it's real or imaginary. Hence corrupt individuals ending up in power in the first place...

[ProZocK]

I would argue that there is no inherent concept of "good". Morality is a cultural phenomenon that exists to produce a workable society, and can only be relied upon when enforced with a proverbial headsman's axe. Of course, the issue is far more complex than "people are thieving, lying murderers who can only be trusted not to cut your throat when you have a gun to their head", and consequences take many more shapes than formal punishment (losing face in the eyes of one's peers, social alienation, destroying social bonds, etc).

I would also argue that power doesn't corrupt: corruption empowers. Corruption is a means to an end, and in the case of someone who would not otherwise behave in a corrupt manner, but begins doing so after acquiring power, it can be assumed that they do so because that power has made the results of corruption palpable, that the office they obtained has brought them into social circles wherein they have the opportunity to profit from corruption, or that their new found power has left them beyond reproach, so they may behave as they wanted without fear of consequences. There is no intrinsic property to power that causes it to corrupt, but corruption is always a path to power, whether it's real or imaginary. Hence corrupt individuals ending up in power in the first place...

Thank you for explaining this in a better way than I could.

[Nikov]

You guys realize the Inquisition was only for Catholics and was one of the best documented legal systems in Europe, right?

No, nevermind. You'll all think I'm trolling if I said that. Instead, back to topic.

Capitalism profits from greed.
Communism profits from fairness.

Man is inherently greedy.
Man will always act out of greed.
Greed will always be the driving force of society.
Society must be organized to profit from greed.
Capitalism is thus ideal.

Man is inherently fair.
Man will always act out of fairness.
Fairness will always be the driving force of society.
Society must be organized to profit from fairness.
Communism is thus ideal.

Only one of these options is correct on both premise and conclusion.

[ProZocK]

You guys realize the Inquisition was only for Catholics and was one of the best documented legal systems in Europe, right?

No, nevermind. You'll all think I'm trolling if I said that. Instead, back to topic.

Capitalism profits from greed.
Communism profits from fairness.

Man is inherently greedy.
Man will always act out of greed.
Greed will always be the driving force of society.
Society must be organized to profit from greed.
Capitalism is thus ideal.

Man is inherently fair.
Man will always act out of fairness.
Fairness will always be the driving force of society.
Society must be organized to profit from fairness.
Communism is thus ideal.

Only one of these options is correct on both premise and conclusion.

I wont think you are trolling. But we have to agree that even though it was one of the best documented legal system, it does not mean it is ideal or should be implemented as of today, as we are considering today's power structure.
And your logical arguments are flawless, but there is always room for a new system to be created using different judging rules and be the ideal one.

[de5me7]

     The problem about Capitalism is that it sucks, but compared to the alternatives, its probably the best we came up with.

     Socialism is beautiful, but Marx, while writing "The Capital" took heavily on Rousseau thinking that men is inherently good. I am not saying most men are evil, but there are some pretty bad people out there, and usually they are the ones who end in a position of power. One only have to look to the socialist countries of today to see that unfortunately the transition from socialism to true communism is impossible thanks to the need of having a leader figure to start the process, and that leader figure ending up becoming a dictator( Fidel, Mao, Lenin and Stalin). On paper socialism is perfect, but since men are not, its doomed to fail.

     It is my belief the Anarchism would only lead to a fractured society, that in time would have to rebuild the current power structure. Its pretty cool to believe we don't need a government, but when there is no police who will stop someone to stealing your stuff? Your community? What about that other community thats twice as big and wants your stuff? You better get some other communities to join you, and then the politics start all over.

     Theocracy would work if everyone would follow the same Religion, and in the same way. Pretty impossible, since the evolution of ideas will always make people interpret things in a different way.

     I believe there no need to address Monarchy and Feudalism.

     So when all is said and done, what alternative do we have today?

i agree, although i dont like capitalism, it is the best working system we have come up with, beyond a benevolent dictaorship.

most political and economic systems would work well if the people in them were inheritantly good and didnt seek to exploit the system for their own gain. I dont believe man is inhertiantly good, but inhertitantly self serving.

[Leafsnail]

I think "exploit the system to their own gain" is pretty much the problem with capitalism, too :/.

[Footkerchief]

You guys realize the Inquisition was only for Catholics

Your use of "for" is ambiguous here, but the Inquisition punished tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews by expelling them from the country.  They also targeted Muslims and Protestants.

was one of the best documented legal systems in Europe, right?

What does that have to do with anything? 

[Leafsnail]

Also, I didn't expect to see attempts to justify the Spanish Inquisition here :/.