Would you rather live in the United States or the Roman Empire?

[opebo]

I don't understand why you two fellows assumed I was presuming elite membership in my post.

Because it's obvious your life wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now if you weren't. The variety of modern conveniences due to modern technology make the average person's life easy in comparison to that of the average Roman's. Is the weather too hot for you? Today you'd likely have air conditioning or at the very least an electric fan, in Rome you'd just have to live with it. Want to read a book? Sorry, in Rome the printing press hasn't been invented yet, books and scrolls are expensive. Want to stay up late? Sorry, buying enough candles for sufficient lighting is expensive, and the lightbulb hasn't been invented yet. Need to go to the bathroom? Your chamberpot is over there - indoor plumbing is too expensive. Need to preserve some meat? Well, better salt it - refrigeration hasn't been invented yet either. Need to become immune to a disease? Sorry, no vaccinations either. Do I really need to go on about the modern conveniences that make life much easier for pretty much everyone in this country?

Yes, that is all glaringly obvious and has nothing to do with my post.  I consider the lives of the toiling classes to be insupportably miserable both now and then, electric fans notwithstanding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Typical opebo - acting as if there's an objectively 'better' lifestyle. Yet, I have no doubt now you're going to claim that it's all subjective. But the way you act blatantly contradicts your supposed beliefs of subjectivity, so don't expect us to take you at all seriously.[/quote]

Obviously being wealthy or powerful is objectively better, Dibble, in the same way that having two coconuts is better than having one.  What is subjective is what one prefers to do with one's wealth and power.  But having the options is quite objectively preferrable to not having them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm aware that you do not mind your servile status.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have never made any statements about being 'better' than anyone else.  Such things are determined by class and birth, and it would be silly for one to comment or take credit for advantage, just as it is silly for workers to be proud of their petty 'acheivements'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Look who's talking, Dibble.  Your arbitrary assumptions about what constitutes 'force' or 'rights' are ridiculously narrowminded, like those of all libertarians.

[Storebought]

The Christian Roman Empire.

I have immense difficulty imagining you speaking Greek and wearing a himation. But I can see you kissing the Icon of the Black Madonna before battling the Persians.

To answer the (actually interesting) question -- In Roman Empire, I would likely be confined to some desert hellhole in Numidia, where the best I could hope for in life is personal slave to a Berber tribesman, who himself is a servant to the Roman proconsul.

I can imagine other scenaria (hoodrat in the native quarter of Alexandria, petty shopowner in Carthago Novo, etc.), but they are even less appealing than slavery.

I'd take 21st century America (hell, even 19th century America) over Rome, TYVM.

[NewFederalist]

Good response, Storebought. You are an excellent poster!

[John Dibble]

I don't understand why you two fellows assumed I was presuming elite membership in my post.

Because it's obvious your life wouldn't be nearly as good as it is now if you weren't. The variety of modern conveniences due to modern technology make the average person's life easy in comparison to that of the average Roman's. Is the weather too hot for you? Today you'd likely have air conditioning or at the very least an electric fan, in Rome you'd just have to live with it. Want to read a book? Sorry, in Rome the printing press hasn't been invented yet, books and scrolls are expensive. Want to stay up late? Sorry, buying enough candles for sufficient lighting is expensive, and the lightbulb hasn't been invented yet. Need to go to the bathroom? Your chamberpot is over there - indoor plumbing is too expensive. Need to preserve some meat? Well, better salt it - refrigeration hasn't been invented yet either. Need to become immune to a disease? Sorry, no vaccinations either. Do I really need to go on about the modern conveniences that make life much easier for pretty much everyone in this country?

Yes, that is all glaringly obvious and has nothing to do with my post.  I consider the lives of the toiling classes to be insupportably miserable both now and then, electric fans notwithstanding.

Typical. As usual you deny the obvious even though you admit it's obvious. Clearly the average person's life is much better than it was back then, and you ignore it and claim we're equally 'miserable' as the people then. I think you're the one that's miserable and crying out for attention - why else would you come to a forum where you are insulted regularly by the majoriy? You spend half the year in a place you can't stand. You bitch, moan, whine about everything and blame everything on everyone else. What a lonely, miserable existence you must lead if you have to come here for attention. Pity. Just leave already - nobody will miss you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, prove it's better. If it's objectively better, then you should be able to offer some sort of scientific proof. Of course, if it isn't subjective, then why do some people take vows of poverty? Obviously, such a person would subjectively prefer poverty, so your statement of objectivity has easily been proven false.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But wait, aren't all of us poor workers miserable? You're contradicting yourself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said you said you are, I said you act like you are. And being born rich doesn't make someone better either - you're a prime example really, a pathetic miserable excuse for a human being.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You've yet to explain how not forcing someone to do something or not getting in someone's way is force, and until you do you should just shut your ignorant mouth.

[AkSaber]

The U.S. by far, even if the technology levels were the same.

[opebo]

Obviously being wealthy or powerful is objectively better, Dibble, in the same way that having two coconuts is better than having one.  What is subjective is what one prefers to do with one's wealth and power.  But having the options is quite objectively preferrable to not having them.

Ok, prove it's better. If it's objectively better, then you should be able to offer some sort of scientific proof.

Obviously because if you have two coconuts, your covered if you want 1, or if you want 2.  If you have two and want one, you discard the other, or if you want two, you eat both.  If you only have one, then you're much more likely to not have your desires met - for example if you want two, you're in a terrible pickle.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A vow of poverty is only meaningful if one is not poor.   One isn't choosing it if it is already imposed upon one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, simpleton.  Poverty can always be immediately acquired by discarding wealth.  So being wealthy and powerful is always preferable as a starting point because one has then the options of being either wealthy or poor.  One has objectively more options.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But wait, aren't all of us poor workers miserable? You're contradicting yourself.[/quote]

No, because I never said that.  Please try to confine your comments to my actual posts and not something you made up, Dibble.  Naturally many workers are too stupid and deluded to realize their condition.   Hence my frequent post on their 'hubris'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is your subjective opinion, Dibble.  But in the sense of real power and position in the social heirarchy, a rich is always superior to the poor.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Imposition of 'property rights' are a blatant use of force, Dibble.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

taking away people's property is an imposition of force. not allowing people to keep their property.

[John Dibble]

Obviously being wealthy or powerful is objectively better, Dibble, in the same way that having two coconuts is better than having one.  What is subjective is what one prefers to do with one's wealth and power.  But having the options is quite objectively preferrable to not having them.

Ok, prove it's better. If it's objectively better, then you should be able to offer some sort of scientific proof.

Obviously because if you have two coconuts, your covered if you want 1, or if you want 2.  If you have two and want one, you discard the other, or if you want two, you eat both.  If you only have one, then you're much more likely to not have your desires met - for example if you want two, you're in a terrible pickle.

If I don't want a second coconut that means I have to go through the trouble of disposing of it. That would take effort, which I know is something you hate, and if going through that effort is more trouble than it is worth in having the second then it is not better to have the second. So, having two not objectively better, as it depends on my subjective preference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not really, even by your stupid and highly arbitrary standards of what constitutes 'poor'. By choosing a vow of poverty, one swears off any attempts to attain any luxury whatsoever. Since even by your definition of 'poors', most can attain some degree of non-necessity goods. So, by taking a vow of poverty one swears off pretty much everything but food and clothing, possibly shelter too. Still, you've yet to show that such a choice doesn't show subjective preference

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, simpleton.  Poverty can always be immediately acquired by discarding wealth.  So being wealthy and powerful is always preferable as a starting point because one has then the options of being either wealthy or poor.  One has objectively more options.[/quote]

'Simpleton'? Still acting like you're better than everyone else I see. Anyways, if one desires poverty over wealth, then having the option of wealth is irrelevant, now isn't it? If one prefers coconuts over apples, and one is asked to choose to receive one or the other, one wouldn't really care whether one had a choice of apples or not since coconuts are already preferred. Perhaps you might reconsider who the simpleton is if you can't think of logic that simple.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I do apologize - after all, I'm sure you've never pulled 'information' out of your ass before. I'm sure your 'vast general knowledge' comes from years of scientific study.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here you go again, acting like you're better than everyone else. "Everyone who disagrees with me is st00pid!!!!1111"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is your subjective opinion, Dibble.  But in the sense of real power and position in the social heirarchy, a rich is always superior to the poor.[/quote]

Which is utterly irrelevant as the rich being better is your subjective opinion. And the poor far outnumber the rich - how do you think the rich get taxed at higher rates? Or perhaps when the French nobility where beheaded by the poor their massive inherently better power enabled them to magically survive? So, to say that the rich are always more powerful than the poor is just plain ignorant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Imposition of 'property rights' are a blatant use of force, Dibble.
[/quote]

As I said in another thread, it only takes force when someone tries to take property away by force. If there were no such thing as property rights, people would still use force to defend the things and land they have just as others would use force to try to take them away. Seeing as the vast majority of people see that a codified system makes less force and worry required, it's hardly forced on people.

[Gabu]

Obviously because if you have two coconuts, your covered if you want 1, or if you want 2.  If you have two and want one, you discard the other, or if you want two, you eat both.  If you only have one, then you're much more likely to not have your desires met - for example if you want two, you're in a terrible pickle.

Having two coconuts instead of one is rather different than being wealthy and powerful.  Were I wealthy and powerful, I would likely be well-known, and quite frankly, I seriously dislike the limelight, let alone the feeling of always being watched.  I would also probably be largely self-conscious about everything I did.  Quite frankly, I like my life exactly as it is now, and I have no desire whatsoever to be wealthy and powerful.  I can fulfill my needs and desires with plenty left over to use for charity or to save for a later date.

What you meant to say is that you would prefer to be wealthy and powerful.