Wednesday, March 5, 2008

Legalism, Human Nature, and Historical Circumstance

The Legalists present a definite 180 in terms of the advancement of human rights. In much the same way that the Babylonians, Hebrews, and early Indians dealt with laws, the Legalists in China were concerned first and foremost with security and survival; specifically, the survival of the state. The state was supreme. And people were just the selfish pawns that should be used to make the state survive as long as possible.

It is exceptionally important to understand how the concept of human nature shapes the laws created by the legalists, and how they contrast so sharply with people such as Asoka. Furthermore, and in a general sense, it is essential to this unit to understand how a group's concept of human nature helps completely and totally shape the laws that are enacted. In a society that feels that human nature is inherently good, laws that require citizen participation will most certainly develop. In a society that feels human nature is essentially selfish and/or evil, less participation would be required (because if people are evil, their participation in the creation of laws could only make the law worse). Every law code implies a certain belief about human nature, as as you see more law codes, this will become quite apparent.

Finally, its important to recognize the variation in legal development that's going on throughout the world in the ancient era. Different localized factors are affecting the manner in which the law develops in each geographic region, so each set of laws will develop at a unique pace and in unique ways. Environmental, political, and social factors affect each region in very different ways, and as such, the law becomes an expression of those differences. As the world becomes more interconnected, however, these different law codes begin to migrate from society to society through cultural diffusion, and the resulting law codes in later generations will be comprised of a mix of all these ancient law codes in some form. Legalism, Roman republicanism, Babylonian law, and a mix of others will all influence later generations, so even though some of these law codes flame out rather quickly, their impact remains. As we continue on in this unit, be on the lookout for characteristics of these ancient law codes in later codes.


coleslaw said...

Ill comment tomorrow, i'm not letting you down

Coleslaw said...

I know this has been a long anticipated post, by the fans of the writing blog. What struck me as odd was, when i heard legalism was as strict as it was. The reason why i never got that deep into politics or government styles was because i was never raised to care about them. Therefore if anything is hurtful, please accept my future apology. However, for me, legalism seemed extremely reasonable. Due to my lack of knowledge i imagined it as sort of the same as todays government in some areas. Han Fei-Tzu was extremely correct on his theory of you can't trust one man to do good, because chances are he won't. Therefore, what other options do you have? Slap a person every-time they do something bad, no, and your hand would hurt after a while. What i am trying to say is that legalism is the perfect solution and just put limits on the bad. I still don't even understand know on how it could possibly turn for the worse. unless someone conducting a genocide was like if you don't kill these people that is bad....I think that it was more so, don't do this and not, if you don't do this it is bad. (Get it?) Anyway, With civil laws of what i interpreted them to be as people having the say of what goes into a particular state or country i suppose. Therefore, you have these laws that people can't break or do, but then you have people having the chance to amend them if they so chose, and even then add laws that they feel are needed or wanted. Hmm... Does it sound familiar? If not, then I don't know what to tell you. To me it is like a cow and a piece of grass.....Funny right? But seriously.... what does the cow eat? grass. Then what? the cow becomes bigger and better to eat. Just like with this. Legalism uses civil laws to grow and then you have a country or a state with a lot of potential and then finally it becomes immensely strong. Just to agree with Han fei tzu, if you want less bad, but not necessarily more good, you must eliminate the bad factor. I would like to end with a quote, a first in blog history (2nd semester) as Thomas Paine said: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." And to finish with a better quote "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
-Edmund Burke

Anonymous said...

okay well this is from today but there is no new place to put it. Justinian's code although it is my favorite so far it is only my favorite becasue it begins to envelop all parts of the world under the law. I still think that it has a long way to go. I think that the laws of nations needs to either be more specific or just hinted as a concept in one of the other categories.

coleslaw said...


Shizue said...

I completely disagree with Cole.

Legalism stiffles a citizen's right to influence the administration. if morals are based upon the ideal of a ruler the ruler could become corrupt with power and manipulate the laws to serve his best interest. the total power given to the person in power would be so horribly tempting that the fight for the title would be violent and constant.

under legalism no citizen counts. every person is viewed as an ignorant android waiting for the enlightened ruler to come along and put you in action. if legalism was strictly enstated in any place in the world (meaning only the thoughts of the ruler were to be regarded), the beliefs of great thinkers would never have come to the surface. No one would care or know about Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. because they would just be viewed as worthless civillians. how on earth can that be an ideal political viewpoint [Cole]?

What horrible dictatorship would take control of the world if there was no room for everyone's voice to be heard?

i would be happy to hear your argument against that...though i would highly doubt you could argue against the need and desire for freedom of the people.

wiillie "coles always wrong" trieger said...

i also disagree with cole and therefore agree with shizue. cole, legalism is immensly cruel to the people. they have no say in what happens around them. the idea that you pose that humans normally do wrong is wrong. if people always do bad, how do we have technology, cars, computers, food, airplanes. those people were good, and smart. if what Han Fei-Tzu was saying WAS true, or society would be sooooo far back. humans have what no other animals have: empathy. we have the ability to care. we want to do good. any human would choose to save someone's life as opposed to kill them. although there are terrorists and "bad people" in the world, we are made up of good people that can and wil make a difference.
the example you use "if you slap a person, your hand will hurt" is SOOOOOOO wrong. america obviously is not hurt when we put people in jail. we will continue to do that. government's have no remorse when it comes to protection of citizens.
All in all, i disagree with you so much. you said a net of zero "good points". your constant babbling of cows and grass and hurt hands dont pertain to the idea of legalism at all: that the government helps people to do good. so, right now, two smart people have disagreed with what you said. interesting, i see themes in every one of your comments "i disagree with cole" "i actually think the opposite of cole" etc. that is probably pretty demoralizing.
I personally think legalism brings the advancment of humans backwards, and make the every day man feel useless.

ColeSlaw said...

Willie, What i don't understand is why you where talking about nothing for five minutes. Shizue i am sorry and i did not read your blog post my goal is to completley shut down willie. Willie I am glad you try and redeem your self with shutting me down, but shall we tango again? Now, When you say that legalism is immensely cruel to people, I fail to see how you are hitting my point exactly. I said I fail to see how legalism with Civil laws can be shut down. Now What that means is willie, is that you have restrictions on the bad things and you will not be able to do things that are bad…. Now, civil law has to come into play. Perspectives and interpreatations on these laws might be differe, but from the hw on the magna carta, we know that having interpreatations on things is not incorrect. With civil law, you have the people addmend what they do and dislike. hmmmm? Not familiar? What I don’t understand is that people do have the power here and are not just complete idiots being controlled by the government. Now Even then they are not being completely controlled by the government. You see, there is simply only restrtictions on the bad laws, right? Only the bad things people can’t do. Kind of, but just a shot in the dark like right now… You still have the freedom to do whatever the hell you want outside of the bad laws…Your telling my you rather have people just do bad and be on the trust system? IF so responded because I want to see your views on this piece, but chances are they will be as horrific as these. Because simply. to make sure people don’t do bad you must make sure they don’t do bad. Sound simple? yah put laws on the bad stuff. Obviously because you can’t understand that I will put it into simpler terms, don’t do the no no’s because you will get a time out. Even a 2 year old can understand that. Now, don’t be like they have no freedom…because, yes well they do. They have everything beyond the bad deeds or the no no’s and also they have civil law to amend rules they don’t want. So you well to tell me, we should legalize weed because even though it is a bad thing, because people don’t naturally do wrong, and won’t smoke it. Look around you big boy, it is illegal and people still smoke it. People will do bad if they are not told other wise. If you where a kid and wanted to eat ice cream all day and nothing else and that is a bad thing, and with no parents to tell you no, do you think you would stop doing it because you don’t naturally do wrong? No, we always do wrong and we will always do wrong until told other wise, one out of 100 thousand people will do purely good if they where no restrictions and that one person may be Ned Flanders (It’s a joke chill out) Do you really expect to find wood that looks exactly, and is perfectly scalped into a desk? No, not in one of a thousand or more! That is what I am saying, you won’t do good because you can do bad, plain and simple. Now willie, this is where I seriously ask you to stop trying to argue a point with a brain of a two year old….The reason why we have these great things like cars computers, airplanes and ect. was because of one reason. We where efficient and use science to the full extent. Want to know why? because well, yeah, they weren’t out doing bad. Do you really thing scientist would be devloping these things if there was no restrictions on bad. Why don’t the Ashoka people have electronics, they where on the trust system and didn’t do bad…why didn’t they build this, they had the same knowledge as us. Because they where on the trust system and they didn’t really need to do this, except help people. If everyone was to do all good, our country would be as far back as if people where to be doing all bad. I say this because people would just be helping people and people and animals and animals and plants and more plants and so on until your head explodes. So, I still fail to find after reading your argument about six times why having laws, restricts us today from making technology? O’ wait, it doesn’t, exactly. When people have restrictions on the bad, but still can do good, or at least neutral, they can focus on their work and do what they want and advance the work, or deadvance it due to global warming, but besides the point. Willie, now here is where you become bias. I quote “we have the ability to care. we want to do good. any human would choose to save someone's life as opposed to kill them.” Now see you only say that due to the enviorment you where raised up in. IF you where in a enviorment where people said killing was good, then you would have a different opinion. You can not make that generalzation, because well, you don’t have both sides. Is it right to kill? Is it right not to kill? We say no because it is how we are raised, and I also comply with that, but you can’t say something like that at least in a case like this right now. For instance, who are you to say that terrorist are bad people…You are in the position of an American, Who they attacked, But I mean I agree with you, but to them we are the bad people and killing us would bring them to a better place even if that meant giving their own how bad that sounds its true… Willie, why do you constantly continue to disprove yourself in your writing, you said we put people in jail, yah for doing bad, its because they broke the law, and I mean we still have restrictions and they do it, what happens if we had no restrictions on law, imagine that?

Now willie, time for the icing on the cake. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WHO SAID THAT BESIDES SHIZUE ANYOTHER TIME. And guess what when I talked to people outside of class and said did you read willie thing they said, why doesn’t he read yours first, he says completle irrelevant things. I don’t believe you have won the title of smart yet until you can make a compelling argument…Instead of bashing on me, read my post and put up a good bash on that. No one besides you has said I am wrong, look back on all of the blog post. as of now, due to mine and your lack of knowledge, we can’t say either one of us are right, just opinions….Now Because of that, What is your interpretations on civil law and legalism together? OR will you read past that question again and elude to something else? Willie, all and all, because we have laws has placed us to this new level of magnitude, and if you disagree, say other wise, but with civil law and being able to amend gives power to the people and the government makes the rules originally…I believe that reminds me of a certain place.

(Now, I want you all to know, I did not want to offend anyone, I simply was making a point, I don’t believe killing is right, I don’t believe that terrorism is good, I am just saying, if we where were to look back at these situations being non bais in the future of like 2000 years, still I hope I did not offend anyone and do apologize if I did)

As for shizue……..Not necisarly, see because it depends what type of government you are running under. If they where to try and go power crazy in the united states, one would surely fail because of the supreme court and the branches and so on. Also it does not give all power to one person…However the government….I know I should have been more specific on that, but if one person was to implement those rules in the united states or in any other country with a democracy or even a rebublic would not win because other people would be involved. Also, civil law provides that edge, it provides those other peoples views that would prevent someone like that from taking over a world. Under legalism, no citizens do bad. In the world we are all pawns and we move to advance and become stronger and stronger…One man could not physically take over the whole world by himself, he needs pawns. But besides that they count to push a country forward, and I think on how I interpret it is that people are just not allowed to do certain things, but besides that they have their rights. They count, just stay away from the bad. You are entitled to your opinion and I think it is a good one, however, with that being said, Han-Fie tzu, was a pholospher of greatness with many moving books and he surfaced because he wasn’t doing bad. Now the only point I can see you arguing is if you are saying that they are doing bad by speaking out. But then there they can use civil law and try and fight for a change, in which they did. I would not consider them worthless, Who would? In a chess game, it might not seem so, but pawns are not worthless they help you win the game essientally, strategy. These people where pawns in making the world a better palce, and they wouldn’t be considered nothing because they are still not doing bad and doing good. I can’t really spit this out but I will try one more time. You can’t really say legalism jeperdized freedom, except freedom of doing evil. Those people where something and everyone is something important, and simply legalism is just there to direct us to say don’t go do this because we view it as bad….Its because that is our enviorment that we will follow and so if we have a system like a democracy where one person can’t go ballistic and have civil laws, I find it somewhat hard that it does put jepordy on freedom…Other wise, I agree 500000000000% that if it was one person instating these laws that it would turn out horrible and then in that case you are completely and utterly right. I am sorry and should have specified, I guess due to miss understanding you won that battle even though I agree with you.

(Did not mean to offend anyone, I believe they all did great things for this world, and seriously did not intentionally say anything to purposely hurt anyone or offend anyone, I agree with shizue, Also the pawns where a metaphore and I didn’t mean that to offend anyone…. and I really do apologize if you viewed my argument as mean)

Shizue said...

animals have empathy. thats why they dont kill their young

Jeff "Cole is overrated at life" Cicurel said...

I agree with Shizue and completely disagree with Cole "I dont see where legalism could go wrong" Sosnoff.

Come on Cole are you trying to play the devils advocate here because there is no way that you can seriously agree with most aspects of Legalism. Without freedom this world would not be where it is at today. I will agree that Legalism is a perfect system to make a military and government in your words "immensely strong," but you are forgetting about the people!!! Society and its laws are also there to help the people--one thing that Legalism surly fails to do. Shizue is right, with a lack of freedom to protest the government, we would not have people such as Dr.King. Without freedom of speech Willie could not have even tried to argue Zhang into giving him a better grade. The fact is, Legalism may have been successful in becoming stronger, but its people were surly not happy and Legalism is clearly cruel and unusual. If you were to live under Legalism you would surly hate it. Cole, all you talk about is that everyone backs you up and not Willie and Shizue but only four people have wrote on the blog and everyone besides you disagrees with you!!! Get some Legalism supporters on the blog Cole because you fail to make any case that Legalism is successful as both a strong government, and a government where the civilians are actually happy. COUNTRIES WANT THEIR PEOPLE TO BE SAFE AND HAPPY. no matter how big and powerful they are. In closing, Cole Sosnoff lacks a number of points in is horrific argument, and he should just admit defeat because Legalism sucks. sorry about my language.

Jeff "Cole is overrated at life" Cicurel said...

p.s.- im not going to say much about your other post because you tried contradicting your first post to make yourself look a little better, well it doesn't make sense anymore. Making civil and even anything close to human right laws in Legalism would defeat the purpose of the system. The whole point of Legalism is that people cannot be trusted to do the right things, and people are all worth nearly nothing. Why would any of these humans deserve rights if Legalism characterizes them like this? I'll tell you--- IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!!! Putting civil laws into Legalism contradicts the whole purpose of the system, it just will not and would not happen. You cannot just say random things that could be added to Legalism unless they make sense!!! Kobe might make the Bulls better but we cannot just randomly add him to our roster!

Slaw "Jeff and WIllie read Blog Post" said...

1. I don't understand why people don't read all of my post! Jeff I agree it give you no freedom if it was under one persons rule. However, How are you to say that it does go against legalist standard to not have them in a democracy, or a republic as you said earlier....I quote "So the bulls would be better if they got mj back." Well, see jeff, they would be, haha and i don't see how that justifies your point. WE can get him back but it would seem hard but it is certainly a true statement and that is the process of government you have to work at it. Legalism is an horrific thing when you have one ruler who GIVES NO FREEDOM, HOWEVER THAT IS NOT THE CASE I AM SAYING A DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLIC SYSTEM WHERE THE POWER IS TOWARDS TO PEOPLE THAT IS INTERTWINED WITH CIVIL LAW! What i am trying to say is, even if it does disagree with the main umm how would i say this, meaning of legalism, i don't understand how that couldn't be applied. If we have a government where people do control somethings, like we do today, then the people like Dr. King could evolve, and that happened because we didn't have a stir power crazy ruler. Let me say this, it does kill your freedom if it is under the power of one, but with a group power where one can not rule another with different sections of the group, like our judicial, executive, and legislative branches. Now when you have that with CIVIL LAW THAT HAS YOU AMEND SOME FREEDOM LAWS OR W.E LAWS YOU DON'T LIKE. It does make people like Dr. King who did a revolutionary thing and help the advancement of human rights because you can amend situations. In those certain cases, freedom is not at all limited. people get power, they get a lot... What i am trying to say is MAYBE WE SHOULD RENAME IT SO IT FITS UNDER THE TITLE OF, LAWS TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM DOING BAD UNDER A DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLIC GOVERNMENT WHERE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO AMEND LAWS AND WHERE FREEDOM IS NOT JEPERIZED. it may not be catchy n, you guys are fighting an unnecessary point because i agree with you under a 1 ruler situation... But i want you all to no, i do not hate freedom, I do not want people to not have freedom and i don't want people to think that i am racist or anything or sexist because i am not, I guess i completely Missinterpreatated the concept of legalism, and I do back down. Unless willie talks


Dearest Sozernoff (and the Rest),
Well Cole...I see that you like legalism. Lets analyze this...

-Power of position

-Power of his position


The problem with Legalism is that it allows too much abuse.
Societal Morality=Kings Morality
Bad Morality = Potential Nazi Germany

1. Alright, first of all Legalism does not trust its people. All people regardless whether they are good or not are Automaticaly assumed as greedy unwise and self destructive. A bit like the view of Jews in Nazi Germany. Any nation that views its people as criminals cannot advance because it will be too concerned with creating laws which will get all its people to not be criminals, but since they will always be viewed as criminals this is impossible. Essentially, these people are running in circles with their logic.

2. Good people do not matter. No matter how many good people there are, the many will always be viewed as bad. Some people kill and some people save lives (doctors etc.), yet both are viewed as criminals. This make any sence?

3. It is unlogical to say who is bad and who is good, especially because a single person decides what is good and bad. For all you know the leader could be Hitler.

4. Any nation that does not respect its people and gives the nation entirely to the ruler cannot survive. 1 person can not run a country. Ammends are made by the King, but since he views his subjects as criminals how can ammends be made?

5. What happens if all the laws are bad? if you get a bad ruler what happens. Nothing. Everyone is a criminal right? Who cares what thousands of criminals think?

6. Wow I had no idea that laws stop crime!!!!! Wait a minute...?
Doesnt crime happen anyway??? Hmmm...
You fail to see that even with laws there is still so much crime that we today still need to resort to harsh measures like capital punishment. like you said not everyone is a perfect desk.

7. Lets talk about this tech thing. Legalism is very strict for the purpose of survival. They believe there is no survival in lax punishments because everyone is evil and out to get them. So in order to survive they must use strict laws. Well...Since they are focused on survival and safety, how can they focus on other things. Remeber the pyramid of advancement. Bottom=survival
2nd=safety 3rd=adv.

Conclusion: Well Cole i am very dissapointed in you. Not just because you took it way tooo seriously, but because you became inable to listen to others and became a true jerk about it.
Willy had some terrific points that you failed to combat. Some of your points contradict each other and your logic. You could have done much better, but instead led personal attacks on Willy.
Before you go off and start ranting and people who know what they are talking about, Make sure you know what you are talking about.



For your most recent post Cole.

1. The point of legalism is to be under the rule of 1 person. Hence RUlE NUMBER 1

2. A democracy is a democracy, not legalism.


4. In case you didnt recognize, this section is called Legalism, not some new crazy form that uses things sort of like legalism but go against all its concepts section.

5. I am changing the name of this to Coleslawzianismmanismbismshofismdrewismwisodomismbissizzimlissimturkeygizardism.

6. You hate


Sorry for the randomness, but it serves a purpose.
i hope....
except for like the last 1 which is completely random.
and this one.
this as well
and this.
o god.....

Metal Farmer Apprentice said...

Whoever is metal farmer you made my day...with your second post, however I can't really respond to your new post instead of saying this, Through this 10 page arguement that I have had i realized what legalism is, and I suppose that is the purpose of the blogs correct? As for willie, no...My goal is to dystroy him, his goal is to dystroy me, nothing else, but who ever wins has crushed his opponent. second of all, isn't it willie? and Your points are extremely valid, and probably the best i have ever seen, and now i feel that i was completly wrong, and whoever you are, i think you should take credit because honnestly those where the best points i have seen and really did change my opinion, however its not good for my debate because i am legalism...I had the wrong conception of legalism, and i think you really helped shaped my new opinion, And i am thankful for that even tho i believe it is jason. Anyway No i do not remeber the pyrimad i was not in here first semest....And I think that My i was not entirely incapable of reading his ideas, i read them about twice, however, i have read yours about 4 times and you are completely correct. But one day, metal farmer, my new goal is to have a tango with you too, so maybe you can change my opinion again, but i love to argue so bring your A game.

Thanks, seriously,


Metal Farmer Apprentice said...



Metal Farmer Apprentice said...

but only after my third and last post because i completely altered my ideas


Cole Shutup!!!!



metal Farmer Apprentice said...

IT is not legalism it is Coleslawzianismmanismbismshofismdrewismwisodomism

Julian said...

I believe that people are not naturally good nor are they naturally bad they simply are. The point of their demise or success is at least in my mind higly dependent on the environment in which they cultivated their own moral views because that is the true turning pointpoint of their ethical journey. Now one of things that i hate most about legalism is that one of its first moves was to create an enemy and proceed with wantan flamboyancy to destory them. I speak of course of the confusianists and how the legalists made steps to outlaw scholarship the right to learn things is one of the most important human rights. The Legalists seem to think that this is okay because to them the public is to stupid to waste the time on them. However in the case of education comprehension is nice but not highly relevant to the validacy of the right in and of itself. Were the course of logic that someone who doesn't get it shouldn't learn i would have flunked 1st grade because I'm not craniac and I didn't get it right the first time. great thinkers like Albert einstein would be exiled from thought because he didn't understand mathematics. Also to take the right to cultivate thought is a crime, however how close is it to the abomination of taking the right to think at all? I personally think that that in the minds of some legalists was the ideal goal for their complete and utter control of the new found nation.

Anonymous said...

I think that the last thought of Cole's, whatever we could call it, sounded very decent. I feel, that, some of the people responding went to far on both ends of the field. I think cole just had a false idea to this topic, and not knows the horrors of Legalism. Legalism is placed under a one ruler set, not a democracy as jason correctly stated.

Anonymous said...

Very decent meaning, very mediocre, and the last thing is the civil democratic law point

Metal Farmer Apprentice said...

agreed. I check this blog like every two seconds to see if maybe a little tiny bit lol someone would at least say my is better then horrible that will do me well. Thank you i can now leave this blog alone.


josh "jason once again 99, C+" milgrom said...

Ok guys, first of all dont go killing each other over this. To me legalism seems to be a little bit like what Socrates believed in. I mean Socrates believed that all people in society were stupid and therefore not all deserved to speak in the government. Legalism is kind of like this as it basically says that people are very stupid and their advice on law and government should be completly ignored. I think this is a pretty decent system of law right here. The people in government are the ones that make the laws, and they are appointed to their positions because they are smart and will probably make society better. If you take advice from all people, than you are risking having a terrible law code which further degrades society and leads it down a very long and dark path. The whole point of government is to elect smart people, and in turn they wil make good laws for the people that wil make society fari and easier to live in. You cannot accept advice from regular citizens because chances are, they are indeed stupid when it comes to the topic of law, and their advice will do more to hinder the law than to help it. (yes i used a parker quote.) Cole, i completley agree with you as legalism is a very good view on what law truly should be. Willie and Shizue, i like your ideas and i respect them, but to me i just see legalism as being a good view on law as it basically places the government as the sole creator of the law as it should be.

josh "jason for the last time metal farming isnt real" milgrom said...

ok jason, this is a respnse to your whole nazi germany comment. yes i agree with you that legalism does indeed diminsh people to a certain extent that it may resemble nazi germany, but was nazi germany really that bad jason??? now i no ur gonna think im high or sumthing, but here me out. if u look at germany before hitler came into power, it was basically a piece of crap that was in a depression and was getting spat at by the rest of the world who was pissed because germany made evryone's life miserable in world war I. well a guy named hitler comes to pwer, and over the course of nly a few years he gets germany back on track and out of the depression. now i know he killed alot of people, but you have to admit he did what he said he would do by making germany strong again. now look at china under the rule of han-fei-tzu and legalism, that was a pretty darn sucessful place. Han was able to reunite china through legalism and it was just so popular throughout china. now i now it basically called people retards, but this calling the citizens retards obviously worked because china thrived under legalism. so going back to the nazis, yes hitler did kill a lot of people, but that was for personal reasons, the main point is that yes he did strip people of a ton of rights, but it worked as he brought germany out of its depression.

Julian said...

Well maybe and i'm just theorizing but I think legalism to the point that Hitler and Han Fei Tzu took it is not great unless the country is running on empty. Now I'm not saying Hitler was a good guy quite the opposite. If he hadn't been crazy Germany might have turned out better. But over all switching over absolute power to one person isn't ever a good idea because the temptation of screwing the little guy is just to tempting. But also even if the public are idiots that is the exact opposite of the circumstances in which to shut down education and become an agrarian society when there is so much more potential in the country than that. I think that the system is wrong but could work for about 3 years just to get things moving. After that it is the duty of a leader to take the advice of his people and try to lead them by the collective mind. Not his own best interest and moods


Dear Joshmosherson,

Lemmee break it down fo you ghetto style.

1. How can 1 appoint someone who is smart, if everyone is stupid? No one is appointed. Legalism suggests a monarchy.

2.You fail to explain why people are stupid, and why there advice is bad for society. If you take advice from all people within society, you can get a better understanding of the details of various situations. When detectives are trying to solve an investigation, is it more beneficial for him to just randomly come to a conclusion? How about the detective interogates 1 suspect? 2? 3?
No, a detective must interogate all the suspects to find similarities and differences to come to a conclusion. A ruler must have the opinions of all people to create a law that is helpful for all people.

3.You speak of Hitler like an economical God. Both you and I recall Hitler's rise to power saga pretty fluently, so i am surprised that you could come to such a conclusion. You have completely failed to evaluate the means in which Hitler brought Germany out of depression. As you recall, Hitler began invading nations like Poland around 1938ish. If you ask Al Gore he will tell you "hmm... didnt....did those two ever fit together." Why yes ManBearPig slayer, why yes they did. When Germany invaded other countries guess what they got a whole freakin lot of? MONEY!!!!!! YIPPY!!! And guess what happened to Germany when they got to big too quickly and lost a lot of supplies and troops. They lost it. Finally, after Germany's defeat in WWII, the rest of the world started to piece the fragments of Germany that had shattered into a dust pan. Germany only recovered within the last several decades.
So did Hitler really help German economy?

4. I don't know where you picked this up from, but China never thrived under Legalism. it was always to worried about surving and its criminal society to do Jack *@!&$ (thou must not use the lords name in vain). Its acutally not until after this that China begins to quickly advance, and that is with human rights.

6.the temptation of screwing the little guy is just to tempting.
This quote means Jack ^&*^& (Thou shall not use the lords full name)

7. Just so I can get Julian to go on a rant,,,2pac was a legalist!!

Well Josh you deffinately "dominated" me on that one (or at least that is what cole says)

Copyright 9//2//2984/294828492/98485u239482/hgjaksbackSkHkIkT

Shizue said...

as i am sick i cannot leave my post (it makes me sick to look at a computer screen) HOWEVER tomorrow (if i am well) be prepared for a brutal verbal attack

josh "jason and shizue need to chill" milgrom said...

alright all im saying about hitler is that, setting his personel issues aside, he brought germany out of one of the worst economic situations they had ever been with. now im not saying that i agree with his tactics, but u have to admit that he was the reason that germany got out of their depression. now im jewish, so believe me i completly hate him for what he did, but i respect the simple fact that he brought germany out of an economic depression. he took great risks, but in the end it worked to his advantage as germany became strong again. now if hitler didnt have his personel issues germany could've never started world war II and probably would've been a very sucessful country, so please dont critisize me because i respect how he brought germany out of a depression, i mean people couldnt afford food for themselves and their family in the depression, and hitler changed all of that. so shizue and jason, if u actuall READ what i say on these posts, than u will understand what im saying.

Anonymous said...


Wow you actualy havent understood anything ive said to you for the last two days.

1. While in war, the money Germany gained was spent on the war. The Germans did not have enough food for EVERYONE.

2. Hitler did not make Germany Strong, he made them bigger.

3. War=Expensive
Losing war=bankrupcy
Too bad the Germans cant declare bankrupcy :(

Russia: Wow this place is a piece of crap.
France: Yeh..Lets make it Better with our money.
Germany: YAY!!!! MONEY!!!

After everyone was done fixing up Germany (or taking control of it) Everyone in Germany became an Engineer :)


I think ive explained this one to you now twice Josh.
My argument has nothing to do with Hitler being a Demagogue and a shmuck.
My argument has to do with Hitler losing all of Germanys money.


shizue "places the government as the sole creator of the law as it should be." ra said...

i know this argument is pretty much over but i just want to leave my last two bits...

i think you totally dont understand socrates.. he did feel people should be able to make an impact and that the government should be affected by the people. he just didnt believe that it should be a complete democracy. in addition he believed all men COULD be smart, therefore he maintained a respect towards most people and didnt judge them as stupid more as being...incomplete..

also, josh, if you are going to argue that everyone is stupid then how would they appoint the right person? if all the stupid people vote for who they wish just b/c and not b/c they are intelligent enought to vote for the qualified person then wouldnt a stupid person be put in office??? its all about acountability, my friend. if there are stupid people they could elect a stupid representative and thus why should this stupid person's advice be taken???? completely stupid people dont get elected unless theres some major corruption (hence george bush)

people have knowledge, basically by making this argument you are saying that you, josh, are stupid and should get no input into the laws of our nation...but i know you dont think your makers cant hold complete power over everyone else, thats ridiculous... if the state had complete control over the law and there was no check balance system we would be ruled by a TYRANT.

next time you come to the blogs, please make a better argument

Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about online bankruptcy.

my site :: chapter 13 bankruptcy florida