World = fight between england and germany

Think about it.

representative democracy and it's multitude of contributers = english
fascism, hegel perverted the idea of freedom from tyranny into freedom from "yourself", thus fascism = german

capitalism, hobbes and adam smith, justice and capitalism, enforcing justice so greed is directed towards self-improvement and industriousness = english
communism, marx (a hegelian) and the mistaken belief that you can expect people not to get greedy and to work for nothing = german

Gentleman, the idea that a gentleman is more masculine and honourable than an uncivilised wretch = england
Noble savage, the romantic idea of the noble savage, that a person more in touch with their emotions and nature will inevitably be more honourable aswell as more muscular than some corrupted decadent machiavellian civilisation dweller = german

assimiliation, expansionism is the spread of ideas and values, you do not need to physically dominate other people, just convince them that your way is preferable = england
conquest, only the dominance of the core of your nation and race is dominance, you cannot physically turn a polack into a german so they must be conquerred = germany

individualism, we are all individuals so politics must acknowledge this fact so that we can effectively work together without the powerful stamping on the faces of those underneath = england
collectivism, the fallacy that since we are better off working together we must ignore the individual's rights in the furtherance of the power of the collective = german

Higher pleasures, (john stuart mill) the purpose of life is not hedonistic, but to learn, explore, understand and contribute, to interact with other sentient beings = england
will to power, (nietzche) the unbacked belief that sentience doesn't exist, you are just an animal and your purpose in life is to be a hedonist = german

people, though people can only physically do so much when it comes to ruling a leader can't do everything, successful rulership depends on the resourcefulness and creativity of the people = england
leaders, the major decisions all happen at the top, so the leader's decisions should have as much weight as possible in order for society to do as much good as possible and people should focus more on efficiently carrying out their duties than new developments = german

You show a very elementary understanding of the history of both England and Germany. And pretty much the rest of the world. gb2/school/

Sounds cute, but you quote selectively.

People like Marx and Nietzsche happen to be german but do not and did not represent the views of the majority (or even a large part of german society for that matter)

The british empire did not assimilate in it´s colonies,

You should read Hegel again and understand why he declared the foremost principle of the state to protect the freedom of it´s citizens.

>>3
"You show a very elementary understanding of the history of both England and Germany. And pretty much the rest of the world. gb2/school/"
"Sounds cute, but you quote selectively."
Irrelevant without proof.

"People like Marx and Nietzsche happen to be german but do not and did not represent the views of the majority (or even a large part of german society for that matter)"
Their views are incorrect and worthless, therefore it must have been their country that made them famous.

"The british empire did not assimilate in it´s colonies,"
Britain did not conquer it's colonies. Compared to other nations Britain preferred assimilation to an astronomical degree at a time when foreign politics was still quite medieval, the factor I revealed is major and cannot be ignored.

"You should read Hegel again and understand why he declared the foremost principle of the state to protect the freedom of it´s citizens."
Hegel's idea of freedom was corrupt. The state protects the individuals freedom from themselves so that they can concentrate their efforts on the state with little regard for their own rights.

>Their views are incorrect and worthless, therefore it must have been their country that made them famous.
Who are you to judge that their views are incorrect or worthless?
It is not their country that made them famous but their teachings. God is dead, Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Things that most people will have heard at some point. Their teachings became part popular culture and not their citizenship :)

>Britain did not conquer it's colonies.
This is why all former British colonies in Africa were societies full of integrated members of British society and not of unfree subjects whose opposition was crushed with military force.


Hegel plays virtually no role in german thinking. KANT is far far more important. I assume you will like his definition of freedom more than Hegels.

evil will always triumph because good is dumb

>>5
Britain was the closest thing to a democracy at this time, banning slavery in 1833, allowing landowners and later all men over the age of 18 to vote, with a free market economy and slowly increasing civil liberties within Britain during the course of the victorian era.

"Who are you to judge that their views are incorrect or worthless?"
I am a free man.

"Their teachings became part popular culture and not their citizenship"
Spoiler: Countries have populations.

"This is why all former British colonies in Africa were societies full of integrated members of British society and not of unfree subjects whose opposition was crushed with military force."
Correct. I'm not sure whta you are getting at though, why is this relevant? I fear you understand absolutely nothing about social-politics of the 19th century, tyranny is human nature and had been practically universal since the first alpha male ape smacked another ape over the head so he could stay the alpha male. Liberty arose due to the military threat fire-arms gave the ordinary man allowing them to form communities that the military junta had to keep happy. The british coerced fragmented nations and replaced native tyrants with british tyrants because that was all they could do. The british were suckerred into tyranny and that is evil but every other nation did this, the difference is that Britain banned slavery in 1833, slowly increased civil liberties during the course of the victorian era and fought for and laid the foundations for modern representative government. In effect in the last 200 years the world has gone from a tyrannic germanised world of tyranny, to a democratic anglicised world of seemingly exponential technological and economic growth.

Kant was a scientific philosopher not a political philosopher. His works were kept in the upper ranks of german society and never gained popularity amongest the german population.

>Britain was the closest thing to a democracy at this time, banning slavery in 1833, allowing landowners and later all men over the age of 18 to vote, with a free market economy and slowly increasing civil liberties within Britain during the course of the victorian era
That is all good and well but Germany did not even exist then. It was a mere concept.

>I am a free man.
You are not free. You enjoy equal opression than your peers, but you are not free. And even if you were, you cannot simply falsify two philosophers just because. You can choose to follow their teachings or not, you can criticise them but you are in no position to say that they are objectively wrong. 

>Kant was a scientific philosopher not a political philosopher. His works were kept in the upper ranks of german society and never gained popularity amongest the german population.
And you think those people know HEGEL?

>Kant was a scientific philosopher not a political philosopher.
This is incorrect. He was a political philosopher as well. His most famous work beeing the Schrift from Ewigen Frieden.
Read Kant and enlighten yourself

>Spoiler: Countries have populations
Spoiler: Nietzsche and Marx are enjoyed in every country of the world. Nothing about their teachings is inherently german.


>I'm not sure whta you are getting at though, why is this relevant?
ASSIMILATION as opposed to conquest. The British conquered their colonies like any other european nation, mostly buying them or tricking the natives which they then ruled with an iron fist.  This is not Assimilation, this is conquest.


Liberty arose due to the military threat fire-arms gave the ordinary man allowing them to form communities that the military junta had to keep happy
Wow that is really totally simplified. Liberties are not the problem. They have always existed. Roman citizens enjoyed liberties well before firearms were even invented.
The problem has been equality. The french revolution is a direct consequence of this. The solution was a constitutional republic with written law(code civil!) not because kings feared guns.

>>8
Sorry, but please have the common courtesy to look up proper facts, this is the internet after all.

Germany as a unified nation began with the holy roman empire of the German nation and had lasted almost 1000 years before the napoleanic wars divided germany into a confederation.

"You can choose to follow their teachings or not, you can criticise them but you are in no position to say that they are objectively wrong."
My criticism was legitimate therefore the points I criticised are wrong. Whether you believe they are wrong of course is determinned by whether you believe things need rational proof of not. Also I am a free man, I'm not oppressed at all, I can say whatever I want.

"And you think those people know HEGEL?"
Compare Kant's critique of pure reason with some of Hegel's dogma that have been repeated ad nauseum for nearly 2 centuries by various politicians. They may have not heard of Hegel, but can still be swayed by his fallacies.

"This is incorrect. He was a political philosopher as well. His most famous work beeing the Schrift from Ewigen Frieden.
Read Kant and enlighten yourself"
He dabbled in it and what he came up with was picked up by English philosophers who wisely did not pick up where Hegel left off, but where Kant left off. Compared to the tomes of work on rationality, thought and their application to old philosophical questions, Kant wasn't a political philosopher.

"Spoiler: Nietzsche and Marx are enjoyed in every country of the world. Nothing about their teachings is inherently german."
Their teachings are not applied however, since they are insidious and totalitarian in nature. Neither does this make them correct, point in case I don't think Johnathon Mill's essays were widely available in maoist (marx derived) China, whilst you can pick up a communist manifesto in any public library in a representative democracy.

"ASSIMILATION as opposed to conquest. The British conquered their colonies like any other european nation, mostly buying them or tricking the natives which they then ruled with an iron fist.  This is not Assimilation, this is conquest."
Can't you fill in the blanks? All spread of civilisation is a combination of assimilation and conquest, the British used assimilation to a greater extent, allying with the Indian city states, trading with them and providing them with arms to defeat the Maratha. Giving the natives your guns to get on their good side was unheard of. The weapons the French sold to the Maratha were cheap and inefficient, the British guns were state of the art and they even provided training.

"Wow that is really totally simplified. Liberties are not the problem. They have always existed. Roman citizens enjoyed liberties well before firearms were even invented.
The problem has been equality. The french revolution is a direct consequence of this. The solution was a constitutional republic with written law(code civil!) not because kings feared guns."
You're doing this on purpose aren't you.. Stop nitpicking. There are varying degrees of liberty and it is dependant on how much you are worth and what you can do to the people who can harm you. The romans could not enslave or indenture skilled labourers or merchants because other people would hear of it and not go to that city anymore making those in charge slightly less rich. The romans also did not enslave or indenture legionairres as obviously that would be catastrophic to morale. Unskilled peasants on the other hand are worth virtually nothing, overpopulation means many of them are unhealthy, unarmed and un-needed, as a result they often owe people they slave for. 1650 years later and the English monarch is having difficulty maintaining absolute power and high taxes because any peasant can get hands on a gun and kill a soldier, future leaders learn to dish out liberty for the common man to prevent their political opponents gaining enough support to have their head chopped off.

>>9
winn4r

>>7
>>Britain was the closest thing to a democracy at this time, banning slavery in 1833, allowing landowners and later all men over the age of 18 to vote, with a free market economy and slowly increasing civil liberties within Britain during the course of the victorian era.

Slavery was illegal in France in 1790. Landowners vote in 1791.

Free market economy suxx. Only English or American can be prouf of that... Captislaism is a failure. Capialists think natural resources  are unlimited. This is of course, false

The English invented capitalism? Are you on drugs?

I'm with the ruskies on this one.

>>11
Not for long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

The free market can cope with finite resources as long as customers are informed. You are a typical liberal ignoring the fact that all capitalists believe the free market should be taxed and regulated to preserve justice, thus the customers are informed and will buy shares in energy companies which invest in renewable energy or when the oil recession comes they will lose a lot of money.

It's simple, instead of people making investments to increase their money, in a time of recession people make investments so they don't lose money. Either way a capitalism makes efficient use of resources, whereas a socialism never makes efficient use of the resources to begin with so they are so poor you can't tell whether they are in recession of not.

>>14 Makes the sense, largely.

>> in a time of recession people make speculation  so they don't lose money and the system fail

Fixed :) Are you sure Oil compagny make investments in renewable energy? No, they try to kill them. because they will be dead when all of this will happen. "Après moi le déluge" (Louis XV). (After me the apocalypse). And after him... Louis the XVI was killed by Frenh :D
It's that the capitalism. Make some peaople rich. The other poor.

Socialism can make ALL people rich enough to have great live. Look at Sweden, Finland or France :)

>>16 "Socialism can make ALL people rich enough to have great live. Look at Sweden, Finland or France :)" Please tell me that the smiley at the end indicates irony... I am a Swede myself and can gladly report that my country currently sucks ass like asses contained a solution to energy resource problems.

Do u think USA have the solution?

Maybe yes, they attack Irak and steal them... Is it the capitalist solution? The strong live and the weak die.

>>16
>>18
Skill punctuations of the you are excellence!