Eh. It’s the least worst option, it’s great when it works. And is the least likely to result in a shit feast. But like an old building sometimes it can’t be fixed and needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
I'm fine with rolling it back a little. There are too many enfranchised illiterate dishonest morons in our society. Maybe limit voting to landowners, or business owners.
If we were to have a dictator I'd expect and hope him to be more of a Cincinnatus than a Julius.
So doing nothing and letting dem governors act like faggot dictators in perpetuity is a winning strategy how? Should Lincoln have let Dem governors secede and break up the country? Should Eisenhower have let dem governors enforce segregation and allow dems and their Klan footsoldiers the right to terrorize US Citizens? During a coup and a fraudulent election counter measures will not be sunshine and genial back and forth. And frankly if faced with a Nationalist Right wing dictatorship or an Internationalist Left wing one I'll choose the former.
It should be pretty evident at this point that plenty of well-informed people, rather than tripping over their own rank hypocrisy in cheering alea iacta est as you assume at a glance, may in fact be keenly aware that most of the historical Roman dictators were appointed in times of crisis, to save the Roman Republic, though their reputations have been smeared over the ages by a societal elite fearful of any check on their power, and further, that our Republic is in dire need of aggressive reform which the recent few weeks should have already shown is virtually impossible to achieve via systematic means.
I see you're already embroiled in several other debates in which you've been called out on your own hypocrisy vis-a-vis Honest Habeas Corpus Abe, so I'll leave you to it!
Well the thing is dictatorship is a matter of perspective historically. There's benevolent and malevolent dictators. A fine line for sure but depends which side of the spear you're on.
Very true; I probably would have been a loyalist back then, as I would have supported my King, especially since it wasn't really King George III that was screwing over the colonists, but rather the (ironically elected) Parliament of Great Britain. And ironically, the King actually used his reserve powers to push Parliament to back off and used royal edicts to try and quell the sentiment, but it was too little, too late.
The whole move to Canada thing though--ugh, too cold. Maybe I would have moved to the Bahamas LOL.
I am definitely still a loyalist, though, in 2020--absolutely loyal to His Excellency* Donald Trump, President of the United States of America.
(* His actual legal title; Mr. President being for use inside the US).
Think about it this way: We never had a republic. Kennedy stole the election from Nixon in 1960. Tammany hall was a giant corruption machine from the 1840s to the 1930s. The election of 1876 was decided in backroom deals. The election of 1826 was stolen from our President's favorite President: Andrew Jackson. I would honestly be surprised if we had a single fair election other than President Washington.
The only difference between our power now and having a monarchy under King Donald, is that our unelected leader has our best interests at heart and has full authority to do what he needs to do.
Not a king, but a dictator. An office given absolute power for a prescribed period of time in order to guide the Republic through periods of existential threats.
Trumps too old to get it all done in the years he has left. He’d need someone good to come in after and finish the job. Augustus was able cleanse the empire because he ruled for so long that by the time he croaked few could remember what it was like before him. That momentum is what allowed him to permanently change the game and allow his (either crappy or meh) successors to keep power for decades after his death.
Thank you!! This is why political ideas like a philosopher king fail. Humans die (or are killed). You can't have a king without knowing you're going to, sooner or later, get 1 that royally fucks everything up. And then another. And another.
Technically the republic didn’t die. It was greatly changed. Octavian didn’t create a single title of emperor. He had a slew of political, religious, military, and honorific titles (Augustus being one of them) that gave him sole power in Rome. The senate continued on under the emperor although it gradually lost influence. Especially during the crisis of the third century, where barracks emperors and their armies were the true power. Diocletian turned the empire into an official military autocracy. In fact the senate would outlast the western emperors by over a century.
Even long after Rome had become an autocratic empire, the citizens of Rome continued to believe that they lived in a republic. If you had asked them what their government is they would have told you that it was a republic with no king.
Fun Fact: Allegedly during the Battle of Abritus in 251 Emperor Decius’s son, Herennius Etruscus, was killed, and upon hearing of it Decius said, “Let no one mourn. The death of one soldier is not a great loss to the Republic.”
The Republic died with Octavian beating Antony at Actium. Pure consolidation of power is not a republic anymore. Yes, the senate still existed. But who cares, it was entirely toothless. That's like saying Napoleon wasn't an emperor because he kept around the French parliament... they got to decide nothing.
They were generals that were declared emperor (some successfully and others not so much) by their soldiers during the crisis of the third century. From the death of Alexander Severus to the rise of Diocletian (himself a barracks emperor) there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Augustus held many titles such as princeps (his main title and where we get prince from) and imperator (basically general, where we get emperor from) as well as consular authority wherever he was. He created the principate.
Diocletian ended the time when the senate had power with his reforms a and reformed the empire into the dominate where it was a true miltary autocracy.
That is the problem with all forms of government as our current situation has demonstrated. Every leader save Trump since 1990 has been malevolent and I can name countless more tyrant Presidents.
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history." - President John Adams
Monarchies get a bad rap in the USA but Jesus Christ, historically democracies have been awful. The USA is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic anyway, not a democracy. As a Brit Monarchist, I wish we’d just return to absolutism. I’m tired of corrupt politicians, as everyone is across the world.
It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history."
Correct, and this was Milton Friedman's point about communism. People act as if our society is exclusively greedy. You're not killing or starving millions of your own people without some greed.
he would return the presidency to normal four year terms after he fixes our country>
There’s something called precedent, which is why George Washington refused kingship when it was offered to him. Nobody would ever be able to return the presidency to normal after such a step. The phrase ‘crossing the Rubicon’ means going beyond the point of no return.
Rome encountered this issue many times but it did inevitably solve it in the Eastern Empire by allowing people to adopt someone and declare them their successor if they lacked a son or daughter that was not up to the task in their opinion. As such they could groom anyone they wanted to be their successor, not just their children.
That empire lasted until the 1400s, only falling because it was crippled by the 4th crusade, and only failing to retake the west because of the Justinian Plagued that lasted for several hundred years. Once the plague was over, Rome had the Muslims to deal with, and as I said above, were eventually backstabbed in the 4th crusade.
The plague was half the reason why he couldn’t retake Italy. Justinian needed to send more troops, plus some blunders gave the Ostrogoths the will to launch a counter attack. They could’ve easily retaken Italy and Illyria before the plague hit.
4 th Crusade is an eternal stain on Christendom. However the Battle of Manzikert set the decline and fall in motion. Emperor Romanus Diogenes went to fight Alp Arslan, a Seljuk, and was abandoned in the thick of fighting by generals loyal to members of the Court and Anatolian Military Aristocracy. Think Bureaucracy and Military Intelligence abandoning their Commander in Chief to their most hated foe. He had tried to curb the Court's influence and introduce reform to help the small land owning class (bulk of troops, food, taxes) against the wealthy military Aristocracy. From there Central Turkey (manpower, taxes, food) was lost and not even the Comnenus revival could save it.
Wha??? I can name you 2 in just the 1st dynasty alone, Caligula and Nero. After Nero there were another 3 in just 1 year. Then you have the entire crisis before Diocletian...
Read about the frequent atrocities and abuses committed by many Roman emperors. You really want to embrace a system that consolidates power in one individual?
In addition to what u/Jarlason10 wrote, I wouldn't trust the history books on that one. Not only have the negative parts of their rule been greatly exaggerated by their rivals, but that negativity has also been exaggerated by our post French Revolution zeitgeist.
To put another way: You know how the left lies about Republicans and makes us out to be the ultimate villains? They have been lying about classical conservatives (monarchists) for even longer.
Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.
The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.
As to restraints, you can put constitutional restrictions on a dictator. The English did it long before they formed a parliament.
I agree with one aspect here and that is it was easier for people fed up with the system to enact change. It wasn't about convincing the masses, many of whom are ignorant or don't care, but to just take action.
But you also had the Year of the 5 Emperors and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Pax Romana occurred because Rome dealt with all of its external threats before becoming an empire. Gauls, Parthians, Egyptians, Greeks... all of them crushed just before. And of course others like the Nubians were decimated either internally or by someone other than Rome.
This is because the modern examples of dictators are terrible. People don't realize that sometimes it's nessecary to have a dictator, and that they are not inherently bad things to have.
Wrong. Dictatorships have great success at expanding or getting specific jobs done (ie. pyramids, colosseum). Meh. The big issue is most leaders are not that good and even when you get a good one (ie. Alexander), they die. And then... you either get guys like King Louis XIV or you fragment the whole place like when Alexander died.
The empire got 200+ years of prosperity after decades of disasters. Good times.
Fuck democracy
Eh. It’s the least worst option, it’s great when it works. And is the least likely to result in a shit feast. But like an old building sometimes it can’t be fixed and needs to be torn down and rebuilt.
No. Fuck Democracy. Lions are not to be governed by sheep.
I'm fine with rolling it back a little. There are too many enfranchised illiterate dishonest morons in our society. Maybe limit voting to landowners, or business owners.
If we were to have a dictator I'd expect and hope him to be more of a Cincinnatus than a Julius.
Democracy went out the window with dominion
Based Level: 100
Down with the rotted republic. Long live King Donald!
WE THEOCRATIC MONARCHIST NOW CUCKS! DEAL WITH IT!
Caesar Donald
That is why I say King Donald rather than Dictator Donald. Dictatorships are a corrupted form of monarchism where the sovereign rules for his benefit rather than that of his nation.
So doing nothing and letting dem governors act like faggot dictators in perpetuity is a winning strategy how? Should Lincoln have let Dem governors secede and break up the country? Should Eisenhower have let dem governors enforce segregation and allow dems and their Klan footsoldiers the right to terrorize US Citizens? During a coup and a fraudulent election counter measures will not be sunshine and genial back and forth. And frankly if faced with a Nationalist Right wing dictatorship or an Internationalist Left wing one I'll choose the former.
LMFAO. Cry more, cuck. DJT will be your next president. How do you feel about that?
It should be pretty evident at this point that plenty of well-informed people, rather than tripping over their own rank hypocrisy in cheering alea iacta est as you assume at a glance, may in fact be keenly aware that most of the historical Roman dictators were appointed in times of crisis, to save the Roman Republic, though their reputations have been smeared over the ages by a societal elite fearful of any check on their power, and further, that our Republic is in dire need of aggressive reform which the recent few weeks should have already shown is virtually impossible to achieve via systematic means.
I see you're already embroiled in several other debates in which you've been called out on your own hypocrisy vis-a-vis Honest Habeas Corpus Abe, so I'll leave you to it!
Well the thing is dictatorship is a matter of perspective historically. There's benevolent and malevolent dictators. A fine line for sure but depends which side of the spear you're on.
Finally, another American monarchist on here!!!
In the 1770's they called you loyalists
Very true; I probably would have been a loyalist back then, as I would have supported my King, especially since it wasn't really King George III that was screwing over the colonists, but rather the (ironically elected) Parliament of Great Britain. And ironically, the King actually used his reserve powers to push Parliament to back off and used royal edicts to try and quell the sentiment, but it was too little, too late.
The whole move to Canada thing though--ugh, too cold. Maybe I would have moved to the Bahamas LOL.
I am definitely still a loyalist, though, in 2020--absolutely loyal to His Excellency* Donald Trump, President of the United States of America.
(* His actual legal title; Mr. President being for use inside the US).
Nah, Emperor Donald I or bust.
Rubicon Don!
I don’t want to lose the republic. But if I have to choose between democrat tyranny or MAGA , I choose MAGA any day.
Think about it this way: We never had a republic. Kennedy stole the election from Nixon in 1960. Tammany hall was a giant corruption machine from the 1840s to the 1930s. The election of 1876 was decided in backroom deals. The election of 1826 was stolen from our President's favorite President: Andrew Jackson. I would honestly be surprised if we had a single fair election other than President Washington.
The only difference between our power now and having a monarchy under King Donald, is that our unelected leader has our best interests at heart and has full authority to do what he needs to do.
I don’t know if I agree with everything you said, but I definitely see your point. And I’d say that that the republic ended in ACW 1.0.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_dictators
Not a king, but a dictator. An office given absolute power for a prescribed period of time in order to guide the Republic through periods of existential threats.
Yep, right on.
That said, I would fully expect that Trump would willingly cede power should the republic be cleansed and restored. Then we'd see him on Rushmore.
Trumps too old to get it all done in the years he has left. He’d need someone good to come in after and finish the job. Augustus was able cleanse the empire because he ruled for so long that by the time he croaked few could remember what it was like before him. That momentum is what allowed him to permanently change the game and allow his (either crappy or meh) successors to keep power for decades after his death.
You know there would be other kings after him, right?
I can only hope so!
Thank you!! This is why political ideas like a philosopher king fail. Humans die (or are killed). You can't have a king without knowing you're going to, sooner or later, get 1 that royally fucks everything up. And then another. And another.
Technically the republic didn’t die. It was greatly changed. Octavian didn’t create a single title of emperor. He had a slew of political, religious, military, and honorific titles (Augustus being one of them) that gave him sole power in Rome. The senate continued on under the emperor although it gradually lost influence. Especially during the crisis of the third century, where barracks emperors and their armies were the true power. Diocletian turned the empire into an official military autocracy. In fact the senate would outlast the western emperors by over a century.
Even long after Rome had become an autocratic empire, the citizens of Rome continued to believe that they lived in a republic. If you had asked them what their government is they would have told you that it was a republic with no king.
Fun Fact: Allegedly during the Battle of Abritus in 251 Emperor Decius’s son, Herennius Etruscus, was killed, and upon hearing of it Decius said, “Let no one mourn. The death of one soldier is not a great loss to the Republic.”
Very true. And yeah I’ve heard that quote before, very sad but epic.
The Republic died with Octavian beating Antony at Actium. Pure consolidation of power is not a republic anymore. Yes, the senate still existed. But who cares, it was entirely toothless. That's like saying Napoleon wasn't an emperor because he kept around the French parliament... they got to decide nothing.
They were generals that were declared emperor (some successfully and others not so much) by their soldiers during the crisis of the third century. From the death of Alexander Severus to the rise of Diocletian (himself a barracks emperor) there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Augustus held many titles such as princeps (his main title and where we get prince from) and imperator (basically general, where we get emperor from) as well as consular authority wherever he was. He created the principate.
Diocletian ended the time when the senate had power with his reforms a and reformed the empire into the dominate where it was a true miltary autocracy.
this goes above the Ds
That is the problem with all forms of government as our current situation has demonstrated. Every leader save Trump since 1990 has been malevolent and I can name countless more tyrant Presidents.
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history." - President John Adams
Monarchies get a bad rap in the USA but Jesus Christ, historically democracies have been awful. The USA is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic anyway, not a democracy. As a Brit Monarchist, I wish we’d just return to absolutism. I’m tired of corrupt politicians, as everyone is across the world.
Correct, and this was Milton Friedman's point about communism. People act as if our society is exclusively greedy. You're not killing or starving millions of your own people without some greed.
There’s something called precedent, which is why George Washington refused kingship when it was offered to him. Nobody would ever be able to return the presidency to normal after such a step. The phrase ‘crossing the Rubicon’ means going beyond the point of no return.
Rome encountered this issue many times but it did inevitably solve it in the Eastern Empire by allowing people to adopt someone and declare them their successor if they lacked a son or daughter that was not up to the task in their opinion. As such they could groom anyone they wanted to be their successor, not just their children.
That empire lasted until the 1400s, only falling because it was crippled by the 4th crusade, and only failing to retake the west because of the Justinian Plagued that lasted for several hundred years. Once the plague was over, Rome had the Muslims to deal with, and as I said above, were eventually backstabbed in the 4th crusade.
The plague was half the reason why he couldn’t retake Italy. Justinian needed to send more troops, plus some blunders gave the Ostrogoths the will to launch a counter attack. They could’ve easily retaken Italy and Illyria before the plague hit.
4 th Crusade is an eternal stain on Christendom. However the Battle of Manzikert set the decline and fall in motion. Emperor Romanus Diogenes went to fight Alp Arslan, a Seljuk, and was abandoned in the thick of fighting by generals loyal to members of the Court and Anatolian Military Aristocracy. Think Bureaucracy and Military Intelligence abandoning their Commander in Chief to their most hated foe. He had tried to curb the Court's influence and introduce reform to help the small land owning class (bulk of troops, food, taxes) against the wealthy military Aristocracy. From there Central Turkey (manpower, taxes, food) was lost and not even the Comnenus revival could save it.
Pretty much this.
He needs to dissolve the government. Otherwise someone else would take over.
Most Roman emperors were good. With the exception of like 3
Wha??? I can name you 2 in just the 1st dynasty alone, Caligula and Nero. After Nero there were another 3 in just 1 year. Then you have the entire crisis before Diocletian...
In addition to what u/Jarlason10 wrote, I wouldn't trust the history books on that one. Not only have the negative parts of their rule been greatly exaggerated by their rivals, but that negativity has also been exaggerated by our post French Revolution zeitgeist.
To put another way: You know how the left lies about Republicans and makes us out to be the ultimate villains? They have been lying about classical conservatives (monarchists) for even longer.
Most of those atrocities were no different to the atrocities that the Roman Republic did prior to being an Empire. The atrocities occurred because it was Rome, not because it had a dictator. The moment emperors started doing stuff the public disagreed with, they found themselves assassinated by their own guards.
The public agreed with the atrocities, and they would have happened even if the country remained a Republic.
As to restraints, you can put constitutional restrictions on a dictator. The English did it long before they formed a parliament.
I agree with one aspect here and that is it was easier for people fed up with the system to enact change. It wasn't about convincing the masses, many of whom are ignorant or don't care, but to just take action.
But you also had the Year of the 5 Emperors and the Crisis of the 3rd Century. Pax Romana occurred because Rome dealt with all of its external threats before becoming an empire. Gauls, Parthians, Egyptians, Greeks... all of them crushed just before. And of course others like the Nubians were decimated either internally or by someone other than Rome.
We already have the guns, and NO ONE regardless which side, is giving them back.
This is because the modern examples of dictators are terrible. People don't realize that sometimes it's nessecary to have a dictator, and that they are not inherently bad things to have.
Left vs right is not authoritarian vs liberalism
Wrong. Dictatorships have great success at expanding or getting specific jobs done (ie. pyramids, colosseum). Meh. The big issue is most leaders are not that good and even when you get a good one (ie. Alexander), they die. And then... you either get guys like King Louis XIV or you fragment the whole place like when Alexander died.
Literally anything is better than being owned by China.
Why are we the only side that thinks this? Isn't it obvious how humiliating it would be to be ultimately owned by the bugmen?
You could be owned by the bankers...oh wait
the banker stuff is so weak
That's indoctrination for you.
Isn't it obvious how humiliating it would be to be ultimately owned by goblins?