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.
A very true saying although not all lions are nice. Look at the Stalin, the Kim’s or the Ayatollahs for example. Lions ruling sheep sounds great till you find yourself in a furry white coat...
Not denying ours is fucked and in need of an enlightened dictator to fix it. Just pointing out you gotta be careful and that democracy when working is the least likely to get you killed.
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.
I honestly believe our rise of cities and industrial everything has made everyone lazy, physically,intellectually and spiritually. I don't think its coincidence but rather a product. Almost everyone 100+ years ago knew how to raise crops and livestock. This seems moot to most people but being self sufficient changes your whole perception of reality.
I have been thinking about that for the last year and came to the same conclusion. This was a problem even before the industrial revolution - back when America was founded, hence the electoral college. Jefferson hated cities and if he had his way every state would have gotten 1 elector, period.
So in my opinion we should come up with some system that lowers representation of cities. Like electoral colleges within the states. Or gerrymandering that slices cities up like a pie and combines each district with a large rural district outside the city. Basically your level of electoral power should be inversely proportional to the population density where you live. (the opposite of how it is now where big cities control the whole state) But I haven't worked out anything beyond that.
Almost everyone 100+ years ago knew how to raise crops and livestock.
"Modernity" takes many forms--and always has--but writ large I might describe it as vertical systematic complexity, with each higher tier of technological ascendency relying on that below, and participants on said higher levels being, as a function of human intellectual limitations, incapable of participating in any tier but their own.
That's a exceptionally windbag way of saying, that's not true. 100, 1000, and even 10,000 years ago there were plenty of people specializing. Whether you were the Animal Skin Guy, the Marble Carving Guy, or the Industrial Machine Guy, you were not self-sufficient.
That said, you point as a trend stands. While there may certainly have been those living in Rome that wouldn't know which part of a plow went in which part of a field, people today take dependency--on many things, but overall on a world in which they are utterly insulated from scarcity or the deprivations of war--to a whole new level.
Keep in mind that Julius was a true "man of the people", a nationalist and populist in the truest sense. He was always working towards returning Rome to its republican roots but was constantly thwarted by the roman elite, and of course ultimately destroyed by them. The roman elite were analogous to our current elitist class, swamp-dweller types.
Meh. I like some aspects of Caesar (and one of my favorite historical figures) but he was also corrupt, a dictator, and funded a ton of ridiculous politicians. You can't take the good without the bad. You say he thwarted the Roman elite but all he did was put himself and his friends at the top. He didn't give power to the people but just consolidated it.
Brilliant commander though. If it wasn't for him and his right-hand man, Lepidus, Rome would've easily taken another 100+ years to conquer Gaul.
We can get the Republic back on an even keel once the crisis is over.
Trump would actually step down, if he had succeeded in purging the globalist traitors.
Just one year, with him actually in total control of the government, would see the complete fulfillment of his agenda.
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.
No public school teacher. We're a constitutional Republic. Always have been.
We live in a banana democracy.
A very true saying although not all lions are nice. Look at the Stalin, the Kim’s or the Ayatollahs for example. Lions ruling sheep sounds great till you find yourself in a furry white coat...
Not denying ours is fucked and in need of an enlightened dictator to fix it. Just pointing out you gotta be careful and that democracy when working is the least likely to get you killed.
Democracy nearly always precedes dictatorship though, it’s an common precursor.
Plato wrote about this nearly 3000 years ago.
Stalin was based - he killed SO many commies.
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.
tax paying Americans should be sufficient to start.
You could have multiple paths to the franchise.
Essentially, reserving the franchise solely for those who put effort into the well-being of society.
net
agreed pede
I honestly believe our rise of cities and industrial everything has made everyone lazy, physically,intellectually and spiritually. I don't think its coincidence but rather a product. Almost everyone 100+ years ago knew how to raise crops and livestock. This seems moot to most people but being self sufficient changes your whole perception of reality.
I have been thinking about that for the last year and came to the same conclusion. This was a problem even before the industrial revolution - back when America was founded, hence the electoral college. Jefferson hated cities and if he had his way every state would have gotten 1 elector, period.
So in my opinion we should come up with some system that lowers representation of cities. Like electoral colleges within the states. Or gerrymandering that slices cities up like a pie and combines each district with a large rural district outside the city. Basically your level of electoral power should be inversely proportional to the population density where you live. (the opposite of how it is now where big cities control the whole state) But I haven't worked out anything beyond that.
"Modernity" takes many forms--and always has--but writ large I might describe it as vertical systematic complexity, with each higher tier of technological ascendency relying on that below, and participants on said higher levels being, as a function of human intellectual limitations, incapable of participating in any tier but their own.
That's a exceptionally windbag way of saying, that's not true. 100, 1000, and even 10,000 years ago there were plenty of people specializing. Whether you were the Animal Skin Guy, the Marble Carving Guy, or the Industrial Machine Guy, you were not self-sufficient.
That said, you point as a trend stands. While there may certainly have been those living in Rome that wouldn't know which part of a plow went in which part of a field, people today take dependency--on many things, but overall on a world in which they are utterly insulated from scarcity or the deprivations of war--to a whole new level.
well said pede
Wherever accountability is lacking, entitlement thrives.
Keep in mind that Julius was a true "man of the people", a nationalist and populist in the truest sense. He was always working towards returning Rome to its republican roots but was constantly thwarted by the roman elite, and of course ultimately destroyed by them. The roman elite were analogous to our current elitist class, swamp-dweller types.
Meh. I like some aspects of Caesar (and one of my favorite historical figures) but he was also corrupt, a dictator, and funded a ton of ridiculous politicians. You can't take the good without the bad. You say he thwarted the Roman elite but all he did was put himself and his friends at the top. He didn't give power to the people but just consolidated it.
Brilliant commander though. If it wasn't for him and his right-hand man, Lepidus, Rome would've easily taken another 100+ years to conquer Gaul.
Absofukinglutely.
Eh...that remove many of us pedes who don’t have either of those. But I do agree we need huge changes.
Well Cincinnatus faced far different issues than Julius, less serious.
We can get the Republic back on an even keel once the crisis is over. Trump would actually step down, if he had succeeded in purging the globalist traitors. Just one year, with him actually in total control of the government, would see the complete fulfillment of his agenda.
The real answer is that most forms of government can be successful if the makeup of the country is correct.
Our makeup isn't correct and it's too late to do anything about it.
Depends on how hard we wanna go.
Democracy went out the window with dominion
Democracy went out the window with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, to be slightly more specific.
Fair enough
That it did.