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.
We MUST have term limits for this to work. I also think we need to ban multinational corporations from donating to politicians as that’s a conflict of interest and the reason our jobs disappeared. We also need to enact something like the cursus honorum they had in Rome where if you have a government position you can only serve in the role you’re in for a set amount of time— if you don’t have the right stuff to get promoted, you’re out. That combined with an easier recall system to remove Bureaucrats that aren’t performing well for their constituents (building code inspectors, that sort of thing) would solve many issues.
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.
Your pie idea is really interesting! I’ve been thinking about this lately too, and I wonder if forcing cities to become their own states by way of rural secession would work (it would be easiest to do when the city already lies near the coast or state border.)
For instance, I live in Pa and Philly really messes everything up. Well they’ll never split with Pa on their own because they’re not the ones being screwed over while paying exorbitant taxes to dictator Wolf. It would be imperative on the rest of the state to say enough is enough.
I’m not sure how the electoral vote issue would work in this idea- maybe split the original vote total between the new states?
I just feel like if Democrats want to eventually add states anyway, then we may as well beat them to it and create new conservative states with strict state constitutions that would shut down leftist policies leaking in (like build universal concealed carry into the state constitution so it’s much more difficult for someone to eventually try to impose gun control).
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.
Believe Ceasar passed many reforms that benefitted the people. From my memory, and I hadn't had my covfefe yet, I believe Ceasar was closer to "a man of the people" than not.
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.
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 MUST have term limits for this to work. I also think we need to ban multinational corporations from donating to politicians as that’s a conflict of interest and the reason our jobs disappeared. We also need to enact something like the cursus honorum they had in Rome where if you have a government position you can only serve in the role you’re in for a set amount of time— if you don’t have the right stuff to get promoted, you’re out. That combined with an easier recall system to remove Bureaucrats that aren’t performing well for their constituents (building code inspectors, that sort of thing) would solve many issues.
We live in a banana democracy.
No a pear oligarchy
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.
You do understand the average person doesn't understand this? By design me says.
Very true. It’s like war and peace. The peace never lasts. Then you get a terrible war followed by a great peace.
Stalin was based - he killed SO many commies.
Well...you’re not wrong. He does lead the world in killing commies (or did mao kill more?).
The 200iq take.
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.
Your pie idea is really interesting! I’ve been thinking about this lately too, and I wonder if forcing cities to become their own states by way of rural secession would work (it would be easiest to do when the city already lies near the coast or state border.) For instance, I live in Pa and Philly really messes everything up. Well they’ll never split with Pa on their own because they’re not the ones being screwed over while paying exorbitant taxes to dictator Wolf. It would be imperative on the rest of the state to say enough is enough. I’m not sure how the electoral vote issue would work in this idea- maybe split the original vote total between the new states? I just feel like if Democrats want to eventually add states anyway, then we may as well beat them to it and create new conservative states with strict state constitutions that would shut down leftist policies leaking in (like build universal concealed carry into the state constitution so it’s much more difficult for someone to eventually try to impose gun control).
"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.
Believe Ceasar passed many reforms that benefitted the people. From my memory, and I hadn't had my covfefe yet, I believe Ceasar was closer to "a man of the people" than not.
Also, wasn't Lepidus a damn traitor (to Ceasar)?
PS fuck Brutus
RESTORE CEASAR
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.