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).
Districts are already geographically nightmarish; trying to add rural swaths to urban districts would make things even more contrived (and IMO give lie to the whole system). I don't necessarily have a better answer, except perhaps several layers of mass disenfranchisement based on government dependency and/or negative societal contribution, which would largely nullify urban centers anyway.
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.
Believe Ceasar passed many reforms that benefitted the people.
Most of what he did was to pay off his heavy dues that he promised to his legions. I mean, they did just march on Rome. Loyalty only gets you so much commitment.
Lepidus was an honorable man. He was a staunch defender of the values of the republic so he sided with them over Caesar, but out of respect for Caesar, he did not even attempt to bring any of the men that had fought directly under him (and not Caesar) along with him. He had at least 1 entire legion that he easily could've taken with him but chose not to. Caesar had all of Lepidus' belongings in his northern home sent to him, as a sign of respect but also as a sign of "there is no coming back for you".
Ya Brutus was a coward but he was by no means the only instigator of the murder and it was going to happen regardless. For a man who had just stormed Rome and broken the most crucially sacred vows of the city, I cannot believe he didn't have guards always with him -- why did he care at that point about the "no weapons in Rome" (Pomerium) tradition ??
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.
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.
Fucking dumb
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).
Districts are already geographically nightmarish; trying to add rural swaths to urban districts would make things even more contrived (and IMO give lie to the whole system). I don't necessarily have a better answer, except perhaps several layers of mass disenfranchisement based on government dependency and/or negative societal contribution, which would largely nullify urban centers anyway.
"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
Most of what he did was to pay off his heavy dues that he promised to his legions. I mean, they did just march on Rome. Loyalty only gets you so much commitment.
Lepidus was an honorable man. He was a staunch defender of the values of the republic so he sided with them over Caesar, but out of respect for Caesar, he did not even attempt to bring any of the men that had fought directly under him (and not Caesar) along with him. He had at least 1 entire legion that he easily could've taken with him but chose not to. Caesar had all of Lepidus' belongings in his northern home sent to him, as a sign of respect but also as a sign of "there is no coming back for you".
Ya Brutus was a coward but he was by no means the only instigator of the murder and it was going to happen regardless. For a man who had just stormed Rome and broken the most crucially sacred vows of the city, I cannot believe he didn't have guards always with him -- why did he care at that point about the "no weapons in Rome" (Pomerium) tradition ??
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.