|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:09 pm
Erverain Well, the first "monarch-type" leader would probably work his a** off to stabilize the country. From there, either his appointed successor or equivalent would hammer out the public works. After that, though, we might get the more militaristic or expansionist types. Of course, that's just a hypothetical in ideal conditions, so we'd probably get a crazy b*****d right from the start. In the link I had posted, the one on Plato's Republic, Socrates goes on about the "degeneration of government" or somesuch. Basically, when a government begins to break down, it goes like so: Best->Bravest(strongest)->Richest->descend to next level. And funnily enough, democracy is ri~ght on the bottom of the scale. Why, though? A monarch can rule more securely when there's a crisis to make the people think his power grabbing and oppression are "necessary for the public good" or somesuch. They need a perpetual crisis or war. Democracy, as well as any and all other forms of government, is flawed sufficiently to be broken.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:17 pm
lazycommie when there's a crisis to make the people think his power grabbing and oppression are "necessary for the public good" or somesuch. They need a perpetual crisis or war.
*cough* Patriot Act, anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:18 pm
I would like to believe that one could rule a country without need for perpetual conflict. But then again, that makes me sound like some mad optimist in this Machiavellian world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 5:32 pm
Taeryyn lazycommie when there's a crisis to make the people think his power grabbing and oppression are "necessary for the public good" or somesuch. They need a perpetual crisis or war.
*cough* Patriot Act, anyone?Ayup. Also, just about any other "for your own safety" or "for the public good" policy, pushed by just about any leader to ever exist. You don't need conflict, just crisis. Even a faked crisis, one entirely created by controlled media, would be sufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 7:18 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:55 pm
lazycommie Erverain Well, sometimes I think an effective tyrant is more capable than a bumbling democracy. But that just be my own megalomania talking. If anything, I'd be a rather ineffectual leader... Capable, yes. But capable of what? Only of grabbing more power. Tyrants have only one thing in mind, power. Don't get me started on the failings of democracy... The only thing any government has on its mind is power. The difference is that tyrants can actually do whatever it takes to get it. Ever read "The Prince?" It's really very upsetting - pretty much it says "do whatever it takes to gain power, never say you have enough power, and do whatever you can to retain power. Also, rule fairly when not attaining power at any costs." Also, while our government may be severely flawed (or "broken,") it's not the kind of thing that can be disassembled and revamped overnight. It takes time to fix things - much longer than two months. Also, while it may be nice to hope that any crises wouldn't be faked. I mean, conspiracy theorists are already having a field day with the current state of things. Paranoia is pretty much contagious nowadays. I don't think I could stand it if things got anymore repressed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:15 pm
Thanks, Waku. This was getting pretty heavy for the "average discussion" of normal threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:52 am
XxStephasaurusxXxRexxX lazycommie Erverain Well, sometimes I think an effective tyrant is more capable than a bumbling democracy. But that just be my own megalomania talking. If anything, I'd be a rather ineffectual leader... Capable, yes. But capable of what? Only of grabbing more power. Tyrants have only one thing in mind, power. Don't get me started on the failings of democracy... The only thing any government has on its mind is power. The difference is that tyrants can actually do whatever it takes to get it. Ever read "The Prince?" It's really very upsetting - pretty much it says "do whatever it takes to gain power, never say you have enough power, and do whatever you can to retain power. Also, rule fairly when not attaining power at any costs." Also, while our government may be severely flawed (or "broken,") it's not the kind of thing that can be disassembled and revamped overnight. It takes time to fix things - much longer than two months. Also, while it may be nice to hope that any crises wouldn't be faked. I mean, conspiracy theorists are already having a field day with the current state of things. Paranoia is pretty much contagious nowadays. I don't think I could stand it if things got anymore repressed... Obama has made no pretense of trying to fix anything. He's a politician, and a would-be tyrant(but, hopefully, he's too stupid to succeed in that aim), all he wants is power. Such people can't fix anything, only break it further. There's a big difference between "paranoia" and seeing where we're going and figuring we're in for a rough ride.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profitable Conversationalist
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:58 pm
I'm not going to say I agree 100% with the first post. However, Yak Orama sure isn't going to win me over with the current lackluster performance he has given thus far. Then again, I never expected him to succeed with what he was dealt. Nor is he entirely to blame, there are others in government that are failing us as well. Still, we know who our current leader is, and it is generally the leader who bears the brunt of the blame because of his station.
I have a feeling our leader is going to lead us a little father into the dark before someone is able to help us reach the dawn. Hope everyone's got a flashlight handy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:22 pm
lazycommie XxStephasaurusxXxRexxX lazycommie Erverain Well, sometimes I think an effective tyrant is more capable than a bumbling democracy. But that just be my own megalomania talking. If anything, I'd be a rather ineffectual leader... Capable, yes. But capable of what? Only of grabbing more power. Tyrants have only one thing in mind, power. Don't get me started on the failings of democracy... The only thing any government has on its mind is power. The difference is that tyrants can actually do whatever it takes to get it. Ever read "The Prince?" It's really very upsetting - pretty much it says "do whatever it takes to gain power, never say you have enough power, and do whatever you can to retain power. Also, rule fairly when not attaining power at any costs." Also, while our government may be severely flawed (or "broken,") it's not the kind of thing that can be disassembled and revamped overnight. It takes time to fix things - much longer than two months. Also, while it may be nice to hope that any crises wouldn't be faked. I mean, conspiracy theorists are already having a field day with the current state of things. Paranoia is pretty much contagious nowadays. I don't think I could stand it if things got anymore repressed... Obama has made no pretense of trying to fix anything. He's a politician, and a would-be tyrant(but, hopefully, he's too stupid to succeed in that aim), all he wants is power. Such people can't fix anything, only break it further. There's a big difference between "paranoia" and seeing where we're going and figuring we're in for a rough ride. Either way, we're going to have to give him more than two months to find out. I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of paranoia, but the fact is that it's all over the place nowadays. I don't disagree with you re: the rough ride, but we had to know that when Bush started ******** us in the a** and wallet simultaneously. It was always going to be a hard comeback, no matter who got elected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:33 pm
XxStephasaurusxXxRexxX lazycommie XxStephasaurusxXxRexxX lazycommie Erverain Well, sometimes I think an effective tyrant is more capable than a bumbling democracy. But that just be my own megalomania talking. If anything, I'd be a rather ineffectual leader... Capable, yes. But capable of what? Only of grabbing more power. Tyrants have only one thing in mind, power. Don't get me started on the failings of democracy... The only thing any government has on its mind is power. The difference is that tyrants can actually do whatever it takes to get it. Ever read "The Prince?" It's really very upsetting - pretty much it says "do whatever it takes to gain power, never say you have enough power, and do whatever you can to retain power. Also, rule fairly when not attaining power at any costs." Also, while our government may be severely flawed (or "broken,") it's not the kind of thing that can be disassembled and revamped overnight. It takes time to fix things - much longer than two months. Also, while it may be nice to hope that any crises wouldn't be faked. I mean, conspiracy theorists are already having a field day with the current state of things. Paranoia is pretty much contagious nowadays. I don't think I could stand it if things got anymore repressed... Obama has made no pretense of trying to fix anything. He's a politician, and a would-be tyrant(but, hopefully, he's too stupid to succeed in that aim), all he wants is power. Such people can't fix anything, only break it further. There's a big difference between "paranoia" and seeing where we're going and figuring we're in for a rough ride. Either way, we're going to have to give him more than two months to find out. I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of paranoia, but the fact is that it's all over the place nowadays. I don't disagree with you re: the rough ride, but we had to know that when Bush started ******** us in the a** and wallet simultaneously. It was always going to be a hard comeback, no matter who got elected. Actually, two months is more than sufficient time to see some sort of change, given that the market is based on confidence and speculation, and any changes regarding it take place hour by hour or faster. Bush didn't start the downslide we're in. Actually, believe it or not, Bush tried to push a thing which would have prevented the shitstorm involvinf fannie mae and freddie mac, but the dem controlled congress(not just the dems, as some "moderate" republicans also blocked it) blocked it and so we got stuck with this mess. Even then, we were on a downslide before Bush, and had been improving slowly post-9/11(9/11 was a huge drop, for obvious reasons). Blaming the mess on Bush doesn't fly. I don't see it as a "hard comeback" under Obama. I see it as "I hope we can even make a comeback". He's quite possibly the worst person you could have put in the position, given his track record and what he pushed in the spendulus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:39 am
Not when there are more pressing issues to deal with, like the ones Bush left scattered all over the White House.
There are a lot of changes Obama was planning to make, so it's going to take him more than two months to oversee the implementation of any one from his laundry list.
Even though we were moving out of the negativity left over after Clinton's stint as President, the event that caused us to backslide (9/11) happened during Bush's presidency, and was handled inappropriately. I'm not blaming anything on anyone, I expect those responsible to take responsibility, which Bush didn't.
Then the Obama issue is a moot argument with you; you've made up your mind that you're right and I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:54 pm
XxStephasaurusxXxRexxX Not when there are more pressing issues to deal with, like the ones Bush left scattered all over the White House. There are a lot of changes Obama was planning to make, so it's going to take him more than two months to oversee the implementation of any one from his laundry list. Even though we were moving out of the negativity left over after Clinton's stint as President, the event that caused us to backslide (9/11) happened during Bush's presidency, and was handled inappropriately. I'm not blaming anything on anyone, I expect those responsible to take responsibility, which Bush didn't. Then the Obama issue is a moot argument with you; you've made up your mind that you're right and I'm wrong. I find it funny how you blame Bush for "scattering issues" about. Name one. If you bring up the war, be prepared to back it up seriously, because the war is rather justifiable(both Iraq and Afghanistan). I would like to show you something. It's the Dow chart. Click "10yr", and it handily debunks any claims that Bush screwed the economy. We were doing very well. hitting "max" does even better to put things in perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:06 pm
Hehehe..Nosebleed very political topic.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
