Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Should people who dress and act like gang bangers be treated with greater suspicion by police and the public?
For those who don't know what I mean, allow me to illustrate.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060717012310/uncyclopedia/images/1/1f/Not_wiggers.jpg
LP,
Autocracy is the least likely to be taken over by elites, in which case it is no longer an autocracy. The only way to maintain an autocracy, and thus a government of stewardship, is for autocrats to be capable. Thus you need them to be selected by merit. Merit, of course, implies intelligence and hard work.
You may think that meritocratic selection will not work because it is unnatural, however it worked incredibly well in Rome under the period of the 5 good emperors. The emperor's power eventually passed on to Marcus Aurelius' son, but the circumstances in which that happened is more complicated than "Oh, Aurelius was just too sentimental about his son inheriting the throne."
The issue of government I am addressing is elites. My point is that representative government is the government of choice for a commercial elite. If I am wrong, then why is it that there is a huge correlation, both ancient, medieval and modern, between the emergence of a commercial elite and representative government? And furthermore, why do these representative governments tend to favor commercial interests the most? My second point is that political stewardship is short lived under such a system, and the best way to ensure stewardship is to establish an autocracy. Of course, you are welcome to counter my last point with reforms that you believe will limit elite influence and promote stewardship, but my knowledge of history gives me zero confidence in representative government being one of stewardship. If you want to counter my first point, then that is fine, but I believe it is my strongest point.
The VP really doesn't matter in the US.
You need government oversight to control system externalities and break trusts. The free market does not correct those by itself.
Of course, I don't approve of many cases of government intervention, such as commanding banks to lower their standards when offering mortgages to push home ownership. Seriously, wtf? That is effectively causing systemtic externalities that will collapse the economy.
> Omega Man wrote:
> Of course it was not a defensive war, and since he got a peace treaty in 1805 it was not just one war but several. He declared war, invaded, deposed monarchs, put up his own kinfolk as King, and then looted the place for more wars. Spain wasn't trying to invade France in 1810. Russia wanted to be left alone.>
In 1805, France was again at war with Britain, by Britain's own declaration. It was Britain who formed the third coalition with Russia and Austria, and they organized an attack against him.
In 1806, the fourth coalition was formed within months of the third's defeat at Austerlitz. This time it was Prussia, considered one of the greatest land powers in Europe, who fueled courage to the defeated third coalition. So Napoleon had to launch an offensive again, where he humiliated the Prussians at Jenna before the fourth coalition could link their forces.
As for the Czar Alexander I, he wanted nothing but to be seen as the savior of Europe who defeated Napoleon. Of course, he was pwned at Austerlitz, and was fortunate to be able to defeat Napoleon with scorched earth tactics by goading him in to attacking Russia by betraying his alliance with Napoleon. Of course, it was largely Britain's fault for not giving up, and it was hard on Russia to participate in the blockade, but Alexander I was still focused on defeating Napoleon himself at the soonest opportunity.
Of course Napoleon installed his own family and generals as kings. What better way to ensure the loyalty of conquered lands taken from defeated empires?
Napoleon's invasion of Spain could be seen as a possible exception, although Spain was being a haphazard ally. A mistake on his part no less, but that doesn't change the fact that he was not responsible for the majority of the wars waged against him.
>and I guess you'd argue coming back from Elba and setting up the Empire again was a defensive move?>
Yup. They were planning to change their arrangement with him to something less favorable.
> Omega Man wrote:
> My point about Napoleon was that he was faced with the difficulty of the ruling elite of Europe wanting nothing less than him to be removed from power, and he was not the aggressive imperialist that he is portrayed as. "
He did not conquer, depose and loot all Europe from Portugal to Poland as part of a defensive war. If he is NOT an aggressive imperialist then nobody was>
Of course it was a defensive war. France was continually invaded after the Bourbon dynasty was deposed from power. Napoleon knew that if there was to be peace, he had to force the European powers to accept peace by going on the offensive. Of course, Britain was least inclined to allow peace.
LP,
My point about Napoleon was that he was faced with the difficulty of the ruling elite of Europe wanting nothing less than him to be removed from power, and he was not the aggressive imperialist that he is portrayed as. And overall, his rule in the precious years of peace he had was prudent and beneficial to France.
Speaking of Spain, they really don't count. The Spanish Empire was effectively crippled long before representative government was broadly viable in Europe. They never invested their gold in anything meaningful like infrastructure, and so they never capitalized on the good foundation they built. The other empires that survived in to the 1900s, however, were more prudent with the resources they had at their disposal.
Secondly, with all the benefits of representative government regurgitated, the ability to remove an incompetent leader or for government accountability to the people, they don't seem to be actually true, for long anyway. Whether ancient or modern, representative governments are consistently dominated by private interests. There are periods of strong leadership, such as the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, but usually the government is more concerned about the private interests they depend on than they are with the people. And over time, the representative government gets elitist to the point of the late Roman Republic, where an Emperor became an absolute necessity. And I dare say that America is getting to that point now.
An autocracy, while not necessarily true, can provide a long-term period of strong leadership. It is in the interest of the autocrat to nurture the state, because their power depends on how well the state is doing. It would be imprudent for an independent autocrat to cater to private interests that harm the state, because that would weaken their own power by channeling it to other individuals as well as weaken the state.
Yes, an autocrat's successor can be, and often is, a short sighted moron. However, an autocracy does not need to base succession on family. During the period of the Five Good Emperors, succession was decided on merit. Little wonder why those Five Emperors were so great aye?
A weak government is dependent on private interests, and when private interests are highly influential the state is weakened by their short-sighted greed. And the only way to have a consistently strong government is to have an autocrat, and perhaps we should learn from the Romans that these autocrats should be selected on merit.
In a Democratic/Constitutional Republican government, the parties intended to represent the people are actually motivated by the private interests of individuals who dominate them. Their pursuit of self interest creates state wide externalities that cause severe harm to the state as a whole.
One counter argument may be that Democratic countries are the most powerful, however Western countries have largely inherited the assets and opportunities of past empires.
In an autocracy, the enlightened self interest of the ruling individual is to care for the state as a whole. I don't mean an ancient monarchy with a powerful nobility to check the power of the monarch as they tear apart the state in the same way I spoke of with a representative government, I mean an autocracy. The autocrat is powerful enough to monitor, regulate, and punish any private interests who threaten the state. Exemplary individuals would be Augustus Caesar, Vlad Tepes and Napoleon.
And for those who have been brainwashed that Napoleon was responsible for the bloodiest European war before WW1, I remind you that the nobility of Europe had to eliminate the revolution, and Napoleon by extension, or face ruin. Napoleon may have pacified them at times, but they were always looking for that opportunity to crush him completely.
As for Vlad Tepes, yes he was brutal. He was so BA he effectively exterminated the nobility, who had caused so much internal havoc in the decades past, they deserved it.
Only suckers volunteer. Go move to a new location Zarf, with a better economy.
I have to admit it is interesting to see how our political elites are not the best and brightest, but I don't see how focusing on Gore's academic record disproves global warming.
Fudgeh,
I am afraid you do not understand me, but I see I was not using language appropriate for a non-native English speaker.
Here's what I mean. First, I will introduce the scientific conclusion that 50% of IQ variation depends on biology. In fact, they found that separated, identical twins (genetically equivalent) had similar IQs.
Now
1. Intelligent people are intelligent largely because of the genes they inherited.
2. Intelligent people tend to have difficulty socializing with people with substantially lower IQs than them.
3. Because most people have lower IQs, intelligent people have fewer social opportunities.
4. But most people are still social, and there are introverts and extroverts among intelligent people too, and the percentage of introversion/extroversion seems to be similar to less intelligent people.
5. Even if an extroverted intelligent person wants to socialize, his/her opportunities to do so are still limited. However, if a group of intelligent people are together, then the extroverts among them will express themselves.
Well, most every human being has social needs, some more than others. There are plenty of introverted people with an average IQ, but the extroverted ones are simply more visible. In the case of intelligent people, they usually have limited social options, because frankly they do not care what 70% of humanity, the dipsticks, have to say. In an environment with a normal IQ bell curve, of course you would expect them to keep to themselves. But what happens when their social environment is not a normal bell curve, and instead they are surrounded by only other intelligent people? My experience is that a lot of closet extroverts come out, and the distribution between introverts and extroverts is virtually equivalent to normal people.
I agree that extroverted intelligent people are probably socializing less than their less intelligent counterparts, however I think it is because they developed personal hobbies in their isolation.
Actually, I think that the problem with intelligent people is not that they have trouble socializing, it is that they tend to have trouble socializing with less than intelligent people. As a result, their social options are more narrow, and this tends to give them limited experience, which frustrates their emotional and social maturity.
Winning is simple. Strike fear in to the population. Let them know that there is a price for challenging the American Empire.
I suggest
- Impale defeated Taliban/terrorist combatants and those who harbor them.
- Relocate the civilian population in to the cities or designation camps.
- Use the advantage of mass propaganda to programs the beliefs of civilians, for their own good of course.
- Publicly flog anyone who publicly supports the Taliban/terrorists, and burn all literature that supports them.
- Impale imams and other religious authorities who support radical Islam.
Just a few ideas. But unless we implement them, no we aren't going to win.
East,
We have a lot of f... left lane campers. 90% of the time it's an old person too.
And let me guess Chris, you think Atheism, in the sense of not believing in God, is religious extremism?
I believe that the state should not recognize marriage at all. It should be strictly in the realm of cultural and religious institutions, and the tax deductions should be awarded to "families" who have children.
Avo, Yeah, if the workers elected Chavez to run their factory, then that is an example of Socialism.
Chris,
Yeah, the Euro governments are more Fascist. There is huge blending of the private sector and government. However, Euro corporatism is not Fascism in the same sense as WW2 Italy or Germany.
> Born2BwilD wrote:
> look guys, for those of you that think that the dem's and rep's are in a war, you are foolish chumps.... there working together just like the WWF they decide whos going to win, just to keep us sedated in thinking that we really have a choice... it's a lie.>
I agree that the government is a plutocracy, but the parties, while dominated by factions pursuing their own private interests, are not mere actors of a twisted reality show.
There may be similarities between Fascism and Socialism, but they are fundamentally different. In Socialism, the workers own the company, for example. Imagine your company being democratized, rather than owned privately having a top-down hierarchy.
Homosexuality is typically selected against by evolution. Men and women are attracted to one another because it was selected by evolution, and homosexuality seems to manifest as a result of the interaction of some advantageous genes. Basically, it is not normal and it is present in a small percentage of the population for a reason. But to be fair, a lot of crazy, abnormal things happen among individuals of a species that are not ordinarily practiced by the species as a whole, due to unique experiences and/or genes.
Although in the case of homosexuality, it is not always the case for every species. For some species, sexuality has evolved as a means to form social bonds and diffuse tension, as is the case with the bonobo. And in bonobos, a lot of sexual contact is homosexual. So effectively, most bonobos can be said to be bisexual. Of course, this is not how human sexuality evolved. We don't typically copulate with one another to form social bonds and diffuse tension as a tribal group, except maybe with our mate(s).
That said, there is no reason to deny homosexuals full participation in society. They can be just as productive as heterosexuals. However, I think it is silly to give them participation in the meaningless ritual of marriage. As a matter of fact, I think the state should not even recognize marriage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39068223/ns/39073267
This article has proven to me that the poor, Hispanic population in the California is beyond reason. They have become emotionally ballistic and rioted over a legitimate use of force. And they have the audacity to demand that officers learn a Mayan dialect?
While the LAPD has its share of abuses, no rational person can deny that this shooting was appropriate for the circumstances. The man had blood on his hands, threatened others, and then charged at a police officer. The reaction from the population is plain outrageous.
So what do you do with a group of people who with an inclination toward violence, largely due to misunderstandings and a lack of education, and still be civilized about it?
While I think it is a stretch of reason to hold the position that the US is going to be reduced to a second rate power, it is not so much of a stretch to say that the global balance of power is becoming more broadly distributed. In other words, America is one of many powers, rather than its previous position as the undisputed hyper power.
Overthrow the government? Our population is full of weaklings. If we had a military dictator, they would roll over and worship him if that was demanded.
Kemp,
In Lord Rahl's wisdom, we are humbled. 
Imperial Forum → Posts by Justinian I
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.