|
On April 19 2013 06:51 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing. I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person. The same goes for wealth etc.
But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference.
I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit.
I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
|
Given the general coolness of French history, can I be a republican until someone overthrows it and declares himself emperor...again?
|
In Canada's case, removing the Monarch would mean rewriting how our democracy works. If you think getting a consensus on abolishing the Monarchy is hard, imagine getting unanimous consent on how to rewrite your constitution. The status quo works very well in Canada, even though an effective and elected head of state would be a useful tool in reigning in our ridiculously powerful Prime Minister.
Even if the disadvantages of a Monarchy outweigh the advantages, the massive impact of abolishing the Monarchy still wouldn't necessarily make the act worth it, or politically feasible.
|
On April 19 2013 06:56 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:54 Paljas wrote:
I am curious.
Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment"
anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment
having to much influence? I'm curious, I've seen already a few people on the internet organizing their sentences like this but I've never figured out why?
because its more
aesthetic this
way.
|
On April 19 2013 07:02 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:56 Kukaracha wrote:On April 19 2013 06:54 Paljas wrote:
I am curious.
Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment"
anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment
having to much influence? I'm curious, I've seen already a few people on the internet organizing their sentences like this but I've never figured out why? because its more aesthetic this way.
This shit
is
gett
ing
out of
hand.
|
On April 19 2013 06:59 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:47 Kukaracha wrote:On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated. Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity. Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country? *or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone I'd point the finger at corruption, which,admittedly, is inevitable in any governmental system. USSR and China had a history of corruption before their communist governments came into being, and in those places allegiance to the party was (and is) oftentimes more important than true merit. They both also put a ton of resources into military spending which isn't too productive to begin with, because then there is even more corruption and waste. Their top level leaders, too, were also pretty damn psycho. Show nested quote +First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms. The point is that the colas are effectively the same and there is waste in their separation. Also, what the people want is not always for the best (illegal drugs which cause heavier crime) , and resources are wasted by "startups" that are ultimately unsuccessful. It would be more efficient if existing companies adopted new ideas. Heavy industry with high cost of entry like steel, coal, gas, lumber, etc. would also benefit greatly because there is very little difference between the products.
One brand of Cola is only efficient in the sense that it would mean they can merge various production etc for economies of scale, but there would be no competition and no choice and a the instance of merging it might be more efficient but after time it would get worse and worse and less and less efficient. As for illegal drugs public opinion is heading toward decriminalisation the rest i disagree with but i think i've said enough i don't want to keep derailing the thread.
|
On April 19 2013 07:00 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:51 blackone wrote:On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing. I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person. The same goes for wealth etc. But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference. I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit. I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing.
I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School.
And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
|
On April 19 2013 07:04 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:59 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:47 Kukaracha wrote:On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated. Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity. Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country? *or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone I'd point the finger at corruption, which,admittedly, is inevitable in any governmental system. USSR and China had a history of corruption before their communist governments came into being, and in those places allegiance to the party was (and is) oftentimes more important than true merit. They both also put a ton of resources into military spending which isn't too productive to begin with, because then there is even more corruption and waste. Their top level leaders, too, were also pretty damn psycho. First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms. The point is that the colas are effectively the same and there is waste in their separation. Also, what the people want is not always for the best (illegal drugs which cause heavier crime) , and resources are wasted by "startups" that are ultimately unsuccessful. It would be more efficient if existing companies adopted new ideas. Heavy industry with high cost of entry like steel, coal, gas, lumber, etc. would also benefit greatly because there is very little difference between the products. One brand of Cola is only efficient in the sense that it would mean they can merge various production etc for economies of scale, but there would be no competition and no choice and a the instance of merging it might be more efficient but after time it would get worse and worse and less and less efficient. As for illegal drugs public opinion is heading toward decriminalisation the rest i disagree with but i think i've said enough i don't want to keep derailing the thread.
I don't think it's derailment. The thread is about forms of leadership of a government and I posited one that was neglected by the OP. I think while monarchies and republics are important structures from the past, technocracy could very well be the future.
Competition is not necessary if, as I previously mentioned, state industry is run like a corporation. Hell, there could even be votes periodically over whether people like the new taste, and there could still be different colas produced by the same company, which would mean a more efficient infrastructure at the very least. Also, I agree with limited decriminalization but meth is probably never going to be legal and as long as it is illegal, there will be lots of criminal activity around it.
On April 19 2013 07:07 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:00 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:51 blackone wrote:On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing. I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person. The same goes for wealth etc. But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference. I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit. I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing. I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
In America, many elite, normally very selective colleges will admit less qualified applicants if they have important parents.
|
On April 19 2013 07:07 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:00 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:51 blackone wrote:On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing. I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person. The same goes for wealth etc. But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference. I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit. I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing. I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans.
Out of curiosity, were those degrees actually legit or just daddy's clout?
I don't know, maybe I'm wierd for wanting the actual elected leaders to be a cut above, not reliant on a staff of surrogate brains to do their thinking. Hardcore meritocracy is where it's at, holla at ya boi.
|
On April 19 2013 06:59 Chocolate wrote:
illegal drugs which cause heavier crime
what are you talking about?
|
On April 19 2013 07:10 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:07 Prog455 wrote:On April 19 2013 07:00 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:51 blackone wrote:On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing. I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person. The same goes for wealth etc. But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference. I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit. I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing. I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans. Out of curiosity, were those degrees actually legit or just daddy's clout? I don't know, maybe I'm wierd for wanting the actual elected leaders to be a cut above, not reliant on a staff of surrogate brains to do their thinking. Hardcore meritocracy is where it's at, holla at ya boi.
Those degrees are most certainly as legit as can be, given that USA is the country where every man is self made an no one should be born into power.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
simulating competition by votes or committee decisions is not that easy. once you have a mechanism that doles out important outcomes like "who gets fired in this room," be sure that that very mechanism will have to satisfy the test of whether it corresponds to the benefit of society/consumer. this is the problem of creating higher and higher tiers of corruptible committees.
the market is pretty good at what it does, but it's not a priori perfect like a theoretical description would have it, due to the way economic theories are generated in the first place. (starting from limited set of assumptions rather than real world situations).
rent seeking and inbred hierarchies are a problem whether you are in the USSR or high finance.
|
i am glad to see mcbengt and drone serve knugen and angel princess so i did not have to dirty my hands.
i echo drones sentiment. when i was younger i didn't care for the monarchy, and i still don't. it's an absurd and inefficient way of producing a good representative. however haakon turned out to be a very good representative, much better than the politicians i know about.
i am caught in an awkward equilibrium. hopefully haakon will be the last one.
|
On April 19 2013 06:05 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:57 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion. I am not trolling. I have never said that the IQ or literally skills or even the morale of our royals are above us. I just think that they are worth more than me, in terms of "worthiness". If your wife was going to get hit by a bus and the only way to stop it was to push her out of the way and instead sacrifice yourself, would you do it? I suspect most of us would, I know I would. That is the sort of feeling I have for our royal family. Maybe not to the extent of sacrificing my existence to them, but I would do a lot. I'd push them in front of the bus. Why would they have some greater inherent value than other members of the same primate species? Why are they exempt from the rule of being judged by your actions, not your birth? What an absolutely disgusting idea, fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to almost every humanistic principle I can think of. It's such a laughable concept, so illogical and without any reasoned merit whatsoever, it's based on bronze age morality and social policies one would expect to find in a pack of hyenas. The king is the king because he has power, soldiers, and can simply take what he wants. Might makes right, law of the jungle.
Though I may disagree with Believer's views, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are.
|
On April 19 2013 07:13 Prog455 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 07:10 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 07:07 Prog455 wrote:On April 19 2013 07:00 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:51 blackone wrote:On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing. I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person. The same goes for wealth etc. But the average person is woefully unequipped to deal with the complexity involved in running a major industrialized nation in 2013. See G.W Bush for reference. I'm all in favour of a democratic vote, but I staunchly oppose this idea that candidates should represent some kind of population median. They should be the best the parties can offer. In every area except politics, elite is a good thing. If I'm sick, I'd love to have an elite doctor, if we are in a military conflict having an elite fighting force is good, if a plane is having a malfunction at 10 000 metres, I'd feel a lot safer with an elite pilot in the cockpit. I don't want an average joe running my country, because the average joe is not very bright and would likely cause horrendous damage with his fumbling attempts at governing. I'd just like to point out that G.W. Bush has a BA in History from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. And in regards to average joe running your country, you should remember that ministry has a highly educated staff to help politicans. Out of curiosity, were those degrees actually legit or just daddy's clout? I don't know, maybe I'm wierd for wanting the actual elected leaders to be a cut above, not reliant on a staff of surrogate brains to do their thinking. Hardcore meritocracy is where it's at, holla at ya boi. Those degrees are most certainly as legit as can be, given that USA is the country where every man is self made an no one should be born into power.
G.W Bush was infamous for being pushed into positions he was entirely unqualified for because of his father's contacts. A dubious diploma is certainly not beyond reason.
Though I may disagree with Believer's views, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are.
I have never challenged his right to his opinion. I will challenge the opinion itself though.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 19 2013 07:26 Arctic Daishi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:05 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:57 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:54 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 05:38 Believer wrote:On April 19 2013 05:37 Teoman wrote:On April 19 2013 05:30 Believer wrote:
Swede here. Strongly support monarchy and wish the king had more power. May i ask. Why? I believe royals are superior to us "grunts". Are you trolling here or something? Our king is an illiterate whore-mongering imbecile who can't even spell his own title, all but one of his children are spoiled brats with an IQ barely above sea level who live off of the sweat of hard-working people, a non-stop party with the taxpayers picking up the bill. Their like a whole band of drunk uncles who just won't leave. Revolting. Monarchy is an embrassament, it's like a vestigial tumour from a time when we didn't know what an atom was and thought witches were responisble for soured milk. For the republics in Europe and the US, you have my sincere envy. Viva la revolucion. I am not trolling. I have never said that the IQ or literally skills or even the morale of our royals are above us. I just think that they are worth more than me, in terms of "worthiness". If your wife was going to get hit by a bus and the only way to stop it was to push her out of the way and instead sacrifice yourself, would you do it? I suspect most of us would, I know I would. That is the sort of feeling I have for our royal family. Maybe not to the extent of sacrificing my existence to them, but I would do a lot. I'd push them in front of the bus. Why would they have some greater inherent value than other members of the same primate species? Why are they exempt from the rule of being judged by your actions, not your birth? What an absolutely disgusting idea, fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to almost every humanistic principle I can think of. It's such a laughable concept, so illogical and without any reasoned merit whatsoever, it's based on bronze age morality and social policies one would expect to find in a pack of hyenas. The king is the king because he has power, soldiers, and can simply take what he wants. Might makes right, law of the jungle. Though I may disagree with Believer's views, he is just as entitled to his opinion as you are.
so are the hyenas, but that's what makes them hyenas.
|
I have to say, the amount of rhetoric in the OP would be hilarious if the TC wasn't completely serious.
Aside from the initial war between the British and French colonies, there were no "revolutions" or "civil wars" in Canada, let alone "a series". At best, you have a couple of rebellions in what are now the Canadian prairies, but those were about French speaking colonists and Metis (natives) fighting for land and rights, not for independence from the crown. And yes, pro-annexation movements were prevalent in Canada, but what killed the momentum was the provinces joining confederacy (aka, becoming part of Canada instead of just colonies), not brutal oppression. There were still plenty of people pushing for joining America, but they were fringe groups at best, ones that had no fear of executions.
Saying that America opposed being born into power and nobility is absolutely laughable. The United States might have rejected the monarchy, but they absolutely supported aristocracy. It took at least a century before "equality for all people" even meant equality for all people.
And while I have no knowledge of the Netherlands and their history, it would not surprise me if your statements were completely false as well.
Honestly, I'm struggling to find anything in the OP that's even remotely sensible.
|
Chocolate:
I don't think it's derailment. The thread is about forms of leadership of a government and I posited one that was neglected by the OP. I think while monarchies and republics are important structures from the past, technocracy could very well be the future.
Competition is not necessary if, as I previously mentioned, state industry is run like a corporation. Hell, there could even be votes periodically over whether people like the new taste, and there could still be different colas produced by the same company, which would mean a more efficient infrastructure at the very least. Also, I agree with limited decriminalization but meth is probably never going to be legal and as long as it is illegal, there will be lots of criminal activity around it.
The thread is titled Republicanism and Monarchism. Not R and M and Technocracy or whatever other form of government we want to talk about.
i echo drones sentiment. when i was younger i didn't care for the monarchy, and i still don't. it's an absurd and inefficient way of producing a good representative. however haakon turned out to be a very good representative, much better than the politicians i know about.
I think that in the countries that remain *monarchies,* particularly the European ones, the monarchy provides a unifying symbol for the country, a proud acknowledgment of its, and I think it provides additional dignity to the culture of a country as well.
Saying that America opposed being born into power and nobility is absolutely laughable. The United States might have rejected the monarchy, but they absolutely supported aristocracy. It took at least a century before "equality for all people" even meant equality for all people.
The only aristocracy absolutely supported in America was the antebellum Southern aristocracy. We nearly annihilated it in the Civil War, either directly through death in battle or by razing of plantations and appropriations of their property and the freeing of their slaves.
The old colonial and revolutionary (two different things, with some families in both) aristocracy had mostly died out by the 1830s, with John Quincy Adams stubbornly reminding everyone that they had once existed.
Slavery as an aristocratic system makes no sense. It simply is not. It can be a facet of one, as it was with the Southern planter aristocracy. In the North and particularly in the "West" (the region between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River, excluding the Deep and coastal South but not states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, western North Carolina, etc.) nuveau riche sprung up like mushrooms. And then Texas and the Great Plains and the Rockies and the Pacific Northwest and California made even more, while back in places like my own Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, boys raised in a distinctly lower-middle class setting like Andrew Carnegie turned themselves into titans of industry.
Let's not ignore history. The American aristocracy, as it was in the year 1900, largely made itself over the course of the second half of the 19th century. The American aristocracy of today is an aristocracy of a different nature that I will explore in a later, and it will be quite long (yinz been warned!), post.
|
How come america is listed as a democracy while it is clearly a plutocrazy and people dont even realize it.
The rich tule the americans and they are ruled by money, at least a monarch could maybe have some form of dignity, respect and humansim compared to our plutocratic politicans nowadays.
I think the canadians are damn happy of not belonging to the US nowadays 
The best form of governance would be a dictatorship with me as the dictator of the whole world, because lets be real, humans are frackin stupid, and I would lead them to peace, progression and prosperity.
I would end all wars, educate the people and have a renaisance of rationalism, respect and humansim in the world.
I would abolish hunger, greed and unequality and the financial industry to focus on the real economy instead of shadows and lies.
|
On April 19 2013 07:32 Holy_AT wrote:How come america is listed as a democracy while it is clearly a plutocrazy and people dont even realize it. The rich tule the americans and they are ruled by money, at least a monarch could maybe have some form of dignity, respect and humansim compared to our plutocratic politicans nowadays. I think the canadians are damn happy of not belonging to the US nowadays The best form of governance would be a dictatorship with me as the dictator of the whole world, because lets be real, humans are frackin stupid, and I would lead them to peace, progression and prosperity. I would end all wars, educate the people and have a renaisance of rationalism, respect and humansim in the world. I would abolish hunger, greed and unequality and the financial industry to focus on the real economy instead of shadows and lies.
Dat Pluto, he so crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
