|
United States43348 Posts
On April 18 2008 08:26 HamerD wrote:
Kwark where the fuck did I say that ancient greece was a country? The method of government by having amicable city states which band together when facing foreign military oppression is clearly tantamount to the states of the US, minus the federal glue that holds them more tightly together. Bringing up the graecian model is perfectly apposite in response to your point about the current system of government.
Furthermore, Kwark, a particularly devolved amoeba's sense of humour would outrank yours if you seriously find something like that funny. You are a shrivelled, withered human being if you actually sit there- in your dank little cave, after mummy has dropped of your daily supply of cheesy biscuit treats; and belly-laugh yourself through another monotonous day of trolling, by finding humour where there could be considered to be such a small amount that it almost compares to the infinitesimal size of your clearly underused manhood (although to ascribe to anything you own the name of 'man' seems absurd to the point of insanity).
Clean the KY jelly and grease out of your eyes, take a shower; rub the undeserved arrogance and perceived intellectual superiority out of your grubby pores. Actually read what I wrote as opposed to what you reported me to have written.
Dude. I'm a second year history student doing a BA in history and specialising in classics. So let's just assume that when it comes to Greek cities what I say goes. Ok, firstly, the Greek states spent most of their history at war with each other. What is known as the Athenian Golden Age came to an end because it fought a war of mutual destruction with Sparta which was defeated by the relatively minor Greek state of Thebes shortly aftewards. The Greek cities were either in all out war, or in a cold war which exported the rivalries to colonies (which were also Greek cities). That you could possibly even begin to compare it to the US is so laughable that it puts to shame your previous post. The United States has a single unifying political system. The Greek States pretty much existed for the purpose of war with each other and had dozens of different political systems. Greek history contains so many utterly pointless and ridiculously destructive wars that it puts European history from the French revolution to 1945 to shame. There is no Graecian model, there never was. At the battle of Marathon the Athenians fought alone, Sparta refused to answer the call to unite. In the Delian League Sparta, Thebes, Corinth all refused to join. The only time Greece was united it was under foreign (the Macedonians were of Dorian descent) rule and they actively resisted it. You know absolutely nothing about Greek history beyond what you saw in the film 300 and that you try and argue it is incredible. If you have any sense at all, which I sincerely doubt given you are engaging in this argument without a basic working knowledge of the subject at hand, you will stop now and maybe read a book. Failing that read wikipedia.
As for the rest of your ad hominim attacks, I won't justify them with an answer. I've explained why your post is factually comparable to arguing black is white, that will suffice.
|
Wow Hamer, don't take it so personally. You're way overreacting. What you said was pretty ridiculous, however you put it. The greek city states were each entirely distinct from each other, and can be in no way compared to the the U.S. Each city-state had its own identity, own form of government, distinct cultures, etc. My knowledge of greek history is veryyy limited, but from what I understand, they only banded together when they were all threatened. In the meantime, they fought competed between themselves and fought each other. There was no central government at all. You couldn't even call it a confederation.
Are you seriously telling me that the Greek city states would not have been more efficient if there had existed some kind of Greek federal government?
edit:
My respect for Kwark just went up a few notches. 
|
You are right Kwark- plus I did say that ancient Greece was a country. I stand by my comments about your sense of humour.
But I appreciated that informative response.
My argument, although shafted by my mangling of the facts, is still salvageable- I propose that a strong, centralized government is the optimum model for a nation under threat of war; but that in times where art and humanity take to the fore, (up to a point) the less power any single government has the better.
And you still didn't respond to what I said regarding your point about 'thats the way it is' although I can't remember exactly what you said >>. Can you specify what you meant by that?
|
On April 18 2008 08:38 ahrara_ wrote:
Each city-state had its own identity, own form of government, distinct cultures, etc. My knowledge of greek history is veryyy limited, but from what I understand, they only banded together when they were all threatened. In the meantime, they fought competed between themselves and fought each other. There was no central government at all. You couldn't even call it a confederation.
Speaking of confederation, I'm bet that given enough time, and no obvious enemies outside of the US, the states WOULD split horizontally again.
And comon, the parallel between the US obviously exists. The graecian model is just more extreme and more decentralized; you said the city states had different cultures...we both know that the culture in deep Mississippi is damn different to that of Manhattan.
|
United States43348 Posts
I wasn't amused by trolling you. I was amused that you had the nerve to seriously try and argue Greek history while genuinely believing that the Greek states were some kind of federation. And that is funny, whatever you say. Anybody who knows anything about Greek history knows that the Greeks were destroyed by about 200 years of constant civil war.
When somebody speaks idiocies in an air of intellectualism it gives me a feeling of intellectual superiority. Given I have now vindicated my intellectual superiority you can't attack me on those grounds. I don't deny that my open mockery of you was rather haughty, I maintain it was entirely justified.
The rest of your insults are the kind of indefensible trash that make the internet the shithole it is. Call me arrogant and you can defend it in my posting history. But you know nothing of my personal life so there is absolutely no point in bringing it up.
|
On April 18 2008 08:04 sigma_x wrote:
Few people recognise just how successful modern societies are. Just consider, a few MILLION people organised into places of work and places of residence, global economies involving the entire globe where everyone in the workforce is a specialist particularising in certain facets of that society (such as construction, science, engineering), and all working more or less in harmony and peace. There's a lot to be improved of course, a lot, but not so much as to warrant the claim that the foundations of modern society are useless.
BTW, what this experiment suggests has already occurred. It has taken human society thousands of years to get to where it is today. In the process of 'testing' different systems of governments, humanity has endured wars - none more devastating than the two world wars, and in modern times, none more resounding than democracy's victory over communism during the Cold War. These wars, as much as peace is, have been critical in the development of human society - and for want of better word - have been a darwinian process, if only prima facie. How it will be possible to simulate this process through a more or less un-scientific experiment, i think, will be the experiment's theoretical and practical failure. And this is not to mention any practical issues with establishing the experiment in the first place - e.g. how is this going to fit in with international law? where is the money going to come from to establish the experiment? etc.
In short, if we were to express what we have just said in internet parlance, we'd call this psuedo-experiment an "epic fail". I pretty much have to agree here. This experiment that they're trying to conduct has pretty much already been conducted through thousands of years of human history. It seems like just a bunch of people who want to live in small groups as hermits and justify it as being a social experiment.
|
United States43348 Posts
On April 18 2008 08:50 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2008 08:38 ahrara_ wrote:
Each city-state had its own identity, own form of government, distinct cultures, etc. My knowledge of greek history is veryyy limited, but from what I understand, they only banded together when they were all threatened. In the meantime, they fought competed between themselves and fought each other. There was no central government at all. You couldn't even call it a confederation.
And comon, the parallel between the US obviously exists. The graecian model is just more extreme and more decentralized; you said the city states had different cultures...we both know that the culture in deep Mississippi is damn different to that of Manhattan.
God, how are you still trying to argue this?!?
They spent from 480 BCE to 338 BCE in a state of cold war or all out mass attrition (338 being the end of free Greece and 510 being the foundation of classical Athens (by foundation I mean city we concieve as Athens, not the actual start of the city).
So in the 172 years between those dates they spent 142 actively trying to destroy each other. As in all out war. Burning of cities, destroying of towns, slaughter of civilians. In the 219 years since the signing of the American constitution the United States has spent a grand total of 5 years in civil war.
They are not comparable!!!
142/172
5/219
Jeez
|
It's irrelevant to my reply to your first post here but I still think that that comparison could be made. Take out the tv, mod cons, the mass media and various other modern distractions, as well as again any obvious enemies, and I reckon America would resemble the city states more.
So let me try and remember, which period of ancient Greece was the most productive, intellectually? That period yielded a huge weight of pure gold for future generations of mathematicians, economists, poets and philosophers. Although perhaps it didn't. Perhaps the Greece I am thinking about is a romanticized, ill-informed version.
So I don't have evidential backup, well that's never stopped me before  ...I think there's a lot to be said for sigma_x's opinion, although I don't necessarily agree entirely with it. Society, and people, move in its/their own way; an undeniable juggernaut of progress. It's of course all relative to what's in their best interests. A good, free, democratic society will have a nice even split down opinions; and a balance of right and left; with the government representing the mean.
I don't think, however, that this is easily attained whenever the ruling class has either a certain level of power and control, or a certain level of opacity. I think that from a humanist perspective, pretty much every system of government right now is too feudal. It could be advanced, and a degree of enlightenment for the masses, in combination with superior education, health systems and transparency of ruling classes would be the next step to go in.
I wouldn't sit on your laurels, happy that everything is trundling along nicely; we still have poor people starving needlessly in the streets while very very rich people desperately try to find something to spend their pointlessly large cashflow on.
Btw I read the article and couldn't help being reminded of Lost...I think it's claptrap ¬¬
|
United States43348 Posts
You're thinking of the Athenian golden age (except for a few oddities like Archimedes who lived out in the Greek colonies (Syracuse in Sicily I believe) and even he was primarily a ballistics engineer for siege weaponry). That was all in the fifty years or so where the Delian League (led by Athens) was kicking the shit out of Persia and becoming the economic centre of the Greek world. In doing so it approached the territory of Sparta (who for the fifty years had been containing Athenian power, encouraging revolts in Athenian colonies and alligning herself with Persia).
It was over an extremely short time frame (Aristotle was tutored by Plato who was tutored by Socrates) was localised entirely to Athens. You can make a case for Athens being an example for the modern world but the rest of Greece was either forcefully colonised and dominated by Athens or opposed to Athens (or engaged in it's own local war with some old Greek enemy). The golden age came to a swift and brutal end when the Pelloponesian League (led by Sparta) and the Delian League (the Athenian Empire) decided to fight until only one of them was left. Persia who had spent 30 years being defeated everywhere she looked by the Delian League couldn't believe her luck as the entire of Greece imploded and destroyed itself. After the destruction of the Aegean economy and the death of about half the population of Athens Athens was finally starved into surrender. Sparta was so exhausted by the efforts that whereas in 480 she could muster 15000 Spartiates by 350 her standing army consisted of nearer 2000.
In short, what you're thinking about is the Athenian Golden Age. Nothing to do with Greece really, and a very brief period by any measure.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 18 2008 08:45 HamerD wrote:
You are right Kwark- plus I did say that ancient Greece was a country. I stand by my comments about your sense of humour.
But I appreciated that informative response.
My argument, although shafted by my mangling of the facts, is still salvageable- I propose that a strong, centralized government is the optimum model for a nation under threat of war; but that in times where art and humanity take to the fore, (up to a point) the less power any single government has the better.
Rebuttal would be the Confederate States of America.
Hamstrung by decentralization, they quickly grew anarchic until they realized a strong, federal institution was the best method for sustainability, even in peace time.
The closest you can really get to making your case would be Japanese hans in the 17th and 18th centuries, but really the point you should be trying to make is that political and economic fragmentation spur development. This is one of the principles of capitalism, but it cannot occur to such an extreme as the Seasteads. None of these cases happen without bureaucracy, which would be hilariously pitiful among 40 floating people.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
I wonder which will happen first, a global marxist communist revolution or a global dedevolopement of society.. hmm. Both seem so possible...
|
I didn't read the thread but the moment structure is discarded the power vacuum will begin.
|
On April 18 2008 10:00 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2008 08:45 HamerD wrote:
You are right Kwark- plus I did say that ancient Greece was a country. I stand by my comments about your sense of humour.
But I appreciated that informative response.
My argument, although shafted by my mangling of the facts, is still salvageable- I propose that a strong, centralized government is the optimum model for a nation under threat of war; but that in times where art and humanity take to the fore, (up to a point) the less power any single government has the better.
Rebuttal would be the Confederate States of America. Hamstrung by decentralization, they quickly grew anarchic until they realized a strong, federal institution was the best method for sustainability, even in peace time.
That's a good rebuttal. And maybe it is the case. While I don't approve of the current moral situation of the nation, I and anyone can clearly see that western democracy is a good progression from the dark ages before.
However, I still fear that the ruling class is just that much more powerful when they have all of the resources of an entire nation to tap into. With power and money spread around, as opposed to held in a federal reserve, perhaps there would be an easier track towards a fairer and more human society.
It's interesting because we are slowly pulling Europe towards unification and like, the US is kind of like an 'after' and we are a 'before'. I can't help but see the obvious surge of power Brussels receives every single time a new amendment to the EU constitution is allowed through. And then I can't help but imagine the opportunity for corruption growing. Although, with all the resources in one place, and honest, fair people forming the government; perhaps it is safer than having wealth spread out all over the shop, where it can be siphoned off by corrupt officials: now perhaps I will be correct in saying like the Roman empire!
|
On April 18 2008 10:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
I wonder which will happen first, a global marxist communist revolution or a global development of society.. hmm. Both seem so possible...
what do you think would be the factors necessary to bring about either situation?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Hmm factors that would somehow create a global movement between unique individuals seperated by society, culture, land distance, ethnicity, history, social class, physical abilities..
I think a mind controlling device would be the only way possible. And by mind controlling device I do mean GLOBAL mind controlling device. The Marx revolution was a nice philosophy but in practice it has always taken a dictator killing everyone that said "nah-uh." Everybody wanting a single thing and that thing being communism is impossible.
The factors for the dedevelopement are far more likely. We have a global economy crash and 80% of the population dies in the chaos/starvation and the survivors create communal living villages where they live off the land and the only industry is agriculturally based due to the collapse of modern societies and the massive amounts of industry it takes to maintain and operate said societies.
|
|
|
what about space?
The final frontier...
These are the voyages of the star trek enterpri----- oops. Tangented slightly.
Seriously though, Incontrol, it's quite terrifyingly difficult to argue against that prediction ><.
|
On April 18 2008 10:22 HamerD wrote:
However, I still fear that the ruling class is just that much more powerful when they have all of the resources of an entire nation to tap into. With power and money spread around...
How do you propose this occurs?
...as opposed to held in a federal reserve, perhaps there would be an easier track towards a fairer and more human society.
What is that supposed to mean?
|
Well I mean the reserve of gold America rests its economy on, and the central government of America which basically can do whatever it wants with the FBI, as long as they're quiet. Don't say I've been wrong twice in a row about shit lol ><. I'm pretty sure America has a big federal reserve doesn't it? Fort Knox or something...Nazi gold and all that. Central bank or something. 8000 tonnes ...someone was telling me about it.
Anyway the specifics are by the by, I was merely pondering on the thought that if America were instead of one country with 50 states, 10 countries with 5 states; potentially the frequency of ludicrously rich and powerful ruling families and individuals; as well as inept, corrupt, inefficient and irrelevant government would diminish.
|
The gold in Fort Knox isn't the basis of America's economy, it's just a lot of gold which happens to be owned by the US government, and it has been nothing more than that since the USA went off of the gold standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
