• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A general musing about a republican form of government

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I have come to the conclusion that no republic can long survive in a culture where voluntary idiocy is not regarded as an affront to decency, where the uninformed are encouraged to vote, where the needlessly unproductive are shielded from suffering for their deficiencies, and where the morals of the majority are constantly held to be grossly defective. Republicanism requires a more elevated sort of citizen participants.

I'd also add that a lack of religious dedication and instruction will be lethal to a free society as well, since the value we place on the freedom of others tends to be an expression of our abstract concept of Man. In a purely mechanical, non-spiritual model, a human is simply a thing.


In fine, I think that we've botched the whole "liberty" thing, and are in the last few decades of such a concept remaining in vogue. Modern Americans, as a whole, seem to me no more likely to pass on liberty to their progeny, than a child playing with matches in a paper house is likely to maintain shelter. (And for allegorically similar reasons.)

A personal tendency to frank assessment informed by historical awareness really sucks, you know.

What do such others of you who are fond of writing in complete paragraphs think about such prognostication?
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,375
Reaction score
27,506
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yep, without religion we'd all just be a bunch of heathen psychopaths. Our society would melt away into oblivion. :roll:

The standard of living for the poor and humanity in general has never been higher than it is today, so apparently society has been taking a pretty good direction.
 

NoC_T

Imposition of miscellany
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
11,593
Reaction score
2,378
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Totalitarianism FTW!
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yep, without religion we'd all just be a bunch of heathen psychopaths. Our society would melt away into oblivion. :roll:

The standard of living for the poor and humanity in general has never been higher than it is today, so apparently society has been taking a pretty good direction.
You do know that Romans could say that just before the Visigoths came to call right? And the Carthaginians before them, just before the Romans annihilated them? The Aztecs, oh, well, you get it, and will choose to ignore it.

But you fail to grasp what religion is. It enforces an abstract model of human beings upon their fellows. Without it, what are you really but a machine, all of your "humanity" just an internal experience produced by chemical actions. In that model, simply killing you solves almost all problems associated with you. Any suffering you ever experienced, any injustice, or disappointment utterly evaporates at death. And we know that nations can think like that. The Germans did, the Russians did.
 
Last edited:

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have come to the conclusion that no republic can long survive in a culture where voluntary idiocy is not regarded as an affront to decency, where the uninformed are encouraged to vote, where the needlessly unproductive are shielded from suffering for their deficiencies, and where the morals of the majority are constantly held to be grossly defective. Republicanism requires a more elevated sort of citizen participants.

I'd also add that a lack of religious dedication and instruction will be lethal to a free society as well, since the value we place on the freedom of others tends to be an expression of our abstract concept of Man. In a purely mechanical, non-spiritual model, a human is simply a thing.


In fine, I think that we've botched the whole "liberty" thing, and are in the last few decades of such a concept remaining in vogue. Modern Americans, as a whole, seem to me no more likely to pass on liberty to their progeny, than a child playing with matches in a paper house is likely to maintain shelter. (And for allegorically similar reasons.)

A personal tendency to frank assessment informed by historical awareness really sucks, you know.

What do such others of you who are fond of writing in complete paragraphs think about such prognostication?

No nation and no form of government is permanent. The reason is because human beings are involved and human beings are imperfect.

No matter if it's a republic, monarchy, dictatorship, communism, socialism, capitalism...all eventually collapse due to corruption and mismanagement.
Every nation in the world is/was born in blood and revolution and eventually they all die in blood and revolution. It's the natural progression of all human endeavors.

Eventually a government is infiltrated by people who warp, twist and manipulate it to benefit themselves or their "group" to the detriment of the rest of the people.

Look at the u.s. A perfect example of a government infiltrated and destroyed from within by special interest groups and corruption. It will probably last a few more years but the slide into totalitarianism and corruption is measurable almost on a daily basis.

The average lifespan of a nation is around 200 years. Some have obviously lasted longer...some not nearly as long but they ALL collapse in revolution when the government becomes too oppressive and corrupt. The u.s is on borrowed time at this point.
It's coming. Believe that.
 
Last edited:

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Has there ever been a time when the bulk of humanity weren't idiots, voluntary or otherwise, and an understanding of "decency" was limited to those who practiced it?

By idealizing the past, we inevitably focus on the past that existed for the few, not the many, and we ignore the problematical in favor of this idealized version we have created. For every Jane Austin character living that genteel manor life there were hundreds who weren't. For every Ozzie and Harriet with a nice picket fence, there were dozens not so fortunate. Our "history" is limited to the history of a certain class, not the masses, which is quite understandable considering that a certain class writes the history.

This little paean to conservatism misses the point that the adherence to tradition does not deliver any sort of true freedom any more than liberalism does when it throws out the baby with the bathwater. Some things NEED to be conserved in a society, but we need to make sure that what we are conserving are not those social institutions that prevent freedom for the many in favor of advancing freedom for the few. If we wish to talk about morals, let's talk about actual morals, shall we? Any society that extends liberty only to the few while ignoring the needs of the many is not acting morally, and I would rather live in one that at least attempted to level the playing field on occasion, even if those for whom such liberty has been extended act as people in general have always acted.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,375
Reaction score
27,506
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You do know that Romans could say that just before the Visigoths came to call right? And the Carthaginians before them, just before the Romans annihilated them? The Aztecs, oh, well, you get it, and will choose to ignore it.

But you fail to grasp what religion is. It enforces an abstract model of human beings upon their fellows. Without it, what are you really but a machine, all of your "humanity" just an internal experience produced by chemical actions. In that model, simply killing you solves almost all problems associated with you. Any suffering you ever experienced, any injustice, or disappointment utterly evaporates at death. And we know that nations can think like that. The Germans did, the Russians did.
Even if we were to both assume that religion betters society (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), the price you'd be paying for that betterment is lying to millions of people. If I could convince myself that another fantasy world existed beyond this one, I might do that, but it would look completely different than the one you've crafted for yourself.

And second, the nazis were devoutly catholic, so I have no idea why you brought that up.
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Even if we were to both assume that religion betters society (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), the price you'd be paying for that betterment is lying to millions of people. If I could convince myself that another fantasy world existed beyond this one, I might do that, but it would look completely different than the one you've crafted for yourself.

And second, the nazis were devoutly catholic, so I have no idea why you brought that up.
Ah, but you see, without religion, then we must assume that we're lying to people when we tell them that they have rights, of that there is a right and wrong, or any morality at all. There are just particles and waveforms. One perceives things like pain, but there is no real pain, nor in fact any "one" to perceive it. There can be no past injustice. No one can produce a molecule of pain experienced by the dead. One could spend great efforts and resources in a mechanistic world to end suffering, but it is far more efficient, effective and economical to end the sufferer instead. How can there be a right or wrong is disorganizing a collection of atoms, after all? That's all any living thing could be really, in a non-spiritual reality.

Or put another way, spreading you butter on toast could have no lesser meaning than crushing your daughter under a train.

The very instant that one thinks that there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, or a real, transient being behind anyone's eyes, they have established a religion.

Oh, and a little research will reveal unto you that there were Catholic Nazis, but Nazis were not inherently Catholic. It would have been quite curious if they were, coming as they did from the land that gave birth to Protestantism and Lutheranism.
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Has there ever been a time when the bulk of humanity weren't idiots, voluntary or otherwise, and an understanding of "decency" was limited to those who practiced it?

By idealizing the past, we inevitably focus on the past that existed for the few, not the many, and we ignore the problematical in favor of this idealized version we have created. For every Jane Austin character living that genteel manor life there were hundreds who weren't. For every Ozzie and Harriet with a nice picket fence, there were dozens not so fortunate. Our "history" is limited to the history of a certain class, not the masses, which is quite understandable considering that a certain class writes the history.

This little paean to conservatism misses the point that the adherence to tradition does not deliver any sort of true freedom any more than liberalism does when it throws out the baby with the bathwater. Some things NEED to be conserved in a society, but we need to make sure that what we are conserving are not those social institutions that prevent freedom for the many in favor of advancing freedom for the few. If we wish to talk about morals, let's talk about actual morals, shall we? Any society that extends liberty only to the few while ignoring the needs of the many is not acting morally, and I would rather live in one that at least attempted to level the playing field on occasion, even if those for whom such liberty has been extended act as people in general have always acted.
In the past, idiots were held to be idiots, and barred from participation in government.

The sort of people who think that "hope 'n' change" is a political philosophy, for instance, never should be allowed to handle something as dangerous as a ballot.

Myself, I don't even think that citizenship should be hereditary.

And lately with all the demands for government to provide healthcare, housing food and jobs, I've begun to wonder in what fundamental ways that differs from slavery.
 

RabidAlpaca

Engineer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
21,375
Reaction score
27,506
Location
American Refugee in Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ah, but you see, without religion, then we must assume that we're lying to people when we tell them that they have rights, of that there is a right and wrong, or any morality at all. There are just particles and waveforms. One perceives things like pain, but there is no real pain, nor in fact any "one" to perceive it. There can be no past injustice. No one can produce a molecule of pain experienced by the dead. One could spend great efforts and resources in a mechanistic world to end suffering, but it is far more efficient, effective and economical to end the sufferer instead. How can there be a right or wrong is disorganizing a collection of atoms, after all? That's all any living thing could be really, in a non-spiritual reality.

Or put another way, spreading you butter on toast could have no lesser meaning than crushing your daughter under a train.

The very instant that one thinks that there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, or a real, transient being behind anyone's eyes, they have established a religion.

Oh, and a little research will reveal unto you that there were Catholic Nazis, but Nazis were not inherently Catholic. It would have been quite curious if they were, coming as they did from the land that gave birth to Protestantism and Lutheranism.
First off, there are just as many catholics in Germany as there are Protestants, I know because my wife's family is catholic. Second, Hitler was self-proclaimed catholic. The fact is, you tried to claim that atheism brought attrocities on the world, when it did nothing of the sort. Far, far, far more people have been killed in the name of religion that have been killed in the name of atheism. In fact, almost nobody has been killed in the name of atheism. Stalin didn't kill people because he was an atheist, he did it because he was a communist dictator.

You seem to have decided to go with the "without religion there can be no morality" line, throwing out ridiculous hyperbole about how killing your daughter or making lunch is identical. There isn't an ounce of truth to this. If anything, my morality has increased by giving up my faith. As a christian, you believe there is an afterlife, so deaths aren't that tragic, because they're just going to a better place. I on the other hand, don't believe in an afterlife, and as such I realize how meaningful life really is. THIS is all we've got. Life is precious and it is fleeting.

Our society has never been more atheist, and yet violent crime per capita is near an all time low, and standard of living for the average American has never been higher. We simply don't need religion to thrive.

Honestly, if you think that you'd go be an immoral psychopath if you lost your religion, then you have serious, serious issues. Threats by a god should not be the only thing keeping you in line. I, for one, simply enjoy being a good person and doing no harm.
 
Last edited:

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Would these be white, landowning males, or do you have a better solution?
Sorry, I left my English to bigoted moron dictionary at home, so I may not properly understand what your sloganeering is attempting to express. Try "educated, ethical, productive and honorable."
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You didn't give up religion, you just lack the insight to recognize it. any expression of right and wrong outside of things like mathematics, is an assertion however unintended of a spiritual framework, and thus a religion. Please though, feel free at any time to give me the atomic weight of a right, or the chemical formula of an injustice.

And yes, in a mechanistic universe, lunch and death are both equally meaningless. How could they possibly be otherwise? Both would simply be the actions of physical quantities, as would your wholly subjective perceptions to the contrary. Ideas of morality would be absurd.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,161
Reaction score
21,556
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Sorry, I left my English to bigoted moron dictionary at home, so I may not properly understand what your sloganeering is attempting to express.
I was using the historical basis for mass disenfranchisement in your country as an example as to why the ideas suggested in the OP aren't particularly good. In America, the original basis for voting was white males who owned property, on the basis that these were the people who had an investment in the country and were more likely to be educated. A bit of historical education on your part means you wouldn't have to go home to get your dictionary.


Try "educated, ethical, productive and honorable."
Ok, so now we have your subjective terms as to who should be in the enfranchised minority. How do you judge a persons education, ethics, productivity and honour?
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have come to the conclusion that no republic can long survive in a culture where voluntary idiocy is not regarded as an affront to decency, where the uninformed are encouraged to vote, where the needlessly unproductive are shielded from suffering for their deficiencies, and where the morals of the majority are constantly held to be grossly defective. Republicanism requires a more elevated sort of citizen participants.

I'd also add that a lack of religious dedication and instruction will be lethal to a free society as well, since the value we place on the freedom of others tends to be an expression of our abstract concept of Man. In a purely mechanical, non-spiritual model, a human is simply a thing.


In fine, I think that we've botched the whole "liberty" thing, and are in the last few decades of such a concept remaining in vogue. Modern Americans, as a whole, seem to me no more likely to pass on liberty to their progeny, than a child playing with matches in a paper house is likely to maintain shelter. (And for allegorically similar reasons.)

A personal tendency to frank assessment informed by historical awareness really sucks, you know.

What do such others of you who are fond of writing in complete paragraphs think about such prognostication?
Unfortunately, I think you're right.

People tend to forget that up until the last 150 years or so "democracy" meant that only male property holders could vote. That they held real property meant that they had a serious stake in the success of the nation. Such people were much more likely to be well informed of the issues and on guard for their communities. It meant that the people who actually paid for the government determined what the government did with the money, and so they were unlikely to be profligate.

How have things been going in the last 150 years since the franchise was extended to everyone and their dog? Opinions vary, but I think the proof is in the pudding. In short, the mob has learned that they can vote themselves money out of the national treasury. We are currently $17 trillion in debt in executing that project, and I doubt that it will end well.
 

Papa bull

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
6,927
Reaction score
2,599
Location
Midwest
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Our system was compromised as soon as people got the idea that they could vote themselves into other peoples' pockets. I think with the expansion of the government and the entitlement system that powers the democrat strategy of appealing to the dumbest 50% of the voters with class warfare rhetoric may be the final nail in the coffin for this country.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,669
Reaction score
33,253
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ah, but you see, without religion, then we must assume that we're lying to people when we tell them that they have rights, of that there is a right and wrong, or any morality at all. There are just particles and waveforms. One perceives things like pain, but there is no real pain, nor in fact any "one" to perceive it. There can be no past injustice. No one can produce a molecule of pain experienced by the dead. One could spend great efforts and resources in a mechanistic world to end suffering, but it is far more efficient, effective and economical to end the sufferer instead. How can there be a right or wrong is disorganizing a collection of atoms, after all? That's all any living thing could be really, in a non-spiritual reality.

Or put another way, spreading you butter on toast could have no lesser meaning than crushing your daughter under a train.

The very instant that one thinks that there is a right and wrong, a good and evil, or a real, transient being behind anyone's eyes, they have established a religion.
I disagree with your philosophical musing. Morals do not require divine intervention. Our actions have meaning to us because we believe they have meaning. If your concept were true, atheists would just go around killing and stealing all the time, wouldn't they?
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I disagree with your philosophical musing. Morals do not require divine intervention. Our actions have meaning to us because we believe they have meaning. If your concept were true, atheists would just go around killing and stealing all the time, wouldn't they?
Atheist have a religion, it's silly to say otherwise. A religion is a belief system about the true nature of reality its ultimate context.

Atheism relies upon pure faith, moreso than other religions by far. The Atheists thinking can run little further than, "if there were a God, he would perform as I expect, since no such Being is in evidence there is no God."

That aside, strictly speaking, a religion does not require a divinity. but when one asserts that there is actual right and actual wrong, on perforce implies that there is a transcendent nature the the universe, a spiritual element. Morals are not reliant upon a religion, but in the absence of one, they will invariably create one, as words create sound.
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Our system was compromised as soon as people got the idea that they could vote themselves into other peoples' pockets. I think with the expansion of the government and the entitlement system that powers the democrat strategy of appealing to the dumbest 50% of the voters with class warfare rhetoric may be the final nail in the coffin for this country.
I think that there are other elements that are just as important. People stated looking to do "good works," without pain to themselves. Churches and charities make demands, and require that people be convinced to give. On the other government action can often be structure to seem to make others pay for one's Utopian visions. And people rarely consider just what governments are. Governments are a polite way of pointing a gun at your neighbor and saying "comply." A fondness for expansive and detailed government action on a wide front is utterly incompatible with liberty.
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I was using the historical basis for mass disenfranchisement in your country as an example as to why the ideas suggested in the OP aren't particularly good. In America, the original basis for voting was white males who owned property, on the basis that these were the people who had an investment in the country and were more likely to be educated. A bit of historical education on your part means you wouldn't have to go home to get your dictionary.




Ok, so now we have your subjective terms as to who should be in the enfranchised minority. How do you judge a persons education, ethics, productivity and honour?
?!

You mean . . . you don't know?

I think I see your problem then.
 

NoC_T

Imposition of miscellany
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
11,593
Reaction score
2,378
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No nation and no form of government is permanent. The reason is because human beings are involved and human beings are imperfect.

No matter if it's a republic, monarchy, dictatorship, communism, socialism, capitalism...all eventually collapse due to corruption and mismanagement.
Every nation in the world is/was born in blood and revolution and eventually they all die in blood and revolution. It's the natural progression of all human endeavors.

Eventually a government is infiltrated by people who warp, twist and manipulate it to benefit themselves or their "group" to the detriment of the rest of the people.

Look at the u.s. A perfect example of a government infiltrated and destroyed from within by special interest groups and corruption. It will probably last a few more years but the slide into totalitarianism and corruption is measurable almost on a daily basis.

The average lifespan of a nation is around 200 years. Some have obviously lasted longer...some not nearly as long but they ALL collapse in revolution when the government becomes too oppressive and corrupt. The u.s is on borrowed time at this point.
It's coming. Believe that.
There's no crystal ball. The most complex modelling is subject to the vagaries of assumption and artificiality. I would point out that what people usually fear is the unknown. However American history progresses, we can be sure it will persist, failing some global armageddon that would render appraisal of any nation moot. Revolution signifies only transition, not conclusion. A people exist post-upheaval; they aren't destroyed. 200 years, you say? lulz Most of the world is steeped in millennia of history. Even the New World, at a mere 500 years old, neatly eclipses the scope of your perspective. Further, what you interpret as a timeline of horror, is only the dynamic of a healthy and responsive system. Your scaremongering is misplaced and hysterical. The end was never nigh. It likely never will be.
 

NoC_T

Imposition of miscellany
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
11,593
Reaction score
2,378
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In the past, idiots were held to be idiots, and barred from participation in government.
Rather, the economic underclass was held to be irrelevant, and denied representation.

The sort of people who think that "hope 'n' change" is a political philosophy, for instance, never should be allowed to handle something as dangerous as a ballot.
Nothing more dangerous than restricting the ballot. Give it a shot. See what happens. I take it that 'hope n' change' denotes those with views that run counter to your own?

Myself, I don't even think that citizenship should be hereditary.
What should it be? Purchased?

And lately with all the demands for government to provide healthcare, housing food and jobs, I've begun to wonder in what fundamental ways that differs from slavery.
You mean aside from physical violence, tyrannical enforcement of subjugation spanning generations, legislated inequality, immorality, fundamental violations of civil rights and rejection of basic humanity?
 

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nothing more dangerous than restricting the ballot. Give it a shot. See what happens. I take it that 'hope n' change' denotes those with views that run counter to your own?
You mean, like Rome and Britain did for centuries of stable government?

Of course voting should be restricted. What possible justification is there for allowing the illiterate to vote, or encouraging people who can't name the three branches of government to do so? Seriously, give the idea some thought. The ignorant have absolutely no business voting. None.
 

P. Kersey

Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
324
Location
30n x 90w
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's no crystal ball. The most complex modelling is subject to the vagaries of assumption and artificiality. I would point out that what people usually fear is the unknown.
Verbosity aside, people fear government oppression and corruption more than "the unknown.. This country was born in revolution because england was oppressive.


However American history progresses, we can be sure it will persist, failing some global armageddon that would render appraisal of any nation moot.
Sure..sure...that's what the greeks said, the romans, the french in 1789, the russians in 1917, the british empire, the russians (again) in 1991...etc..etc..history is littered with the ruins of nations whose people thought "Oh, that couldn't happen HERE."




Revolution signifies only transition, not conclusion.
That is exactly what I said. It is a natural, inevitable process.

A people exist post-upheaval; they aren't destroyed.
Of course they aren't destroyed. "People" have existed for tens of thousands of years...and "people" have survived hundreds of thousands of revolutions in that time.

200 years, you say? lulz Most of the world is steeped in millennia of history.
"lulz" all you want. Read some history. I said the average lifespan of a nation works out to around 200 years.and that's true...now you're purposely misunderstanding to somehow imply that I said the world is going to end..or something...but "lulz" it up...


Even the New World, at a mere 500 years old, neatly eclipses the scope of your perspective.
I said nations...there is no nation in the new world that is 500 years old.


Further, what you interpret as a timeline of horror, is only the dynamic of a healthy and responsive system.
verbosity and exaggeration aside, it isn't a "timeline of horror". Every nation in the world was born in blood and they all die in blood. It's how human beings operate.

Your scaremongering is misplaced and hysterical. The end was never nigh. It likely never will be.
You are saying the u.s. will never fall?


All due respect, son, but most of what I gather from your reply is that your vocabulary appears to greatly exceed your education.
 

NoC_T

Imposition of miscellany
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
11,593
Reaction score
2,378
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You mean, like Rome and Britain did for centuries of stable government?
Centuries of stable tyranny. Sure, that's one way of maintaining acquiescence. Post-Democracy? You can't close Pandora's Box.

Of course voting should be restricted. What possible justification is there for allowing the illiterate to vote, or encouraging people who can't name the three branches of government to do so? Seriously, give the idea some thought. The ignorant have absolutely no business voting. None.
Education as baseline for eligibility? That's a floodgate, dude. Not to mention elitist as hell. Those bound by any social contract (that being the citizenry) are afforded rights. Rights that were hard won.

Why waste time wishing for something that will never be? The majority would never accept this. Nor should they.
 
Top Bottom