A political science question for fellow PF'ers: The Kings/Queens, or self government?

It will come from the ground. You will get a chance to see the plan before long. Nothing like it ever before- and simple as it gets.

As the BS being foisted upon the public continues to grow- the feeling of being betrayed, sold out and led by fools is growing faster.
The time couldn't be better for change.

 

This is mainly true but not entirely true. There were many situations in certain countries where the kings were weak monarchs and the nobility held a lot of power, where the king knew the nobility would be likely to have him tossed out if he went too far against their wishes. We can see this start with the Magna Carta in England, later King Charles I was executed by Parliament, but also the kings in Sweden and Poland were relatively weak. Gustav III was assassinated at a masquerade ball by one of his disgruntled nobles after the Swedish king tried to behave like a French monarch. That was not going to be tolerated in the land he ruled.

 

It may come down to just plain old hunger. When people can't keep themselves fed and housed, they'll start wondering why they allowed themselves to be disempowered. They'll blame Govt and/or business of course - but they'll know deep down, that they played the larger role in agreeing to their own helplessness.

 

But that also means your not going to have people joining the military until their 30+.

 

Crank, I totally endorse the principles of nature, because it's been vastly more successful than humans are at managing how life works. Simple rules too- Like, "If you don't hunt, you don't eat".
You are absolutely right, each of us is the primary reason we are where we are- the product of our own decisions, wise or foolish.

Too may fools in the wrong places these days.

 

I want to apologize to you and to others in the thread. I'd been dealing with the Rona(still dealing with the damn bug, the mucus in my chest just won't stop lol. I've never coughed so much to get sick OF coughing lol.) and as a result, my focus and thoughts go towards sleeping and maintaining myself. Anyway, IRL disclaimer out of the way you've pointed out some examples here where the power was held not in the monarchs, but with the nobility which could be in a way a form of a 'citizens' government(though they are not citizens/civilians in the sense of the lowest rank, but they are in the sense that they didn't quite have titles to their name.)

To use England as an example, the Duke of Edinburgh is such a title. It's a nice fancy name but it should have no pull, except that it did since the wealth lied with the Dukes and the Barons. But even though the power was held with the 'noble families', there was stability(at least admittedly at the top.)

In this sense, there's no difference in the progressive argument of today who laments the top-1%. Arguably, had the nobility looked more for the common man among them, the nobility might not have seen the counter revolution that led to our western governments of today. Here, the French Revolution(which led to a man named Napoleon Bontaparte) takes center stage as a hunger-led revolution.

So, some might ask why would I want such a society as a man with no title or fame to my name? While those societies had no shortage of upheavals, it's crucial to note that the upheaval did not come from the system itself but rather those opposed to the system. Whereas democracy is inherently chaotic. The more stable a society is, the more growth can occur as a result. and since democracy is inherently unstable, that also means it cannot grow.

Humanity has reached the apex of potential under democracy, arguably we did not reach the apex of potential under autocracy.

 

I think it would be much better if we limited people who vote. Such as going back to only allowing property owners to vote or only allowing people with full time jobs to vote. That way we could quit spending money on people who want free things. If we kept it like that we wouldn’t have to worry about democrats buying votes with college tuition while social security is going broke.

 

The full throated defense of child endangerment that you just penned is astonishing. It's "authoritarian" to not allow teachers to groom little kids... Horror doesn't begin to address the notion that Golem has raised here. This justification simply begs credulity. So, as Golem suggests here, in order to "avoid totalitarianism" you cannot question whether teachers groom your kids or not...

What a load of shyte... This is how liberal folks try to hide their real intentions. Attack your kids. Destroy the rights and the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

 

hereditary aristocracy is as unstable as anyone's nightmare. a strong rular with the respect of his bobles and the love of his people? nist dynasties may begin like that, but soon the king is old and his sons and brothers begin jockeying for position, or the heir is young and likewise.....

i like the prehistoric medeterranian cultures ruled by priestesses with an annual "king," nominally a warlord but his real duty was stud service. stability (and fertility) was assured by the annual spring sacrifice

 

... says the poster who favored separating children from their parents at the boarder.

Oh! I just remembered.... those children weren't white... Now I understand your statement.

 

Not even an attempt at an apology for penning such a tasteless attack on kids... I actually don't recalling suggesting that kids should be separated. I recall suggesting that the parents and children should be returned to their country of residence. Democrats then misunderstood that, because.... gasp... the children... couldn't be groomed in US schools... because, as you suggested here, they aren't white.. Does that make them your property again? Just asking.

 

Heh, two different proposals.

 

The history of England has some significant differences from the history of France.
Arguably, because the power was more devolved in England than it was in France, it prevented there from being an English Revolution like there was in France.
(Although arguably the same thing did finally end up happening in England, it was just much slower and more gradual)

I mean the English king did not hold as much absolute power as the French king.

Keep in mind though that the French monarchy did not start off this way, and this was only the result of the long-term scheming of French monarchs over several generations, weakening the nobility. The entire reason for the excessive luxury of Versailles was mainly a clever strategy to weaken the position of the French nobility, by separating their physical location from their estates and trying to distract them with court life. With all the important nobles living in the king's palace, he had more control over them. And if they wanted requests to be granted from the king, they had to live in the palace to be able to establish a relationship.

 

You are repeating the basic formula, already stipulated by Lil Mike (post 12). Since he cared not to justify his proposal, however, I will give you the opportunity, instead. But first, let's clarify what we are talking about: are you suggesting something that you believe could ever happen here, or is your suggestion nothing but a hypothetical, that you realize, at this point, could never be realized?

 

They say history repeats itself

 

That is a very clever, and funny answer. It is also a disappointing one, if it means that you are unwilling to support, through argument, the system you suggested. But can't you, at least, answer my previous post's one question, as to whether you see your idea as something practical, and doable, or as a conceptual ship that, by now, has sailed?

 

I don’t think it’s possible as of now because it would take a civil war. We have already allowed the jobless to vote away the rights of the worker. Property means nothing anymore.

 

I accept that. Thank you.

 

That's just not true, Big Money has taken the rights of the worker with tax free political think tanks and even more with Citizen's United that gave them the right to spend whatever it takes to get their political way.

 

If I remember right, about half of US were ok with our Reps, it's Congress in general

Kinda hard to do that "50 states" thing when one party has obedience to this guy, as well as TFG


"I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Grover Norquist who is founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, an organization that opposes all tax increases.

At one time 95% of GOPers in DC signed his "pledge"

 

"American School" (economic plan)
rooted in the ideas of Alexander Hamilton.

The American School of economics represented the legacy of Alexander Hamilton, who in his Report on Manufactures, argued that the U.S. could not become fully independent until it was self-sufficient in all necessary economic products



The American School, also known as the National System, represents three different yet related constructs in politics, policy and philosophy. It was the American policy from the 1790s to the 1970s, waxing and waning in actual degrees and details of implementation.

It is the macroeconomic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-20th century. Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

1. Protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–1970).
2. Government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation).
3. A national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation

The American School's key elements were promoted by John Quincy Adams and his National Republican Party, Henry Clay and the Whig Party and Abraham Lincoln through the early Republican Party which embraced, implemented and maintained this economic system.

During its American System period, the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

Then came Reaganomics, right wing think tanks and public policy grifters

 

"If he does that he will be the greatest man in the world!"- George III to Benjamin West after learning George Washington was going to resign his commission as Commander of the Continental Congress and return to Mount Vernon.

 

You talking the 1770's? 1860's? 1930'S?

History shows MANY times of the workers feeling betrayed, we have many history's of "populists" movements like TFG's grift is pulling. It takes education as another poster pointed to stop the nonsense

 

How the Trump White House misled the world about its family separation policy
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/11/1116...-the-world-about-its-family-separation-policy



‘We Need to Take Away Children,’ No Matter How Young, Justice Dept. Officials Said

Top department officials were “a driving force” behind President Trump’s child separation policy, a draft investigation report said.

“We need to take away children,” Mr. Sessions told the prosecutors, according to participants’ notes. One added in shorthand: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/06/...immigration-jeff-sessions-rod-rosenstein.html

No paywall link
https://archive.ph/2gGpm

 

Democrats? lol

Dubya/GOP pushed through in the middle of the night, with zero funding, Medicare part D in 2003 to win the 2004 reelection.

We're paying over $100 billion, each year out of the general fund BECAUSE they didn't give it funding

Like Ronnie's tax cuts for the richest WHILE he blew up spending (gutting social spending, of course)

Maybe like Dubya's 2 tax cuts for the rich, once while we were in the middle of one of the wars he started that cost trillions?

Maybe Trump's tax cuts for the richest, that started the upward deficits after Obama used fiscal discipline (paid for ACA 100%, the GOP later gutted that!)

Sorry it's wrong to attack the fiscal party the past 40 years, the DEMOCRATS

We should have tests for voting though, most red staters wouldn't pass it