“'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” - Alexander Titler
“Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike.” - Socrates in Plato’s Republic
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” - Alexander Titler
“Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike.” - Socrates in Plato’s Republic[/quote]
Good thing I didn’t advocate for it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” - Alexander Titler
“Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike.” - Socrates in Plato’s Republic[/quote]
Good thing I didn’t advocate for it. [/quote]
The distinction between a democracy and a republic that Madison tried to stress(Federalist 10) and others(Cicero, Machiavelli, Grotius etc) is always on restraining majoritarianism and warding off mob rule. But the revolutionary forces of universal enfranchisement have not been restrained. So the distinction is a moot point.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” - Alexander Titler
“Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike.” - Socrates in Plato’s Republic[/quote]
Good thing I didn’t advocate for it. [/quote]
The distinction between a democracy and a republic that Madison tried to stress(Federalist 10) and others(Cicero, Machiavelli, Grotius etc) is always on restraining majoritarianism and warding off mob rule. But the revolutionary forces of universal enfranchisement have not been restrained. So the distinction is a moot point.
[/quote]
So we’re all just going to keep ignoring samesex marriage bans being overturned in courts then?
The justices appealed to egalitarianism and universal rights. The justices are revolutionaries; the people reactionaries. Same with the death penalty. But that has no real bearing on the stability of democracies and republics.
SM,
I’m curious about your caste system. How do you propose to keep the spiritual/bohemian caste at such a high relative position? If history can be defined in terms of class struggle, it’s not hard to see power dynamics between classes. It explains why certain castes tend to be more privileged and why the privileged castes are usually fairly consistent between cultures. The military has physical power/violence, the clergy has the power to influence others, the aristocracy controls the money, and the skilled workers/innovators have desirable and necessary skills. You can create a system where a bohemian caste might start off in an advantageous position, but they would have no power to maintain their position of privilege.
I found your point on Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg rather interesting, though, as it is rather reminiscent of how I would set up my city-state. It would be a theocratic military dictatorship, where I would be the leader of state, military, and spirituality. The military would be much fused with a seminary, and I would create an army of zealots. Loyalty would determine advancement in the system until soldiers reach officer classes, whereupon competency would play increasingly greater roles in determination of advancement. Retired vets would become priests. Our spiritual system would worship me as a god-king and be designed to promote ideological isolationism from Western liberal democratic ideals. While the basic tenets of morality required to keep a society running smoothly would retained (protection of life, property, etc), I would otherwise be a proponent of an entirely different moral system. In addition, I would enforce cult-like rules controlling seemingly petty aspects of peoples’ lives, such as dietary and clothing restrictions/requirements. There would also be some changes (though not terribly drastic) to family structure, though I haven’t yet decided what I would change. The goal of these policies would be to enforce ideological isolationism and restrict freedom of thought. In this day and age it is not feasible to continue to restrict information indefinitely (though China certainly puts in a good effort). This is why I would not restrict information per se, but make outside information unpalatable and outside cultures impossible to relate to in any sense.
To enforce my authority, a surveillance society would be created. Cameras would be everywhere and it would be known that communications are monitored. An elaborate paramilitary hierarchy of secret police would keep order. Secret police would be selected based on loyalty and all would be impressed upon that there are several levels of secret police about them (whether true or not). Random punishments would occur at times to ensure that the populace doesn’t become too complacent (though these would be highly controlled to avoid the economic drain imposed by Stalin’s purges). Occasional, but infrequent, rewards would also occur.
Yes, I know. I’d be a complete despot ruling a dystopian society,
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
SM,
I’m curious about your caste system. How do you propose to keep the spiritual/bohemian caste at such a high relative position?
[/quote]
They control all knowledge and restrict it from the ruling priestly caste and the lower castes.
The bohemian caste is a military religious order modelled after the religious military orders of the High Middle Ages during the crusades, the priestly caste or in the case of the Middle Ages, the papacy are in overall authority over the military orders.
It can’t be defined in those terms.
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
If history can be defined in terms of class struggle, [/quote]
Let me guess, you had a great sociology teacher Freshman year that opened your mind to the evils of Capitalism…
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
SM,
I’m curious about your caste system. How do you propose to keep the spiritual/bohemian caste at such a high relative position? If history can be defined in terms of class struggle, it’s not hard to see power dynamics between classes. It explains why certain castes tend to be more privileged and why the privileged castes are usually fairly consistent between cultures. The military has physical power/violence, the clergy has the power to influence others, the aristocracy controls the money, and the skilled workers/innovators have desirable and necessary skills. You can create a system where a bohemian caste might start off in an advantageous position, but they would have no power to maintain their position of privilege.
I found your point on Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg rather interesting, though, as it is rather reminiscent of how I would set up my city-state. It would be a theocratic military dictatorship, where I would be the leader of state, military, and spirituality. The military would be much fused with a seminary, and I would create an army of zealots. Loyalty would determine advancement in the system until soldiers reach officer classes, whereupon competency would play increasingly greater roles in determination of advancement. Retired vets would become priests. Our spiritual system would worship me as a god-king and be designed to promote ideological isolationism from Western liberal democratic ideals. While the basic tenets of morality required to keep a society running smoothly would retained (protection of life, property, etc), I would otherwise be a proponent of an entirely different moral system. In addition, I would enforce cult-like rules controlling seemingly petty aspects of peoples’ lives, such as dietary and clothing restrictions/requirements. There would also be some changes (though not terribly drastic) to family structure, though I haven’t yet decided what I would change. The goal of these policies would be to enforce ideological isolationism and restrict freedom of thought. In this day and age it is not feasible to continue to restrict information indefinitely (though China certainly puts in a good effort). This is why I would not restrict information per se, but make outside information unpalatable and outside cultures impossible to relate to in any sense.
To enforce my authority, a surveillance society would be created. Cameras would be everywhere and it would be known that communications are monitored. An elaborate paramilitary hierarchy of secret police would keep order. Secret police would be selected based on loyalty and all would be impressed upon that there are several levels of secret police about them (whether true or not). Random punishments would occur at times to ensure that the populace doesn’t become too complacent (though these would be highly controlled to avoid the economic drain imposed by Stalin’s purges). Occasional, but infrequent, rewards would also occur.
Yes, I know. I’d be a complete despot ruling a dystopian society,[/quote]
You are completely mischaracterising my posts. My central points are:
The cyclical nature of political institutions; the “anacyclosis” of Polybius, Cicero, Machiavelli - the stage we’re at in the cycle; the need to ward off collapse into mob rule and dictatorship.
The relationship between the political cycle to the metaphysical state of man; decline evinced by a transition to a nihilistic collective consciousness. This is essentially Nietzsche’s warning.
The fundamental forces underlying political structures since the Enlightenment; revolution and counterrevolution - the meaning and significance of revolution, both social and industrial/technological - together the constitute a single force: modernity. Modernity is essentially nihilism. The political being fundamentally a reflection of the metaphysical state of man.
It’s under this framework that I’m appealing to traditionalism and traditional society; attempting to ward off modernity in all its forms, egalitarianism and universal suffrage being the main vehicles of the revolutionary modernist agenda. All modern societies are materialist systems; from Bolshevism to liberal democracy/republican; they all seek as their highest goal meeting the material needs of man: food on his table, a job, public services - all good things but they cannot replace the need for transcendence
My argument is that the spiritual foundation of modern societies is missing and the organic structure of society is gone. My system relies on castes that in reality would take centuries to develop and only under the right conditions.
Edited