In my opinion. The move to democratize the west by delegating authority and power away from monarchs, nobility and military commanders into the hands of comitiees, institutions, and financial market oligarchs was objectively the wrong move and really messed everything up for the world.
>I'm a boot-licking fagGood thread, OP. I endorse your disorder.
>>18052116Unfortunately, I cannot disagree on this because I think this is the more sound opinion against those who defend the status quo, who have, alot to answer for
>>18052130You still lick the boot of a modern State tho.
>>18052138Because I don't want some inbred cocksucker deciding what the status quo should be?
>>18052158You're not the one deciding it either, kek
>>18052164Why would you prefer zero checks and balances as opposed to faulty ones?
>>18052168You're also not the one deciding the checks and balances either.
>>18052168Monarch or not you still don't decide much, if anything at all, sure you get to "voice your opinion" with a collective mass for a leader who decides things for you but ultimately, you are not the one deciding things.
>>18052168This mass opinion by the way, can also be disregarded by the elected official, the ultimate decider.
>>18052185I never claimed to be, but your system is inevitably going to give you a completely unchecked tyrant or retard with limitless power for an indefinite period of time. I know you think your ruler is always going to be Hadrian and not Nero, but you're greatly overestimating the effectiveness of bloodlines and dynasties.
>>18052199I'm not the OP and neither did I completely advocate for what he said either. But I don't care for elected (or appointed) politicians taking bribes from rich folx either.
>>18052208Like I said, our checks and balances are fucked at this point, but removing them entirely will only make shit exponentially worse and it will do so very quickly.
>>18052219More checks and balances could work but the rulers don't want this, therefore the only thing safeguarding the population from tyranny is civil war or a convention of states (in the US), since I doubt anyone would want the first, besieging authority from the state up could happen (but only in the US (it is still doubtful if Americans actually value this mechanism either https://conventionofstates.com/). But for everyone else, yes, the only way to show who's boss is by giving it to them quite literally not by a show of votes.
>>18052255The working class could collectively refuse to work and stop the machine entirely. Once AI takes over most white collar positions this will be less of an option.
>>18052277They could but the government and rich folx, the rulers, want the rest, the John Does, to not have any consciousness or militancy so they will coercec and placate John Doe for as long as possible. John Doe needs to make the move though, and must have the stronger will against the rulers to make any significant change at all.
>>18052277If John Doe doesn't wake up then his freedom, and yay, his Republic is in danger. So for it to not be imperiled, John Doe has to maintain and keep his Republic, he's not doing that very effectively or very well. I don't think John Doe deserves a Republic methinks.
>>18052277So unfortunately, I will, agree with OP.. because John Doe is not a good steward to begin with.
I haven't heard anything from OP btw, do you have any thoughts on this OP?
>>18052168You have fewer checks and balances now than you would have under a monarchy. It's easy to kill a king, how do you kill a government ran by thousands of bankers and politicians sharing power?
>>18052432You don't nowadays, that's the good part!
