You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I beg your pardon, I never promised you a thorn free Rose garden.
That is showing good stewardship over an area which they have been given authority to preside over.
That authority wasn't ever given. Other than that I'd wager that the people wanted Anarchy or NO Rulers, when they said consent of the governed and based their system on Self-Rule. The constitution has nothing about immigration in it, and naturalization (citizenship application) and securing the borders from invasion aren't powers given to regulate or subjugate migrating people with. Clearly nobody has the Right to restrict the people right to movement and travel on public lands and roads and in between states or within the states equally.
...and here is where ideology and reality conflict.
History give me odds of 3000 years to 0 who wins this conflict.
....this is my whole point mate. Good ideology, applied...
your comments always engage. (well, mostly)
Which history, did you forget that the declaration of independence resulted in 1 for self-rule and zero for divine right of kings ?
still authoritarian rule - in some form- has been the default setting for societies through ages.
It has been the most successful system. (for success of the species)
...not nice, but true.
Again Declaration of independence = Anarchy-1 and authoritarian-0. Now what followed, or the Constitution(s) didn't invalidate The Declaration or the Articles but it created a monstrous behemoth as it was intended me thinks, and despite that, the truths the declaration re-established haven't been upturned or shelved. 3000 years? More like 7000 years, the Sumerians knew about sovereignty and it wasn't for anything other than submitting to the rule of a king for the cohesion that naturally comes with it to defend against others that they gave it up, defending against others who had done the same trade off but for plundering and pillaging. As always, sovereignty is the other side of the coin to Divine Right of Kings, as defending against invaders is the other side of aggression, as much as they exist in contrast to one another they are inseparable like the Federation is from it's Citizens, and success of authoritarian rule has an odd way of explaining the Pyramids or how the Sumerians developed advanced calculus, and prospered not from authoritarian rule or structure but because of individualism itself, indeed it might seem that authoritarianism mostly managed to plunder and pillage and during those times enact revenge, much more than establishing common sense and logic, so despite all that Theft from the individualistic societies that weren't cohesive enough to defend successfully against their not nice neighbors, the plunderers dissolved into obscurity or were assimilated into the next conquerors society with the Macedonians, the Persians and the Greeks and finally the roman's and the multitudes of different flavor empires of Europe built directly from the Roman legions left behind, and the same story with the Sumerians and their conquerors, who hadn't developed much of anything they "succeeded " to grasp from the Sumerians and were only using what a mostly individualistic society had uncovered and learned as real wisdom isn't in copying but actually creating, innovating and deconstructing while the authoritarian structure sought to establish class warfare and a cross between individual revenge and state approved revenge.
Success of the species is a stretch, I agree there's certain benefits to be enjoyed from structure, but with so much redundancy built in and lack of cohesion between the different classes it's no wonder that even Sumerians revolted against the brute authoritarian rule when it started infringement on their individualistic values, the world's first recorded revolt and the successive world's first reform.
It's always about trade off between the two ideologies that succeed with the sound foundation being clearly individualism and trade off which I'm not saying it was completely needless or unnecessary, despite the redundancy of dissent and inherent divisive nature of Rule Makers and Not Rule Makers, it did give a much more united society but which was necessary only because of the lack of a valuable education of the lower classes, while generally the rule makers played with absurdity and nonsense like a scatophile and their favorite artistic material and by and large had about as much wisdom and sense as their eclectic counterpart.
yup - and there are always gonna be some not nice neighbors it seems....
Excellent post mate. truly.
( difficult to fully comprehend on first read, with a hangover!)
I aim to lolz, lulsec is life.
Authoritarian rule has been so successful that the species can be nuclear blasted out of existence.
So we may have some issues with terms on what success of the species is supposed to look like.