|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 14, 2009 3:56:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 14, 2009 3:58:18 GMT
I've got a conspiracy theory of my own:
That's right. They told us the LHC (large hadron colider) fizzled on first fire-up, but I'm thinkin' that was a lie, and they actually released a whole bunch of anti-matter, but it turns out the anti-matter is ethical anti-matter, and it turned a bunch of folks into super-sized douchebags.
Just a theory.
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 14, 2009 4:00:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Oct 14, 2009 4:37:49 GMT
I f'ing love Penn and Teller.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 14, 2009 5:33:47 GMT
Without watching any videos, or comparing to specific countries, this theory on how to destabilise nations has been around for a while, nor is it the only one.
The point they all miss is that all nations that grow to the point where they feel utterly unthreatened will ultimately destabilise themselves anyway. They always have.
Rome did not fall because of the might of other nations, it fell because of its own internal weakness. No KGB agents around then to do any brainwashing, nor was it required. Complacency set in, decadence followed and the rest, as they say, is history.
The KGB may have tried to set the ball rolling - in fact they almost certainly did. But the West is the victim of its own success. It's no more sinister than that.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 9:11:12 GMT
Without watching any videos, or comparing to specific countries, this theory on how to destabilise nations has been around for a while, nor is it the only one. The point they all miss is that all nations that grow to the point where they feel utterly unthreatened will ultimately destabilise themselves anyway. They always have. Rome did not fall because of the might of other nations, it fell because of its own internal weakness. No KGB agents around then to do any brainwashing, nor was it required. Complacency set in, decadence followed and the rest, as they say, is history. The KGB may have tried to set the ball rolling - in fact they almost certainly did. But the West is the victim of its own success. It's no more sinister than that. Yeah, it's true what Karl Marx said: that you don't have to fight Capitalism, it always self-destructs and rots away. Although Communism isn't a perfect alternative... It actually self-destructs faster than Capitalism. So far it would seem that the only truly effective form of government is a complete Dictatorship, ruled by a fairly capable/intelligent leader.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 9:12:08 GMT
Although of course, the problem with a Dictatorship is when the Dictator dies... There has to be an equally competent Dictator available to replace him.
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 14, 2009 9:24:58 GMT
I've got a conspiracy theory of my own: That's right. They told us the LHC (large hadron colider) fizzled on first fire-up, but I'm thinkin' that was a lie, and they actually released a whole bunch of anti-matter, but it turns out the anti-matter is ethical anti-matter, and it turned a bunch of folks into super-sized douchebags. Just a theory. oh my bad , I forgot that once someone has a thought about something that you don't agree with, they are open to your weak attempts at mockery. I'll be sure to clear all of my future thoughts with you.
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Oct 14, 2009 9:26:46 GMT
Without watching any videos, or comparing to specific countries, this theory on how to destabilise nations has been around for a while, nor is it the only one. The point they all miss is that all nations that grow to the point where they feel utterly unthreatened will ultimately destabilise themselves anyway. They always have. Rome did not fall because of the might of other nations, it fell because of its own internal weakness. No KGB agents around then to do any brainwashing, nor was it required. Complacency set in, decadence followed and the rest, as they say, is history. The KGB may have tried to set the ball rolling - in fact they almost certainly did. But the West is the victim of its own success. It's no more sinister than that. I agree with you here , the guy in the video and the timeline he mentions , I found them very interesting ....that's all..
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 14, 2009 9:31:53 GMT
I think a combination of autocracy, republic and democracy probably works the best. As there is a single leader that can make the decisions that are best for the country and doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. There's a Load of advisers that can look at what is wanted and balance it against other factors going on in the country. And you have an elected group that represent the will of the people and because they're elected over a short term, should consistently represent the will of the people.
The important part of this is that you none of them have absolute power, but the person that actually makes the decisions doesn't have to worry about popularity.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 9:37:38 GMT
I think a combination of autocracy, republic and democracy probably works the best. As there is a single leader that can make the decisions that are best for the country and doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. There's a Load of advisers that can look at what is wanted and balance it against other factors going on in the country. And you have an elected group that represent the will of the people and because they're elected over a short term, should consistently represent the will of the people. The important part of this is that you none of them have absolute power, but the person that actually makes the decisions doesn't have to worry about popularity. Ah, but with this system, the one who makes the decisions HAS the absolute power in the end! He can just tell his advisers to shut up, and when the people's representatives come over, just grin at them and nod "yes, yes, yes..." but once they're gone make his own decision. ;D Which means this system is still a dictatorship.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 14, 2009 9:48:24 GMT
Providing you can guarantee an Augustus every time rather than a Caligula, there is no doubt whatsoever that Autocracy is the best system. The problem lies in guaranteeing your Augustus...
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 14, 2009 9:52:59 GMT
Well, enlightened, responsible and competent autocratic rulers are scarce in history - and even those were not beyond criticism (you cannot make everyone equally happy). It boils down to the fundamental question: "Who would you trust with the absolute power?" And the answer with humans unfortunately will be (and here English language is rather explicit ) - no one!
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Oct 14, 2009 10:05:33 GMT
I think the fundamental question is more: 'what works'? In times of serious strife, a single leader always steps to the fore - for the winning side, at least. Because having one leader is always better than 'leadership by committee'.
Democracy always leads to utter morons at the top, because parties keep looking for candidates who 'won't rock the boat' because they don't want to frighten the electorate. And most voters don't think before they vote, anyway. So you basically have an election between donkeys where the majority of the voters are sheep. Resulting in lame duck governments, to continue my farmyard analogy ;D
Freedom under the law does not and never has required Democracy. Time that particular canard was consigned to the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Oct 14, 2009 10:11:27 GMT
I think a combination of autocracy, republic and democracy probably works the best. As there is a single leader that can make the decisions that are best for the country and doesn't have to worry about being re-elected. There's a Load of advisers that can look at what is wanted and balance it against other factors going on in the country. And you have an elected group that represent the will of the people and because they're elected over a short term, should consistently represent the will of the people. The important part of this is that you none of them have absolute power, but the person that actually makes the decisions doesn't have to worry about popularity. Ah, but with this system, the one who makes the decisions HAS the absolute power in the end! He can just tell his advisers to shut up, and when the people's representatives come over, just grin at them and nod "yes, yes, yes..." but once they're gone make his own decision. ;D Which means this system is still a dictatorship. Not if the person that makes the decisions can only pass laws that are brought to them by the through the other 2 branches, but they have the ultimate decision to pass or not pass said laws. If they then want a law passed that they've come up with, they need to suggest it to the others and hope it passes muster.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Oct 14, 2009 12:26:26 GMT
Ah, but with this system, the one who makes the decisions HAS the absolute power in the end! He can just tell his advisers to shut up, and when the people's representatives come over, just grin at them and nod "yes, yes, yes..." but once they're gone make his own decision. ;D Which means this system is still a dictatorship. Not if the person that makes the decisions can only pass laws that are brought to them by the through the other 2 branches, but they have the ultimate decision to pass or not pass said laws. If they then want a law passed that they've come up with, they need to suggest it to the others and hope it passes muster. Ah yes, that's true... But even then, as EK said, it'd only work if you have an Augustus at the top and not a Caligula. ;D *** Nations are chock-full of "Caligulas" and a severe shortage of "Augustuses"
|
|
|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 14, 2009 15:44:25 GMT
Well, enlightened, responsible and competent autocratic rulers are scarce in history - and even those were not beyond criticism (you cannot make everyone equally happy). It boils down to the fundamental question: "Who would you trust with the absolute power?" And the answer with humans unfortunately will be (and here English language is rather explicit ) - no one! I'd trust myself. Does that count? Übereil
|
|
|
Post by Terrordar on Oct 14, 2009 16:08:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Oct 14, 2009 17:11:51 GMT
I'd trust myself. Does that count? ;D - Not really - I gather any dictator trusted himself, and most only themselves (with reason! )
|
|
|
Post by ss on Oct 15, 2009 23:12:28 GMT
Rome did not fall because of the might of other nations, it fell because of its own internal weakness. No KGB agents around then to do any brainwashing, nor was it required. Complacency set in, decadence followed and the rest, as they say, is history. . Although most of you don't live here, I think you have aptly described the USA perfectly....and when you follow the progression, if any integrity is applied at all, then it started with the concept of "We are governed by the Almighty and are accountable to Him."...200 years later....well....it is what it is...
|
|