why are ''age of enlightment'' republics dangerous?

[muhmuh]

Can anyone honestly say that HIM Kaiser Wilhelm II and HIM The Last Emperor of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were as bad as Hitler. That HIM Emperor Nikolas II was as bad as all the commy dictators of the USSR. That the HIM the last Shah of Iran was as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs.

and how many of these were democracies/republics? oh right none

[InHouston]

Bullshit, you don't fool me. It doesn't surprise me that you turn around and pull the very thing you accuse me of doing. Only a little shithead intellectual elite like yourself would pull that slight of hand. You're not that smart, and you're not the intellectual you pride yourself as being.

I would relish the opportunity to sit down with you face to face and have a one on one discussion on any and all matters of your choice without you having Google as a resource. You're a cut and paste data miner who's loaded with mounds of useless rhetoric and zero personal experience. It would be very entertaining to discover in person just how ignorant and dumb you are. Your posts glean it.

[trish]

...and they let this dinkydicked idiot carry loaded weapons! (BTW, posts don't glean, people do).

[hippifried]

The only difference between a king & a dictator is that the king doesn't need to have any redeeming value (intelligence, ambition, etc...) to reach that position. More often than not, with a monarch, you end up with megalomaniacal, weak, & stupid at the same time. Monarchs should be returned to their original purpose, being the human sacrifice.

Here are some of the other crap philosophies that the '' Age of Enlightenment '' have given us :
- The Left/Right political spectrum
- Fascism
- Communism
- Capitalism
- Libertarianism
- Liberalism
- Feminism
- Neo-conservatism
- Socialism
- Nation-States and Nationalism
- Democracy
- and much much more crap to come

Most of these BS isms (I noticed "consevatism" was omitted from the list sans the "neo" prefix) are just a product of the memetic idea that people are incapable of living in a society without being "ruled" by somebody. Where's the evidence to support it? There's always some jerk who thinks they're better or more important than everybody else & the meme seems to predate our recorded history. So how do we know this is true? From what I can tell, the problems between nations or tribes (same thing really) is almost always a problem between the so called "leaders". A couple of assholes get into a pissing match & then sic their armies on each other. Most of the strain & strife between ideologues & ists is nothing but an argument over which group of elitist snobs should be telling everybody else what to do. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that civilization continues & progresses despite "leadership".

[trish]

Go out with a crowd at people at night and ask, "Hey, what do ya wanna do next?" The replies range from

"I dunno."

"I don't care, whadah you wanna do?"

"Anything's fine by me."

to

"Let's go bowling."

"Let's hit the clubs."

to

"Naw, I don't wanna do that."

There are laid back, easy going folks who see no harm, at times, in letting others make the decisions.

There are lazy folks who just don't want to think about it and rather just follow the crowd.

There are people who have some good ideas and let them be known, and there are those who just want every body to do what they want to do all the time.

And there are natural born dissenters as well as those who dissent legitimately.

I think all this may just be hardwired into us, just as dominance hierarchies are natural to some other animaniac species. I think you're probably right, hippiefried, when you say "...civilization continues & progresses despite 'leadership'." Unfortunately, I also think there's no way to avoid leaders and followers.

[hippifried]

I think all this may just be hardwired into us, just as dominance hierarchies are natural to some other animaniac species. I think you're probably right, hippiefried, when you say "...civilization continues & progresses despite 'leadership'." Unfortunately, I also think there's no way to avoid leaders and followers.

I don't agree on the hardwired part, but I do agree that people will defer much of their decision making to others they feel are more thoughful, wiser, or better informed from issue to issue. Where I have a problem is in the claims that there needs to be an absolute authority. Succumbing to that mindset seems to cause more problems than it solves. Too many people who tout the idea of a natural dominant heirarchy change their tune when they get stuck in the submissive role. It's not the natural order of things when people only go along because they're powerless.

[Tomfurbs]

"It's not the natural order of things when people only go along because they're powerless.

I think the 'natural order of things', in so far as there is such a thing, is pretty much whatever happens. Therefore all systems that people have lived under can be classed as the 'natural order of things'. Killing each other and living in caves is a close to the 'natural order' as we've ever been.
Also regarding you're first post in this thread, I read 'Enlightenment' to mean David Hume and John Locke et al, which is hardly pro-religion.

[muhmuh]

and there are those who just want every body to do what they want to do all the time

and the problem is its those who become politicians

To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made resident should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

[Wizzer]

muhmuh wrote:

Wizzer wrote:
Can anyone honestly say that HIM Kaiser Wilhelm II and HIM The Last Emperor of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire were as bad as Hitler. That HIM Emperor Nikolas II was as bad as all the commy dictators of the USSR. That the HIM the last Shah of Iran was as bad as Ayatollah Khomeini and his mullahs.


and how many of these were democracies/republics? oh right none

This doesn't really answer my question. Answering a question with a question is not smart.

[muhmuh]

This doesn't really answer my question. Answering a question with a question is not smart.

no it doesnt answer the question but it is smart in that it highlights the stupidity of your question
1) all of these supposed democratic leaders you numbered were dictators which is essentially the same as monarchs minus the inbreeding
2) wilhelm 2. started world war 1 which wasnt exactly unbloody even compared to hitlers ww2