Post New

Not really a US policy thing specifically.

I read a long time ago (more than 10 years) that authoritarianism is inevitable in human society. I may be embellishing my memory here, but these various points are rummaging around in my brain. Democracy is hard, requires people to put in effort, and that really is contrary to the natural human state (i.e. taking the easy path). So the majority of voters (probably in all democracies**) are low-info voters. Therefore, they can (and do) vote in monsters on occasion. Sometimes they recover from it (like we did in 2020 from the convict). Other times, they can only be displaced by war (like Germany). Russia still hasn't rid itself of its monster. As technology advances, it is easier to control people through surveillance, facial recognition, biometry, crowd control and dispersal tools, and more. So once a regime gets in place, it would be very difficult to dislodge them, because they can fairly easily stifle any dissent, and jail any would-be (or actual) dissidents. China and DPRK are great examples, where no opposition even can get started. With advanced technology, pretty much the only way to dislodge either regime is with vast quantities of kinetic disassembly of the governments (i.e. war...likely waged externally, e.g. NATO or the US). I doubt Russia will change, so Putin is PfL, and his approved successor will be hand-chosen, and any voting will just be a formality. I don't see how the Russian people can get back their government at this point.

Eventually, all regimes will be authoritarian. Any voting will be theater. Want to complain? They'll come for you before you get the chance because they'll know what you're doing and/or planning.

I'm sure the author of what I read was more organized. I'm flying from memory here, and inserting more current events. But I am left wondering if the author was correct. Democracy is on the decline globally. Whether it's from invented waves of "rapists and murders crossing our border", to "those people over there blew up an apartment building" (Russia), to various other "fear and loathing" tactics, the rise of authoritarianism is evident.





**Remember after "BREXIT", the number one google search the day after the referendum was "what is Brexit"...the Brits voted "nay" without even know what it was.

Onepoorguy...

You should post this to the US Policy board. Very pertinent.

Therefore, they can (and do) vote in monsters on occasion. Sometimes they recover from it (like we did in 2020 from the convict). Other times, they can only be displaced by war (like Germany). Russia still hasn't rid itself of its monster. As technology advances, it is easier to control people through surveillance, facial recognition, biometry, crowd control and dispersal tools, and more. So once a regime gets in place, it would be very difficult to dislodge them,

Quite true, but they are all eventually displaced, too. There are no more Roman Kings, Chinese Emperors, Egyptian Pharoahs, Aztec Monarchs. It doesn’t usually happen in the first generation, although occasionally they last as long as Matt Gaetz nomination, but eventually there’s a bad enough one brought along by whatever means that society uses (heredity, political influence, sheer wealth, etc.) that’s so horrible that the people revolt. Or they are taken out by war.

And then sometimes they return: see Iran, etc.

Democracy *is* hard. We’ve been quite lucky. I’m not sure if we will continue to be, but I’m hopeful.

If you want an example of a long lasting dynasty, look to the Roman Catholic Church, which has lasted for almost 2,000 years and still has people bowing down to the Pope. Even did when the Popes were among the most corrupt of society, with untold wealth, morals that would shock an alley cat, and principles diametrically opposed to what the worshippers wanted. Go figure. Religion is a pretty good game for this sort of thing, I guess.

I thought about it, but it a) isn't US-specific, and b) I didn't want an inundation of MAGA crap. The Atheist board was always where generally reasonable people could talk. As I've said before, "atheism" is a simple lack of belief in a deity. As such, there isn't much to talk about. At TMF it was a board where atheists (and some theists) gathered to discuss "whatever". At the risk of sounding elitist, it's where the smart kids hung out. :-)

The Romans didn't have advanced computing power, and saturation surveillance with facial recognition, to track people from the moment they leave their home every day. They didn't have microwave emitters that disperse crowds by -in essence- starting to cook them (ADS; non-lethal because the crowds will move FAST to get away https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzG4oEutPbA). The Romans had spears and swords, and -at most- nosy neighbors.

As for China...they only spent a short amount of time without emperors in some form. The ROC didn't last long, and is now occupying Formosa. Mainland China has an "emperor" named Xi today, the latest in a string of anointed leaders since Mao.

The Vatican was, and is, authoritarian. Not sure why you brought that one up. The Pope shall not be questioned, especially if he sits in his special chair and wears his funny hat (then it's "papal infallibility"). It has never been democratic. You know as well as I do that religion is the pinnacle of intolerance. Where it can ban free thought, other religions, and/or non-belief, it does. For a long time, bishops and cardinals had almost as much power and governors and kings.

England is an interesting example. They've had kings for over 1000 years, except briefly when they beheaded Charles I. They actually rid themselves of the monarchy, and then decided they wanted to restore it with Charles II**. Somewhere along the way they established a parliament, but they still have a king. Though, to be fair, the Torries were tossed last election, so they have slowed their slide towards xenophobia and totalitarianism.





**At the Tower of London I chatted with a person who stands around and makes sure nobody touches anything. She knew the history, but was unable to say why they restored the monarchy after having abolished it. Other than people thinking it was "better" under the monarchy than in their fledgling democracy. So they voted for a dictator/authoritarian/king to return.

he knew the history, but was unable to say why they restored the monarchy after having abolished it. Other than people thinking it was "better" under the monarchy than in their fledgling democracy. So they voted for a dictator/authoritarian/king to return.

It's interesting that someone employed at the Tower wouldn't know basic English history.

The monarchy was restored in 1660 when Charles II was invited back to England by Parliament, in great part due to political instability and factionalism (Puritans v. Monarchists v. Presbyterians, etc.). Oliver Cromwell might have been able to transition the government or at least rule it into a better condition at some point, but when he died, his son did not have the same gravitas. But the key thing is that Parliament did not invite Charles II back as a dictator, i.e. the monarchy was not an absolute one. His restoration was framed as a return to traditional governance rather than a return to absolutism, making it more palatable to the population and Parliament. He had to operate within a constitutional framework influenced by the lessons learned during the Civil War, Parliament retaining some control, which in turn led to the Glorious Revolution when a Catholic (James) got hold of the throne after Charles II died and he tried to institute Catholicism again in England. Parliament (and the people themselves) were not having any of that.

Pete

It's interesting that someone employed at the Tower wouldn't know basic English history.

She seemed to know. Maybe she just didn't want to get into the weeds. She knew about the events, and said people thought they were better-off under Charles I, so Charles II was installed (since Charles I was decapitated ten years earlier).

Didn't realize the Parliament was active in the 1600s.

Didn't realize the Parliament was active in the 1600s.

Yes, while the modern form of Parliament is, well, modern in the sense that it runs the operations of the Kingdom with basically only a rubber stamp by the ruling monarch, it goes back many hundreds of years. It is identifiable in some form from the 13th c on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Englan...

Many kings (and the relatively few queens) over the centuries recognized the need to have an official body that could authorize...wait for it...taxes. This is ultimately what Charles 1 was fighting his Parliament over - he wanted more money to do things that Parliament didn't agree with. The king still had the power to "call" a Parliament, which he was reluctant to do since they were making him accountable, yet he couldn't get his shillings without their authorization. Classic catch-22 that caught up with him in the end.

Pete

Authoritarianism is considered the default government. If society breaks down, a strong man (or group) usually comes to fore. Democracy needs prosperity and education. But it looks like it may also need a willing upper class. I think the upper class's actions as a group are detrimental to the working and middle class, because it's natural to accumulate more. This isn't to say that the upper class don't do some good. And they will tell us a tale of how they captained proud economic engines and we all profited from their innovation, talents, intelligence, and kindness. But you also have to be willing to be ruthless, and that isn't a thing I want to do.

I wrote three paragraphs after this but deleted them because they were too political.

"There are no more Roman Kings, Chinese Emperors, Egyptian Pharoahs, Aztec Monarchs"

Which got me to wondering if we knew enough about the Aztec language and social structure for us to know what an Aztec Monarch was called:

Hu'i Tlahto-nia (AFI [we.i t.a.toa'a'n'ni]) or Wei Tlahtoanib is a Nahuatl expression, used to call the rulers (tlahto-ni, "orator") of the Triple Alliance (Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Texcoco and Tlacopan), who exercised their power over the valley of Mexico. The word fleei means "great, long, tall." Hui Tlahtoi, therefore, means "great ruler, great speaker." The plural in Nahuatl is hu'i tlahtohquehh (or hu'i tlahtoanih). https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Tlatoani (trans)

And: Each āltepētl had its own tlahtoāni who would concurrently function as its ruler, high priest and commander-in-chief. The tlahtoāni wielded ultimate authority over all land within the āltepētl, overseeing tribute collection, market activities, temple affairs, and the resolution of judicial disputes. Typically a dynastic ruler hailing from the royal lineage, the tlahtoāni served for life. However, in certain instances, a council of nobles, elders, and priests could elect a tlahtoāni from a pool of four candidates.

The term tlahtoāni ([t͡ɬaʔtoˈaːniˀ]) is an agent noun derived from the verb tlahtoa, meaning "to speak", thereby carrying the literal meaning of "one who speaks". In English, it has been translated variously as "king", "sovereign", "ruler" or, based on its etymology, "speaker". It takes the plural form tlahtohqueh ([t͡ɬaʔˈtoʔkeʔ]), and the construct form *tlahtohcā-, as in tlahtohcāyōtl ("rulership, realm"), tlahtohcātlālli ("royal lands"), and tlahtohcācalli ("royal palace"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatoani

Further: Pipiltin often headed their own noble houses, called tecalli, with their own lands and dependent labourers. The subclasses within the Pipiltin were: tlahtohcapilli (a tlahtoani's son), tecpilli or teucpilli (a teuctli's son), tlazohpilli (son of a legitimate wife), and calpanpilli (son of a concubine). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipiltin

All sorts of great new words in there for, say, names of boats, family homes, so-called natural children, stray tomcats and the like.

-- sutton

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.