Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I also honor in part the 'Clash of Civilizations' theory. I will follow Toynbee and Huntington somewhat on civilizations, the Tofflers on the waves of civilization, and Strauss and Howe on turnings. Of the three, the turnings are the most subtle, the least clearly observable and the least accepted by historians in general. I can't take seriously those who cling to turnings, but who ignore civilizations and waves. There are things to be learned from all three perspectives.

What I'm dubious about is that God selects kings and that he governs in their name. It was a convenient theory back when muscle power weapons required a lot of training and expense, and thus the nobility's monopoly on military force translated to religious, land and political power. Monarchy is nothing but might makes right. It fell apart when easy to use and make muskets had to be given to huge citizen armies, as otherwise one got conquered by the next country over who were willing to arm their citizens.

As Napoleon pointed out at the end of the time of crowns, God is on the side of the biggest battalions. When agricultural age kings could no longer muster as many big battalions as the industrial age parliaments, God switched sides.

Fickle fellow, God...

A good monarch feels a responsibility to care for his or her subjects. Politicians only care about lording it over people and stealing private property from those who have legitimately inherited. Napoleon was an usurper and bastard, and probably assumed he was God. God does not switch sides, as He is not fickle. The only reason He allows republics to exist is as a punishment for the people's lack of faith in Him. Catholic doctrine states that people get the government they deserve. Unravelings prove this to be true. Btw, stop spouting that BS about the 'Clash of Civilizations'. It just plays into the hands of evil Dick and Co. and the jihadi ****wads.

Originally Posted by sean '90

God does not switch sides, as He is not fickle. The only reason He allows republics to exist is as a punishment for the people's lack of faith in Him. Catholic doctrine states that people get the government they deserve.

You curse out Cheney and the jihadis, and then you out-fundie them. Republics as God's curse! You are a piece of work, Sean.

Our first reading today is from the First Book of Samuel.

Originally Posted by 1 Samuel 8:11-21 (KJV)

11 [Samuel] said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.

12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.

15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.

16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use.

17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.

18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us.

20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD.

22 The LORD answered, "Listen to them and give them a king."

Here ends the reading; now for the homily. Kings are at least as much a curse on those who deserve them as republics are; more so, in fact, since the condemnation of kings is pointed out in Holy Writ while neither Testament condemns republics explicitly, or in quite the same tone. In fact, I can't recall any other time when the Bible makes such blanket statements about forms of government; Scripture is usually much more concerned with individual performance.

Oh, I almost forgot the Gospel reading. Here we are:

Originally Posted by Matthew 5:2

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

You've been saying 'Thou fool' quite a lot, Sean. It's just a suggestion, but I think you might ought to stop.

Originally Posted by sean '90

A good monarch feels a responsibility to care for his or her subjects. Politicians only care about lording it over people and stealing private property from those who have legitimately inherited.

A good politician is responsible for caring for the concerns his/her constituents. Politicians can be voted out of office, monarchs can only be removed by force.

There are, in essence, only two forms of government, one that can be changed peacefully by the people and one that can only be changed through violence. the former is Democracy, the second is Tyranny. You, apparently, support Tyranny.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

You curse out Cheney and the jihadis, and then you out-fundie them. Republics as God's curse! You are a piece of work, Sean.

Our first reading today is from the First Book of Samuel.


Here ends the reading; now for the homily. Kings are at least as much a curse on those who deserve them as republics are; more so, in fact, since the condemnation of kings is pointed out in Holy Writ while neither Testament condemns republics explicitly, or in quite the same tone. In fact, I can't recall any other time when the Bible makes such blanket statements about forms of government; Scripture is usually much more concerned with individual performance.

Oh, I almost forgot the Gospel reading. Here we are:

You've been saying 'Thou fool' quite a lot, Sean. It's just a suggestion, but I think you might ought to stop.

The Prayer Book responses are SO apropos here. For the first lesson, "Thanks be to God." For the quote from the Gospels, "Praise be to God."

[Yes, Sean, I AM from among those English-speaking heretics known as the Anglican Communion...]

Originally Posted by The Rani

Prostitution is the world's oldest profession. It clearly has something going for it.

Sometimes, Your Royal Hotness, I wonder what you did for a living in your past lives.

Originally Posted by Odin

A good politician is responsible for caring for the concerns his/her constituents. Politicians can be voted out of office, monarchs can only be removed by force.

There are, in essence, only two forms of government, one that can be changed peacefully by the people and one that can only be changed through violence. the former is Democracy, the second is Tyranny. You, apparently, support Tyranny.

You have just committed logical fallacy known as the "either-or" fallacy.

Originally Posted by sean '90

You have just committed logical fallacy known as the "either-or" fallacy.

That fallacy is meaningless when there are only two choices.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I would like to be the madam of a brothel, Your Lowly Pervertedness.

Why am I not surprised?

Originally Posted by Odin

That fallacy is meaningless when there are only two choices.

There aren't. The world is more complex than that.

Stop worshipping democracy, you neo-con!

Originally Posted by Odin

A good politician is responsible for caring for the concerns his/her constituents. Politicians can be voted out of office, monarchs can only be removed by force.

There are, in essence, only two forms of government, one that can be changed peacefully by the people and one that can only be changed through violence. the former is Democracy, the second is Tyranny. You, apparently, support Tyranny.

Yep. Rather than 'Tyranny,' I've been using the word 'Autocratic,' which is slightly less loaded. I would count monarchy, fascism and communism as leading recent forms of autocratic government. Theocracy and vanilla military dictatorship could be added to the list. The key differentiating factor is whether there are two or more political parties that the people can select between without violence.

I'm not quite sure one can place all governments on one side of the fence or the other. Of the top of my head, I might propose the Iran of a few years ago as an example. Their constitution has an elected legislature with some power, but a theological fraction of an executive branch operating outside the legislature's control wielding other powers.

But Iran is more an odd exception than a general category with lots of members. The arrow of progress has countries converting from autocratic to democratic forms. Iran seems to have hung themselves up on the barbed wire on top of the fence. During the 90s, when the people were backing the legislature, I had some hope they'd get over the fence. Since Bush started demonizing Iran as part of the 'Axis of Evil,' the clerical faction has been successful in uniting the people behind an outside threat. The democratic faction hasn't been able to push democratic reform. :

In the long term, I believe Iran and the rest of the Middle East will get over the fence, but the more the local autocrats can point at the United States and Israel, the less likely reform will be. I view Bush 43's efforts to spread democracy by force as a large mistake, especially when tied to even the illusion or semblance of an imperialistic war for oil.

But, anyway, yes, in general, most governments either have to answer to their people at the polls, or they don't. Can anyone else come up with examples where parts of a government have to answer, while other parts are still essentially autocratic?

Originally Posted by sean '90

Stop worshipping democracy

You quit worshiping your monarchist nonsense.

Originally Posted by Odin

You quit worshiping your monarchist nonsense.

You quit worshipping democracy like you were a CEO and his money!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The key differentiating factor is whether there are two or more political parties that the people can select between without violence.

If both parties serve the same masters, the choice is an empty one.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

If both parties serve the same masters, the choice is an empty one.

Whatever, Ralph Nader.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

If both parties serve the same masters, the choice is an empty one.

Too true. Our current campaign finance system is essentially legalized bribery. While I am inclined to believe the Republicans have made themselves unpopular enough for a major change in power in 2008, I do not know that the Democrats are significantly less inclined to game the campaign finance system than the Republicans. The Democrats seem more interested in power than fundamental change... at least this election cycle. The 3T truth has been that campaign money buys one voters, while the 4T truth might be that one has to satisfy the voters key concerns or get booted out.

Which is why I'm concerned that the 2008 elections could lead to another false regeneracy that does not address the basic problems, much as the Y2K - September 11th regeneracy did not address the basic problems.

If so, it might be 2012 or 2018 before there is talk of real finance reform, constitutional conventions, and/or direct vote networked democracy. Not sure how far it has to go, or how far we'll want to take it.

But, yes, neither party is currently sufficiently interested in serving the people.

Originally Posted by Odin

Whatever, Ralph Nader.

Whatever, Pollyanna.

Originally Posted by Odin

Whatever, Ralph Nader.

Tool. But then, we already knew that...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Tool. But then, we already knew that...

I was about to ask how you managed to write out only five characters.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Whatever, Pollyanna.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Tool. But then, we already knew that...

Having no use for Nader's stupid rhetoric about there being no difference between the Democrats and Republicans makes me a Pollyanna and a tool? Seriously, I sometimes get the feeling that Naderites in many respects are coming to resemble those German Communists that refused to ally with the Social Democrats and prevent Hitler's rise to power because the Commies thought that a Fascist government would bring on the "Glorious Proletarian Revolution" that much quicker.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

I saw Nader speak in Philadelphia back during his campaign for the presidency in 2000. He spoke frankly and at length about the issues he was concerned about and the values he represented, he didn't offer "feel good" soundbite platitudes, and he wasn't afraid to open the floor to unscripted questions. Honestly, that was the first (and only) time I've ever felt connected to politics at the national level. It was refreshing, and I was sort of energized by seeing what democratic politics in America could look like.

So, for what it's worth, in my opinion there are certainly worse things you could call someone than "Ralph Nader".

They may say all the right words, but their actions say a totally different story. I remember reading a few news stories a couple years back about Greens getting funding from Republicans. Naderites seem to care more about sabotaging the Dems then advancing progressive issues.

Originally Posted by Odin

Having no use for Nader's stupid rhetoric about there being no difference between the Democrats and Republicans makes me a Pollyanna and a tool? Seriously, I sometimes get the feeling that Naderites in many respects are coming to resemble those German Communists that refused to ally with the Social Democrats and prevent Hitler's rise to power because the Commies thought that a Fascist government would bring on the "Glorious Proletarian Revolution" that much quicker.

Jesus Christ!* How do you make the leap from despising both major parties to being a Naderite? One does not have to be a Green to see Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same greasy coin.

*- Cue sean '90's hysterical fundy yapping.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Jesus Christ!* How do you make the leap from despising both major parties to being a Naderite? One does not have to be a Green to see Republicans and Democrats as two sides of the same greasy coin.

*- Cue sean '90's hysterical fundy yapping.

I don't mind if you use the Lord's name as an interjection, as long as you don't act like that idiot comedian at the Emmys last week.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I find this interesting, because it's almost exactly what I was thinking about you on the other thread, where you said you "hated" both the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left. To me, it seems anti-democratic and, well, authoritarian, to belittle a third political party simply because it hurts your own cause. Especially when their political goals are ostensibly so similar to your own.

Help me out here: what exactly have the Greens been doing since 2001 (other than trying to run for president again in 2004)?

Neither Ralph Nader nor any of the other Greens seem to try to have really been making themselves known or seen since E2K (with the possible exception of the aftermath of the 2004 election).

Originally Posted by Semo '75

The most common criticism that Democrats level at Greens is that they stole Gore's votes in 2000. That makes the assumption that there are votes which automatically belong to the Democrats for some reason. Why Democrats shouldn't have to work to earn votes just like anyone else is left unexplained.

Lots of Democrats believe that putting a Green candidate on the ballot hurts the Democratic Party and they work (often in collusion with the Republican Party) to keep third parties out of the political process entirely. Even though putting Greens on the ballot probably does hurt Democrats, locking candidates out of the political process is inherently anti-democratic. So, while Democrats may say all the right words, their actions tell an entirely different story.

If these are not the kind of examples you were thinking of, please provide others.



There was one such story. It concerned Santorum supporters giving money to a local Green Party (the Greens are decentralized to a degree that neither the Coke nor Pepsi party is) to fund a signature drive to get a Green candidate on the ballot in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

While I'm sure that's horrifying to you, you might want to take a good long look at why such a signature drive was needed at all. Part of the democratic narrative is that all citizens are entitled to participate in the democratic process. Both the Democrats and Republicans pay lip service to that notion, while working to make sure that candidates who might steal votes from their own are locked out.



In light of what I've written above, that's a laugh. But I'll play nice. Could you give some examples of why you believe this to be the case?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I find this interesting, because it's almost exactly what I was thinking about you on the other thread, where you said you "hated" both the authoritarian right and the authoritarian left. To me, it seems anti-democratic and, well, authoritarian, to belittle a third political party simply because it hurts your own cause. Especially when their political goals are ostensibly so similar to your own.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the Green Party itself, I agree the Dems need to earn their votes just like everyone else. My issue is with priorities, namely the Naderite faction in the party having misplaced ones), the problem is that we are stuck with a first-past-the-post/winner-take-all election system with an electoral college for at least the near future and thus the Greens have no chance in hell of getting into the White House and also a less hard but a still very slim chance of getting in Congress. Their best strategy at the present time is to concentrate on local and state governments as well as pushing changes in the way we do elections in order to give 3rd parties a chance. Even if they don't succeed in reforming the electoral system if they get enough power in state governments they will do what the Populist Party did in the 1890s, pull the Democrats to the Left and then be absorbed.

All of the discussion above this post is actually pointing out an issue that should be addressed in the upcoming 4T, the issue of the two party monopoly in our elections. The harsh civil war 4T effectively set our current system in place. The compairitivly mild 20th century 4T occured without a major change being required of our electioral system.

The implecation is that we will likely need the kind of harder 4T that the eight stroke theory predicts lies ahead of us. I could very easily see only one of the current establishment parties surviving the next 20 years. The question is can we reach a point where the surviving establishment feels compelled to assent to such a change. It will likely take an overwhelming amout of pressure during the coming social moment to reach this point.

All of the syndicalists, greens, libertairans, ect. will have to learn to cooperate for none of them will become a part of the solution by winning a meaningful number of positions in free elections unless they all do cooperate to get there.