so i was reading the other day about the idea of a shadow goverment, and basicly how every politician is basicly controlled by the "dark side" of the goverment, what do people think of it?
I don't know that it's a bad thing, though. It would be a great thing if a single leader would emerge into the open, strong-willed enough to lead America through the troubled times we face ahead. America could rise to a glorious new age of world economic and military superiority.
well megamickel i know what your thinking, all through history humanity has had kings,military leaders, dictators. but i think that may not be a good thing for america, for one thing we have a pretty good goverment going now, and the idea of a king of america may be kind of scary, because we have so much to lose, and that certain "king" may want to take complete control and end up making decisions that destory the U.S. like i said it's happened all through history, and history does repeat itself
However, the Romans had a very strong centralized government with one person in power, and look how strong they were? For hundreds of years they were the most powerful empire on the planet. Until they, like all empires eventually do, collapsed.
yes, they were a very strong empire for a very long time, but do you know how they fell? the emperor was trying to gain more land, and protect Rome's large borders, and so he was sending all of the soldiers of rome to protect the borders, so when a tribe rebelled inside rome's territory the romans were basicly doomed, and look at the U.S today, we have soldiers in iraq, afghanistan, germany (even after almost 100 years after the war ended with them), and nearly every other country it is possible to set up in, so like i said, history repeats itself
ya, well i don't want to see it fall while im here, but what i want to know is why throughout history why have people always taken to leaders with full power
Well, if America is bound to fall anyway, then why not take a risk?
Housework never killed anybody, but why take the chance?
To go with the analogy, if one never did housework, one would be living in a right mess!
I also don't get the point of having any single country "rise to a position of economic and military superiority". It's this kind of mentality that precipitates breakdown and hostility anyway.
As for OWL concepts...already given that social states are dynamic and can't be stable, I still think this is a bad idea because it is not compatible with the limits of human comprehension of community. We can only relate to so many people at the same time, and communities are fragmented enough already- so what's the point of centralisation to this degree? I think it'd be somewhat superfluous, at least at this stage in time.
We take to leaders with full power becuase they have power. We feel a need to have power or at least follow someone with power for no other reason to feel powerful.
well strategy guy, people may feel power for following someone with power, but with songress, house of republics, and senate, we have alot of people with even power, so there is still power, but it is more evened out, and the people actuly have a choice in what they want to do
