@xris,
Pepijn Sweep;129590 wrote:USA does have enough people, is militairy organized, still has it's territories and has an American ID. U just miss some kingdoms (fr. Hawai etc.) to make the step to an Empire. 2Bad|In Europe we have a president now, but we call him chairman.
I think in the US in terms of having enough people and having an organized military is a quantifier for almost any type of nation. Territories are debatable because it depends on how those territories are acquired and administered. On Hawai, do you mean Hawaii? It's funny that you mention Hawaii because I was just remembering this neat little document called "the argument favoring the annexation of Hawaii" (55th congress,2nd session, doc no.214) written by John Dean Caton. If anyone has any curiosity as to how 19th century American politicians validated procurement of land within the context of law (and subsequent realty), read over this hilarious document. Talking points include absolute title to the land (under the Louisiana purchase), etc. Oh this is a good one, "It is not a question whether the moralist will approve of the manner in which that war (Mexican/amercian) was brought about. We have only to look at the results in the consideration of the questions of this kind. Some interesting stuff.
But funny enough, even though I would think that American has an imperialistic fascia, almost all academics do not agree that it is one. There is one in particular named Edward Said that essentially said that without direct control by a foreign administration, its not imperial. But I don't know about this because Britain had the East India Company, etc. which were essentially an independent administration. America functions more under a federal collective joined to state administrations. Although, there are American protectorates and what not, and a
lot of countries who come under our nuclear umbrella. America the
pseudo-empire? Maybe.
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:I feel that in the years to come this may (should) become much more of a debated topic.
And we may indeed see some change in political structures necessary moving back towards more of a Monarchical basis.
Because the "democracy' experiment is truly starting to exhibit some of it's potential weaknesses. Particularly that in order to have a well running democracy, you depend on an educated & informed voter base. You also depend on candidates be specially trained and skilled in the ways of ruling and law making.
This almost sounds like you say we need to have a natural aristocratic base (people of sufficient education and degree). Is this the case?
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:Many of the current democracies (including the US) lack this now and the results are evident.
Do they lack a sufficient level of competency? Education? Amount of interest?
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:In the long run, it may prove more practical to educate & train a select SMALL group of leaders in the issues & skills necessary to govern wisely. The lessons learned from failing democracies can be used as basis for building protection from abuse of that power granted.
The history of ancient Greece, in particular Hellenic Greece, teach us that when you have a small group of people "chosen" as it were, does not tend to end well. Oligarchies are the bane of a democratic community. If anything, democracies fail because they descend into the abyss of oligarchic (and consolidated) rule.
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:The workings of the world have become far too complex now for the average citizen without special training to grasp and make intelligent choices on.
I count myself even partially in that position. Not as much incapable as unwilling. It would consume far too much of my time to become properly knowledgeable of all the facets of wisely ruling in a global arena.
I can agree somewhat that not a lot of people fully comprehend the systems that they live within or the laws which govern them. I remember there was this survey on 1L law school students before they had any classes and a great deal more than half could not even remember a fraction of basic rights and privileges. And these are law students.
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:Better to grab a couple promising and willing students and let it consume their lives. I'll trust them until I have reason not to.
This seems potentially problematic. Again, you really don't want to get into an oligarchy or some type of aristocratic boule type system.
groundedspirit;129989 wrote:The old Monarchies had this structure in place. Rulers were literally trained from birth with the nuances required to someday assume the leadership.
And some of them turned out to be total dicks, like James II (who was actually said to be more "enlightened" than many other princes of the day), Henery the 8th, Charles XII of Sweden, and on and on and on.
