Does anyone else yearn for a society based on inequality?

[Heraclitus]

This is quote somewhat sums up my previous feelings on the matter:

In a rightist society, no one is equal — it’s an insult, like saying you are mediocre. People instead serve roles. As a result, these societies are neither individualist nor collectivist, but organic. They are people cooperating at a level of such maturity that each person finds a role they can serve and stays there. If that’s king, great; if it’s peasant, ditto.

Every other political system on earth is shaped around a single premise: the presumed equality of all people. Through mission creep this moves from political equality to assumed equality of ability. This idea underlies all liberal philosophies, and modern “conservative” (or neoconservative) ideals as well.

Because the right stands out as the only real opposition, it is a target of both (a) people who want to discredit it and (b) power hungry people, often those who have nothing to offer but outrage. There are also a number of good people getting confused by by of those other groups (which often share members).

I still find the idea of organic society, especially one formed in a transhuman environment appealing and a more interesting use of matter than societies based on equality. Democracy in itself is vulgar and worthelss (even though representative government has merits, but these are mostly correlated to the limit of the voting rights).

However moving into religious views have changed this basic beliefs on many things, I'm quite torn between the old me and the me the Christian God apparently wants if I read scripture and examine church doctrine properly. This however is a topic for a different thread.

[Barnabas]

Heraclitus, the Church considers all humans to be created in Gods image and equal in dignity, but it does not consider them to be identical in abilities. After all, nowadays monarchism is only popular among hardcore conservative catholics.

Unless the problem you have is that Christianity is against eugencis, I don't see what is the problem between your ideas and christianity.

[giblets]

Man, I bet you would love Saudi Arabia. The government is a actual monarchy and they think a woman is worth half of a man. Maybe you should start learning arabic.

[Al B. Sure!]

God... that quote is barely intelligible (what's with the last sentence?) and it's from some Amerika.org blog's article about "Not Blaming the Jew"

and how in God's name is Democracy in itself vulgar and worthless?

The past 200 years has shown democratic republics being consistently superior to any other form of government by any measure you can think of... wealth, standard of living, technological progress, military power, etc.

[Heraclitus]

Heraclitus, the Church considers all humans to be created in Gods image and equal in dignity, but it does not consider them to be identical in abilities. After all, nowadays monarchism is only popular among hardcore conservative catholics.

Unless the problem you have is that Christianity is against eugencis, I don't see what is the problem between your ideas and christianity.

The transhuman bit.

[Heraclitus]

God... that quote is barely intelligible (what's with the last sentence?) and it's from some Amerika.org blog's article about "Not Blaming the Jew"

and how in God's name is Democracy in itself vulgar and worthless?

The past 200 years has shown democratic republics being consistently superior to any other form of government by any measure you can think of... wealth, standard of living, technological progress, military power, etc.

You don't seem to grasp the distinction between a democracy based on universal suffrage and the various types of republics the US (and nations like France) have been in the last 200 years.

The first two paragrahps seem pretty clear cut. Political equality will necessarily lead to attempts to create other kinds of equality too. A inegalitarian society can not afford equal (political for starters) rights to all if it wishes to remain inegalitarian.

[Al B. Sure!]

You don't seem to grasp the distinction between a democracy based on universal suffrage and the various types of republics the US (and nations like France) have been in the last 200 years.

So what is bothering you? That Blacks can vote now or that women can?

[Heraclitus]

So what is bothering you? That Blacks can vote now or that women can?

The idea that anyone who doesn't share a long term interest in the welfare of society can vote. Limiting the franchise to landowners used to be a good approximation but due to various factors this wouldn't work today. I would also be in favour of limiting it to people with an IQ above 90.

[Al B. Sure!]

Just so you know, Hera, property requirements on voting were all gone in the US by 1840 (most states had removed those requirements decades previously).

Jim Crow notwithstanding, the USA has had universal suffrage since 1920. Yeah, the US immediately fell apart after that

[Heraclitus]

Just so you know, Hera, property requirements on voting were all gone in the US by 1840 (most states had removed those requirements decades previously).

I'm well aware of this, but I must comment that you are somewhat Amerocentric. A large part of continental Europe, some of those countries where quite powerful and successful continued such systems for a long time. I would argue they where better off than they would have been because of it.

But like I said the nearer one gets to the present day the less property requirements are a good proxy for what I'm going for.

Jim Crow notwithstanding, the USA has had universal suffrage since 1920. Yeah, the US immediately fell apart after that

So the argument that the fact that the Russia was a major power for 70 years after going red or that Rome stood as a superpower for centuries after the arrival of Caesar means those surely can't be piss poor ways of running countries is solid?

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm well aware of this, but I must comment that you are somewhat Amerocentric. A large part of continental Europe, some of those countries where quite powerful and successful continued such systems for a long time. I would argue they where better off than they would have been because of it.

But like I said the nearer one gets to the present day the less property requirements are a good proxy for what I'm going for.



So the argument that the fact that the Russia was a major power for 70 years after going red or that Rome stood as a superpower for centuries after the arrival of Caesar means those surely can't be piss poor ways of running countries is solid?

One, Rome was not a modern society so it matters ****-all for the future. Secondly, really? The USSR? Besides the fact that I should point out that the USSR was hardly a society structured anything like you would want it to be what with the rampant equality of communism, it's clear who won the Cold War. Democracy triumphed.

[Heraclitus]

One, Rome was not a modern society so it matters ****-all for the future. Secondly, really? The USSR? Besides the fact that I should point out that the USSR was hardly a society structured anything like you would want it to be what with the rampant equality of communism, it's clear who won the Cold War. Democracy triumphed.

Wait when did I say that I tough Caeasarism and Communism where good ways to run society? I'm just pointing out that there are other factors in the greatness of a nation beyond its form of government. One would need to pick practically the worst forms of governments to ensure the US not becoming a superpower considering its place on a continent ripe for development with poor native resistance and the majority of its citizens being derived from a high IQ high trust population.

Also I would argue capitalism not democracy triumphed. Japan did very well under a de facto one party system, same goes for Singapore. China is also doing pretty well under something distinctly undemocratic (thought not in line with my ideals).

[Al B. Sure!]

You would argue Communism triumphed?

Really? Is this the same way you said that it is evident democracy is worthless and vulgar?

I'd like to see some reasoning behind your outlandish and patently false claims.

[giblets]

You would argue Communism triumphed?

Really? Is this the same way you said that it is evident democracy is worthless and vulgar?

I'd like to see some reasoning behind your outlandish and patently false claims.

Where did he say Communism triumphed?

[Al B. Sure!]

Where did he say Communism triumphed?

HE ****ING EDITED HIS ****ING POST.

His exact words were "I would argue Communism triumphed"

I know this son of a ***** would edit it. I should have ****ing quoted him.