[On the Instability of Republics]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skirata

Mind if I give my definition of capitalism? Heh...

---

Capitalism...

part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX61PUZ3xkI

part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iakR7sB0skw

Capitalism has existed since before Vikings, and before the Roman empire. The Celtic empire stretched a huge portion of Europe and Eastern Europe before the Roman Empire. Their Empire was built on Capitalism, their whole government system and social laws were based on trade and the ability of what we now call "capitalism". Here is a map showing the Celtic pre-Roman empire.

http://weboftime.net/yahoo_site_admi...270016_std.jpg

The Celtic empire is in red. Now to explain a little, the Celtic empire had no central leader but more of a democracy, because of this they had no standing army or central military. Their empire was completely established upon free trade (Capitalism). They even had a uniformed monetary system using gold coins.

Deep fear and loathing of your fellow humans.

That is what drives you all to admire and wish for a dictatorship.

That and nothing else.

I wouldn't go so far so as to say the Celts had an empire, since it was just made up of separate tribes who had no affiliation with one another, rather than under one, or a group of authoritative figures.

The Celts formed a dense conglomeration or a mixed collection/cluster of tribal groups as opposed to a single expansive empire. The Celts formed a vast array of tribal sub-cultures and collected with allied clans and tribes to form minor coalitions and regional units; however, as a whole the Celts were not a unified culture or force as separate clans or tribal alliances were pitted against other inimical or hostile tribes and tribal alliances with such skirmishes and engagements being rather common.

I think the term "Empire" needs to be used loosely when speaking of the Celts. They had a uniform monetary system, they developed iron before their neighbors, and they created a system of roads (those famous Roman roads you read about in school were laid on top of Celtic ones). But I think most scholars agree that they were more correctly identified as a culture, not an Empire. They had no central government, primarily, which would hamper the "Empire" label from being accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

This is why I belief that Hobbesian theory though not the most principled of all governments is practical and can form a lasting structure as opposed to the dangers of anarchy, social disequilibrium, civil disunion and civil strife that arises out of states or domains that lack a highly centralized, bureaucratic and stratified government.

---

In the modern world, are democracies characterized by anarchy, social disequilibrium, civil disunion and civil strife, or would you say those are characteristics more associated with highly centralized, bureaucratic non-democracies? It's almost facetious to suggest this, but would you rather live in Norway or the Congo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

During the reign of Louis-Philippe I of the July Monarchy, the electoral voting capabilities increased from 94,000 individuals in 1830 CE to over 200,000 individuals in 1848 CE. Though this version of a balance of powers as expounded by Montesquieu achieved political equipollence, it was ephemeral due to the hubris of petty individuals that strove to tear asunder the institutions of civil society. Montesquieu noted that contumelious individuals could eradicate even the most balanced and fairest of governments.

---

So at what point does the number of people empowered to make political choices tip a state into imbalance? Is it a number or a percentage? If country A has a population of 1 million, and 100,000 people are politically empowered, will it be more or less stable than country B with a population of 100 million and 50,000 politically empowered people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

These actions are cyclical and as according to Charles de Montesquieu and Niccolo Machiavelli would continue to cycle indefinitely until the interference of external forces.

---

So how do we break the cycle? Offer us some hope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conrad_Jalowski

The common rabble that represents the people is indeed savage, mendacious, brutish, corrupt, perfidious, irresolute, fickle and wild.

---

To me, this is the foundation of your synthesized beliefs. This is the statement that one must believe is true for the rest of your arguments to make sense. I really do enjoy your essays Conrad, but since I totally disagree with your view of people as a whole, I don't think I can ever be convinced by your political philosophy.:)