Ahh, cool dude, I'm a mixture. Libertarian on a lot of issues but I defo see the value of something like fascism; it has strong stoic qualities. Honestly, it's gotten a bad name because Hitler put forward horrific (and rather ironically un-fascist) policies like the holocaust. Most people who decry fascism have never read even a single page of The Doctrine of Fascism.
I'm quite interest in what form of imperialism you follow? Are you supportive of a hereditary monarchy, or an elective one? Also, dude, policy wise are you behind conquest and colonization? I am generally; Africa benefited greatly from it, and studying Ancient History we in North West Europe were basically savages before the Romans came in and conquered us.
Here's the way I look at it. There are two ways for the next leader to be selected; either by someone or by no one. Monarchies involve no one. This leaves it up to random chance as to whether or not the leader is corrupt. Empires, on the other hand, involve someone choosing the next leader, whether it's the people or the previous leader. If the people get to choose the next leader, then whether or not the leader is corrupt is up to the people. If the previous leader chooses the next leader, then it's up to the former to pick an uncorrupt successor. The question is simple: what's the hardest to corrupt/uncorrupt? I'm not a fan of government by random chance, so that's out of the picture. It is my opinion that a single person is easier to corrupt, but easier to uncorrupt, while a society is harder to corrupt, but harder to uncorrupt. Because of this, I prefer the previous leader to hand-choose the next; that way, the government is considerably easier to uncorrupt when it is inevitably corrupted.
About colonization, I believe that the country should do what is best for itself, with no regards for any other countries or peoples. Morals should still apply when dealing with a conquered country's people, though. Until conquered, however, no rules apply.
The leader could indeed choose family members. Keep in mind that there's more than one way to become leader. For example, if the leader were to be murdered along with their heirs, then it's just a matter of claiming oneself emperor. However, for that to work, the murderer would need to know all the emperor's heirs along with all the heirs' heirs, if they have any yet. Then they would need to actually kill them all and prove that it happened, which would probably be the hardest part. However, they opens up yet another question: do one's heirs have to be publicized? I suppose that one could have their heirs just written on a signed piece of paper that's given to the people in charge of protecting the leader; that could work.
Should poofs be allowed
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Ahh, cool dude, I'm a mixture. Libertarian on a lot of issues but I defo see the value of something like fascism; it has strong stoic qualities. Honestly, it's gotten a bad name because Hitler put forward horrific (and rather ironically un-fascist) policies like the holocaust. Most people who decry fascism have never read even a single page of The Doctrine of Fascism.
I'm quite interest in what form of imperialism you follow? Are you supportive of a hereditary monarchy, or an elective one? Also, dude, policy wise are you behind conquest and colonization? I am generally; Africa benefited greatly from it, and studying Ancient History we in North West Europe were basically savages before the Romans came in and conquered us.
--
Clunk42
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Here's the way I look at it. There are two ways for the next leader to be selected; either by someone or by no one. Monarchies involve no one. This leaves it up to random chance as to whether or not the leader is corrupt. Empires, on the other hand, involve someone choosing the next leader, whether it's the people or the previous leader. If the people get to choose the next leader, then whether or not the leader is corrupt is up to the people. If the previous leader chooses the next leader, then it's up to the former to pick an uncorrupt successor. The question is simple: what's the hardest to corrupt/uncorrupt? I'm not a fan of government by random chance, so that's out of the picture. It is my opinion that a single person is easier to corrupt, but easier to uncorrupt, while a society is harder to corrupt, but harder to uncorrupt. Because of this, I prefer the previous leader to hand-choose the next; that way, the government is considerably easier to uncorrupt when it is inevitably corrupted.
About colonization, I believe that the country should do what is best for itself, with no regards for any other countries or peoples. Morals should still apply when dealing with a conquered country's people, though. Until conquered, however, no rules apply.
--
bigbudchonga
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Would you allow the previous leader to choose someone of his kin? Or would nepotism be out of the question due to possible corruption?
--
Clunk42
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The leader could indeed choose family members. Keep in mind that there's more than one way to become leader. For example, if the leader were to be murdered along with their heirs, then it's just a matter of claiming oneself emperor. However, for that to work, the murderer would need to know all the emperor's heirs along with all the heirs' heirs, if they have any yet. Then they would need to actually kill them all and prove that it happened, which would probably be the hardest part. However, they opens up yet another question: do one's heirs have to be publicized? I suppose that one could have their heirs just written on a signed piece of paper that's given to the people in charge of protecting the leader; that could work.