How many have you read of the top 10?

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:20 am

I don't think changing it to business/science folk would change it from a popularity contest either.

You'd almost have to rely on the person naming a proper successor

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:48 am

Also, who would choose the business science folks who would get to choose? Would you implement a House of Lords so select familes are in power?

A benevolent dictator is indeed the best pure form of Government, but for standing the test of time, as of now nothing is near our Constitutional Republic.

xaoshaen · Post by **xaoshaen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:23 am

lyion wrote:Also, who would choose the business science folks who would get to choose? Would you implement a House of Lords so select familes are in power?

A benevolent dictator is indeed the best pure form of Government, but for standing the test of time, as of now nothing is near our Constitutional Republic.

Roman Republic
Roman Empire
Egyptian Theocracy
British Monarchy
British Parliamentary Monarchy
Russian Monarchy
French Monarchy
Spanish Monarchy

Post by **Lyion** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:26 am

Perhaps I should have said 'being best for it's people over the longest period of time', which was my meaning. Not pure longevity.

Yamori · Post by **Yamori** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:45 am

Yeah, I wouldn't want to live under any of those governments.

xaoshaen · Post by **xaoshaen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:53 am

lyion wrote:Perhaps I should have said 'being best for it's people over the longest period of time', which was my meaning. Not pure longevity.

Rome would still be a fairly glaring counterexample. Roman citizenship may have been the pinnacle of an average European life, at the time. Most nations, and most forms of government will eventually lose their balance and either become an oppressive state or a collection of uncontrolled individuals. The U.S. has done a decent job of walking that line so far, but if there's one thing that history teaches us, it's that it only takes a moment of weakness to compromise hundreds of years of success.

xaoshaen · Post by **xaoshaen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:54 am

Yamori wrote:Yeah, I wouldn't want to live under any of those governments.

Well, I wouldn't have wanted to live during those periods of history, but for their time, several of those nations offered citizenship standards at least the equal of our own.

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:34 am

Yamori wrote:Yeah, I wouldn't want to live under any of those governments.

Why not?

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 am

Are there any nations with a constitution / seat of power as old as the US's?

I think Britian, but that has changed quite a bit over the years so the Monarch is more of a figurehead than anything.

xaoshaen · Post by **xaoshaen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:00 pm

10sun wrote:Are there any nations with a constitution / seat of power as old as the US's?

I think Britian, but that has changed quite a bit over the years so the Monarch is more of a figurehead than anything.

You can trace Britain's parlimentary system back further than the U.S., though. Do you want currently existant nations, or historical examples? I can give you either one.

Yamori · Post by **Yamori** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:09 pm

Tikker wrote:
Yamori wrote:Yeah, I wouldn't want to live under any of those governments.

Why not?

Because most if not all of them had the attitude that citizens existed to serve the country, not vice versa.

Most of them got involved in needless, long drawn out fighting.

And if you consider Rome to be a shining counterexample, I'd say you should re think it. They existed primarily by conquering other countries. Their political leaders were routinely assassinated.

xaoshaen · Post by **xaoshaen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:17 pm

Yamori wrote:
Tikker wrote:
Yamori wrote:Yeah, I wouldn't want to live under any of those governments.

Why not?

Because most if not all of them had the attitude that citizens existed to serve the country, not vice versa.

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?

Most of them got involved in needless, long drawn out fighting.

And if you consider Rome to be a shining counterexample, I'd say you should re think it. They existed primarily by conquering other countries. Their political leaders were routinely assassinated.

Rome had a fantastic internal infrastructure, dominated the Mediterranean in trade as well as militarily, and had revolutionary civil liberties. The vast majority of her leaders retired peacefully or died from other causes while in office. Given two thousand years of existence, you're going to need to show a boatload of assassinations to make it anything remotely resembling routine.

Of course they were militarily adept. Every single major nation has earned and protected their existence by force of arms.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:57 pm

God forbid someone do that now, they cry like bitches.

10sun · Post by **10sun** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:58 pm

xaoshaen wrote:
10sun wrote:Are there any nations with a constitution / seat of power as old as the US's?

I think Britian, but that has changed quite a bit over the years so the Monarch is more of a figurehead than anything.

You can trace Britain's parlimentary system back further than the U.S., though. Do you want currently existant nations, or historical examples? I can give you either one.

The base of power in Britian has changed radically in the past 200 years. Currently existing nations please.

-Adam

Zanchief · Post by **Zanchief** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:11 pm

Harrison wrote:God forbid someone do that now, they cry like bitches.

Is your only concept of power and government 'not being a pussy'?

xaoshaen · Post by **xaoshaen** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:39 pm

10sun wrote:The base of power in Britian has changed radically in the past 200 years. Currently existing nations please.
-Adam

Not really. England's monarchs have been steadily losing power since 1215. Since 1689, Parliament has been a dominant force in her political system, without having a sovereign veto a bill since the early 18th century... 1708, I think.

The Swiss adopted a new constitution in the mid-1800s to codify evolutionary changes to their system, but it's been contiguous since the 1600s.

Rust · Post by **Rust** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:49 pm

10sun wrote:
xaoshaen wrote:
10sun wrote:Are there any nations with a constitution / seat of power as old as the US's?

I think Britian, but that has changed quite a bit over the years so the Monarch is more of a figurehead than anything.

You can trace Britain's parlimentary system back further than the U.S., though. Do you want currently existant nations, or historical examples? I can give you either one.

The base of power in Britian has changed radically in the past 200 years. Currently existing nations please.

-Adam

The base of power in the USA has changed radically in the past 200 years too.

--R.

Thon · Post by **Thon** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:32 pm

ya, i think the north vs south spat we had counts as an interuption

Post by **Arlos** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:46 am

Harry Lime, in 'The Third Man' wrote:In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long, Holly.

(brilliant movie, BTW)

-Arlos