Imperial Rule

[Pyrosocial]

I'm worried this might get the post locked so ill try and cover this at the bare mimimum.

 

What if we had a religious emperor? such like a pope or something like that. They would never corrupt, and would go out of their way to help poor areas. He/she would be inclined to keep honest people in charge and would not be swayed by power. For the sake of not getting this locked all i said was "Religious"

Edit: with a freedom of religion of course

[pyrobabe]

I'm worried this might get the post locked so ill try and cover this at the bare mimimum.

 

What if we had a religious emperor? such like a pope or something like that. They would never corrupt, and would go out of their way to help poor areas. He/she would be inclined to keep honest people in charge and would not be swayed by power. For the sake of not getting this locked all i said was "Religious"

 

people are still people. we all make mistakes. there have been many popes that have molested children. What we need is a perfect government, and I don't think people can give that.... no matter who you put in charge people are still people and they will still mess things up

 

(in retrospect, that kinda sounds like i just doomed the human race o.O lol)

[Ihoe]

I'm worried this might get the post locked so ill try and cover this at the bare mimimum.

 

What if we had a religious emperor? such like a pope or something like that. They would never corrupt, and would go out of their way to help poor areas. He/she would be inclined to keep honest people in charge and would not be swayed by power. For the sake of not getting this locked all i said was "Religious"

Edit: with a freedom of religion of course

Well my friend, i hate to be negative, but that's the worst thing that can happen. Unless the emperor has no influence on his cronies. Just look at Iran, A living example, we have a religious self appointed messenger of God (my A$$) which orders the Monkey to order his Dogs to Mass Genocide on a small covert scale.

 

I think a paraphrase of what you say might be more appropriate: A Moralistic leader with a Good karma. I think if I remove my critism towards this, a Moralistic leader is better than a Religious one.

 

@ SilverDNA

 

nice attitude, aside the critism I concur with you in a way. The Idiology, Naivity and Candour of a Child is Certainly preferable to a Self-appointed, Capricious, Greedy, Lusty, Decieving and Montonous modern politicians...

[Aurielius]

 

there have been many popes that have molested children.

 

That was uncalled for, verging on the border of illegal debate. :verymad:

[Pyrosocial]

I'm worried this might get the post locked so ill try and cover this at the bare mimimum.

 

What if we had a religious emperor? such like a pope or something like that. They would never corrupt, and would go out of their way to help poor areas. He/she would be inclined to keep honest people in charge and would not be swayed by power. For the sake of not getting this locked all i said was "Religious"

Edit: with a freedom of religion of course

Well my friend, i hate to be negative, but that's the worst thing that can happen. Unless the emperor has no influence on his cronies. Just look at Iran, A living example, we have a religious self appointed messenger of God (my A$$) which orders the Monkey to order his Dogs to Mass Genocide on a small covert scale.

 

I think a paraphrase of what you say might be more appropriate: A Moralistic leader with a Good karma. I think if I remove my critism towards this, a Moralistic leader is better than a Religious one.

 

@ SilverDNA

 

nice attitude, aside the critism I concur with you in a way. The Idiology, Naivity and Candour of a Child is Certainly preferable to a Self-appointed, Capricious, Greedy, Lusty, Decieving and Montonous modern politicians...

 

 

Um....Yes thats a better phasing of words, i had tried to use my example as i figured everyone would think that it would be the only thing that wouldnt become consumed with power, but if a leader had such high standards then yes, that would be much better

[SilverDNA]

....may be we should think the other way around not to start with the person and build myth about of an empire, but simply trying to make the system work in the first place and the see witch kind of person would fit in the place.

 

This was made at the start of this debate and only because I've focused it on a personnel (more general view with children at the head) everybody seeks the best person.  I did only point to an alternative way. So I fell sorry about that 

 

:ohmy:

 

maybe try to start again on the point before I started my argument and resume the discussion there. At the end we see witch model of empire we could bring on and witch head of office should be suited best. (may be a poll worth).

 

Please think it over.  

 

Take a break eat some chocolate rifles , armies of gummy bears, tanks of marzipan or drink some fluid to your liking, witch ever gets your brain working, so you might find a better solution to the main problem, HOW not WHO could this empire work.

 

until then I wish all a lot of fun finding new questions.  :biggrin:

 

 

[Aurielius]

....may be we should think the other way around not to start with the person and build myth about of an empire, but simply trying to make the system work in the first place and the see witch kind of person would fit in the place.

 

On that basis we would need to find a modern equivalent of Lucuis Quinctius Cincinnatus. Only someone who wouldn't take the job would be suited for it.

[SpellAndShield]

....may be we should think the other way around not to start with the person and build myth about of an empire, but simply trying to make the system work in the first place and the see witch kind of person would fit in the place.

 

On that basis we would need to find a modern equivalent of Lucuis Quinctius Cincinnatus. Only someone who wouldn't take the job would be suited for it.

 

Incidentally I would contest your claim that we do not have an empire and that the military industrial complex has nothing to do with our non-empire.

[Aurielius]

Incidentally I would contest your claim that we do not have an empire and that the military industrial complex has nothing to do with our non-empire.

Then present your thesis....and we will debate it.

[SpellAndShield]

Incidentally I would contest your claim that we do not have an empire and that the military industrial complex has nothing to do with our non-empire.

Then present your thesis....and we will debate it.

 

I merely maintain that the classical definition of empire is not the only one. The USSR had an empire, one made up of satellites and so do we. We have our armed forced garrisoned about the globe on virtually ever continent. When Okinawa tells Tokyo they want a reduction in the amount of bases over there, Tokyo ignores them. Just recently under pressure from Washingon, the prime minister, who was elected for his claim to reduce the base number, caved in. It is an issue of fine semantics. We have young soldiers raping women and occasionally committing murder and yet they are never prosecuted locally. It is a different sort of empire.

 

As for the MIC not having influence, it is hard to see how it could not in our foreign adventures. The MIC makes profit by producing arms, weapons and vehicles. These are all needed in our wars.

 

 

I am still unsure what your thesis is; the USA is the hegemon of the world? Uhm, perhaps but that in itself implies empire.

 

Well, I guess you can tell me.