On May 11, 12:37=A0pm, Day Brown <daybr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The Trucker wrote:
> >> But the leaders there won't let it happen because of their greed for
> >> money. Nice idea, but it discounts basic human nature.
>
> > It seems to me that this greed thing is a shared trait among all
persons=
> > in power. =A0That is why a "republican form of government" is best.
>
> Machiavelli said that republics _always_ get corrupted by the rich. He
> therefore admire monarchies, which were like a family business. The
> monarch took a longer view than the republic because he wanted to hand
> the family business down later to his heirs.
>
> But he also admired the German city state system in which no matter
> what the local government was, craftsmen could, and did, vote with
> their feet. We see Singa****e today do well because of this. They
> understand the professional class can get on a plane any time, so they
> dont bother pandering to the m*****. Chavez and Fidel have, and have
> seen professionals leave their economies on that account. Recently
> Rauel has tried to start turning that around.
>
> But the most well do***ented stable system yet found is in the
> independent city states just west of the hegemony of China at the Jade
> Gate. Kucha, Khotan, Niya, Loulan, Urumchi, etc, all flourished from
> the first millenium BC to the arrival of the Mongol hordes, well over
> 1000 years of peace and prosperity.
>
> While there were sometimes kings in some of these cities, a closer
> look at the evidence suggests they were front men for matriarchies.
> The ruins conspicuously lack slums and palaces, much less monumental
> architecture kings have used to feed their egos.
>
> The most obvious example are the Gautamid queens of Kucha, who were,
> in effect madams because the city owned the brothels. They didnt have
> slums cause they drafted airheads into brothels, and the business from
> camel trains and merchants at the brothels sup****ted the government
> without any taxes.
>
> And of course, like the German city states, they were in competition
> with each other, and needed a very low cost of management. The Silk
> Road was not just one route, but at least three, and business could
> always go elsewhere. (Course this competition was ruined by the
> hegemony of the Mongols, and then Islam under the leader****p of
> Tamerlane. The prices and taxes went so high it motivated Europeans to
> find a sea route to China, thus Columbus)
>
> Anyway, since the queen did not need a harem, she didnt need a palace
> to keep them in, nor a castle to protect the palace. So, she didnt
> need the taxes to pay for it all.
>
> And when we consider the corruption of republics by the rich, what do
> they want with the money more than anything else? more *****. Call
> girls, trophy wives, and *** kittens. which women do not need. They
> are, therefore, as they did in the oasis towns of the Silk Road,
> taking over because they offer a lower cost of management. It wont
> really matter all that much whether the matriarchy is oligarchic,
> democratic, monarchic, socialist or capitalist. No matter what it is
> officially, the women will setup peer to peer networks to, as Plato
> said of the Golden Age of Peace in Europe, "rule by persuasion".
A matriarchal herd can always use a disposable plastic President.
<hand>
Rick Hohensee
www.myspace.com/presidentbyamendment
|
