Originally posted by Grampy Bobby 2. Was the reign of the Antonine Caesars during the second century the most just and prosperous time in human history?
You do know that the Antonine Caesars only ruled over a tiny little area near the Mediterranean?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby Then, which was "the most just and prosperous time in human history?"
Where? And over what timescale? History has seen many ups and downs in the history of all peoples but I am not convinced they correlate closely with each other.
Also who gets to decide? Opinions about many regimes are deeply divided. I suppose an example would be Haroun Al Raschid, who gets a great write up in the Arabian Nights and so has been immortalised. The poet Alfred, Lord Tennyson, thinking of some of the stories of the Arabian Nights, spoke of "the good Haroun Alraschid." However, the scholar R. A. Nicholson thought he was an "irascible tyrant, whose fitful amiability and real taste for music and letters hardly entitle him to be described either as a great monarch or a good man."
Originally posted by finnegan Where? And over what timescale?
The question implies 'the whole world' and 'over recorded history'. Although it is possible he meant only in the Roman Empire.
Also who gets to decide? Opinions about many regimes are deeply divided. I think it would be really difficult to beat the current point in time in terms of a global average or in fact almost any current modern first world democracy in terms of a single nation ie even the US would fare better than almost anywhere a hundred years ago or before.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy How about an elected dictator with a two year term, but at the end of the two years the People get to vote whether or not to put him/her to death?
You do know that 'dictator' means that you can change the rules? But assuming you find a way around that, what would be the reward if the people let the dictator live? Why would anyone take the job?
Originally posted by twhitehead You do know that 'dictator' means that you can change the rules? But assuming you find a way around that, what would be the reward if the people let the dictator live? Why would anyone take the job?
OK change "dictator" to "Supreme Commander" or some other word that means almost all powerful. There would have to be a Constitution spelling out the few rules he/she couldn't change and a military sworn to uphold it.
As for your second question, why does anyone take the job now? It virtually assures half the country will hate your guts in four years, it ages you prematurely, and you have to go through grueling hell and sell your soul to get elected. It's a strange person indeed who is willing to do that, but I think we will always have those people. Maybe with a possible death sentence over their head they would listen more to the citizenry and less to the people who buy them.
Obviously, this is all off the top of my head just to keep the thread interesting. How would you improve it?
Originally posted by Sleepyguy How about an elected dictator with a two year term, but at the end of the two years the People get to vote whether or not to put him/her to death?
What if your Bernie Sanders? The man must have died 2 years ago already.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy OK change "dictator" to "Supreme Commander" or some other word that means almost all powerful. There would have to be a Constitution spelling out the few rules he/she couldn't change and a military sworn to uphold it.
As for your second question, why does anyone take the job now? It virtually assures half the country will hate your guts in four years, i ...[text shortened]... his is all off the top of my head just to keep the thread interesting. How would you improve it?
Na, the bastard would just write and Executive Order overriding the law to execute him.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy There would have to be a Constitution spelling out the few rules he/she couldn't change and a military sworn to uphold it.
25 May '16 16:56
Curiosity Corner
Back to Top