Slashdot Mirror
Geeks For Monarchy: The Rise of the Neoreactionaries
Third Position writes "Many of us yearn for a return to one golden age or another. But there's a community of bloggers taking the idea to an extreme: they want to turn the dial way back to the days before the French Revolution. Neoreactionaries believe that while technology and capitalism have advanced humanity over the past couple centuries, democracy has actually done more harm than good. They propose a return to old-fashioned gender roles, social order and monarchy."
Get in the kitchen, wench!
Bringing back serfdom.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
We kicked out King George a long time ago...we don't want him back.
As long as _I_ am the one who's in power.
I always liked the title Jarl, I think I would be a good Jarl.
No, thanks.
I'm all for it, as long as I get to be the King.
I bet that women and minorities are underrepresented in this movement to turn the calendar back.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Contemporary political thought seems to be about electing the right king.
Dog is my co-pilot.
I blame Game of Thrones. Although you'd think Joffrey would be example enough to discourage monarchy.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
If you think we got corrupt, selfish, self absorbed and self centered cretins for rulers, ponder how much bigger cretins you get if you give them the feeling that they're entitled to it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Any system is great as long as you are one of the elites, living off the backs of the slaves. In theory that shouldn't be possible in a democracy, which is why the elites in the US keep us as far from a democracy as possible.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Please! Someone buy these idiots a history book. This is such a perfect example of people who think they're smart but they actually know jack shit about anything except pushing bits. The funny thing is, after the first arbitrary detention and execution of a dissident for "lesse majesty" or "treason against the crown" they'd all be up in arms and in jail. I really hope they're not all really this stupid and this is all just a way to get a reaction.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
But "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
“If residents don’t like their government, they can and should move,” he writes. “The design is all ‘exit,’ no ‘voice.’”
Any business can tell you the value of switching costs. Once you reel them in, it is expensive to move. So, even though another city-state might be better, people will still not move since the cost of moving, even assuming the State doesn't actively interfere with exit taxes or similar measures, would prevent most from moving. This is why retail chains all want you to sign up for their cursed club cards, to try to create switching costs that will keep you around even though they suck. Plus, we don't live in Bruce Sterling's cladist space utopia, there are limited options for moving in space while stuck on Earth's surface, even ignoring the costs. Why don't all those North Koreans just move? Perhaps these fellows have answers to these criticisms, I haven't spent all day reading their FAQ or anything.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Apparently somebody's been going to too many medieval reenactments, and spicing them up with some conspiracy theorist meetings. Monarchies were nasty places to live for the majority of people. I like the part about nations being very small and people free to move between them to find one they like. Sure, and communism would have worked great if the people in charge were just nicer! Why would a king not try to conquer more territory, and allow his subjects to take off and leave whenever they want?
"Neoreactionaries believe 'The Cathedral,' is a meta-institution that consists largely of Harvard and other Ivy League schools, The New York Times and various civil servants" Don't let the pentaverate get you! "I hated the Colonel, with his wee beady eyes!"
Alexander Kazantsev wrote a book about that. The relevant part of the story took place somewhere between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. ;-)
Ezekiel 23:20
Around here, we don't dignify them with such latinate terms, we just call them assholes.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Actually, a monarchy can be a good thing if the monarch is not a dictator. For example, in the Netherlands, the king has little power but is "the face" of the country. This separation of power and representation is wonderful. Electing a king by birth is a bit preposterous, but it prevents the first power-hungry megalomaniac to be our first man. I know a monarchy is ancient and not of this age, but the mere thought of an alternative like Kohl, Bush or Mitterant makes me glad that we have one.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
You challenged, thus I have choice of weapons.
I choose 5 megaton thermonuclear weapons at 10 paces.
Ah, so you've decided your honor is satisfied? Thought so.
... for having frequented them in France. The French Neo-Reactionaries are, quite often, staunch arch-catholics and rather vehement racists, who often glorify one form or another of fascism. They are a rancid bunch, IMHO.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
. . . .but the default tendency of human goverments DOES seem to be the Empire, no matter what name you call it.
And even sadder, the usual life of a Republic is around 200 years. Which explains much of Modern America, which seems to be in transition to both a Police State AND an Empire. After all, we now seem to have both a de-facto permanent underclass and a self-sustaining de-facto aristocracy. . .
Which is why you don't give them any actual power.
... were against democracy.... that is why they established a Republic.
For a better understanding of different government systems - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0
Of course, democracy hasn't managed to keep someone like Kim Jung Il off the top, either, has it?
Not that I think that they're right on the gender role thing, mind: it's blatantly stupid unless the only work being done is hard manual labour and I'm DAMN sure that the ones pushing for this don't want to actually have to work hard dangerous jobs where, because they aren't physically demanding, women will be available for management roles over them.
You know, they want the RIGHT sort of heirarchy.
Since 1988, the House of Bush has occupied the Presidency for 12 years, the House of Clinton for 8 years and been a major player in another administration for 4 years as well as having better than average odds of gaining the White House for at least another 4 years if not 8.
It gets even more like that if you start looking at the House, Senate and Governorships and factor in other family dynasties like the Kennedys, the broader House of Bush.
Then there are various corporate/government crossovers where scions of capitalists enter politics. Minnesota's governor is the child of the Dayton family (retail shopping, family was behind Dayton's and now Target Stores).
I'm not sure we need to declare a new monarchy or aristocracy; we've just more less quietly reinstated it.
And like monarchy the problem lies in getting competent rulers and the succession wars.
Benevolent dictatorships are far less bureaucratic and less prone to corruption. On the other hand they tend to not represent all the minorities of the country very well, even the most benevolent dictator will have some pet issues he disagrees with even if the population agree, think abortion, gay marriage, etc. The minorities will have no way of getting their rights. The democracy motto after all is "The will of the majority while respecting the rights of the minority".
I still think that benevolent dictatorships are better than democracy, but then again I'm white, male and heterosexual.
Disclaimer: I'm French.
At school I was taught how the French Revolution was an amazing thing. It freed us. It was the end of a time of the absolute, divine right monarchy that France and other European nations had for almost a thousand years. I learned later about The Terror, where nobles would get their heads chopped off. Including the wives and kids, and I reckon some servants too. There's probably been a rape or two, as well, since that's what you get when a mob forms up and there's nobody to police them. They don't teach you much of that when you're at school. I guess it's understandable, since you don't want 12 years old to learn about rape and kids their age being killed just because they were born in the right family. Or do you?
Anyway, I learned much, much later, in my late 20's, that the actual History is much more cynic. It was not "we, the people" (to paraphrase an American concept) who started this. People got riled up by the bourgeois. A bourgeois is a very, very rich commoner. He can hardly hope to ever become a noble. That limits, right there, the richness he can ever hope to achieve. He'll always be looked down from the nobles. He can be killed for talking wrong to a noble. It's better to be a poor noble than a rich bourgeois. So, they didn't like that very much. They started the Revolution. They manipulated the peasants and poorly educated population to do the Revolution. Just so they could usurp the power from the nobles.
Note that I'm personally fine with the fact that we took the nobles out. Nobody should have a birthright over somebody else, just because. This is unfair, this is archaic, and it doesn't make the society move forward. The problem I have with the Revolution, besides the way it's taught (unless you do a History Major you won't hear much of this), is that it replaced one nobility with another. At least the previous one, the actual nobles, where honest about their absolute power. They said "I'm better than you, you're lesser than me, fuck you and fuck off." But the Bourgeoisie, which is still in power today (we call them Oligarchs, because they are the ultimate Bourgeois and there are not so many of them), is much more hypocritical. They will make you think you're in a Democracy, when really you're not. When the Banks can decide whether or not a state will default its credits, after pushing them towards into a mass debt, it's not a democracy. It's an illusion.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, as I just started typing with no set plans for the post. I guess my point is, I'm fed up of hearing we are in a democracy, and we should feel lucky, because more and more I feel I have no choice and no say. Even if my situation isn't as bad as a serf from 400 years ago, it sure as hell isn't as good as the people back them wanted my life to be.
I think it was Churchill who said something like, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". The problem is not democracy. If we actually lived in a democracy things would be better -- not perfect, by any means -- but better. The problem is that we live in a plutocracy, not a democracy. Life in a plutocracy is not much different than life in a monarchy. It survives because it maintains an illusion of democracy and is less overtly oppressive than a monarchy.
Proverbs 21:19
In fairness, the majority of Christians tend to agree on what is in and what is out as far as classifying someone as Christian. Most protestant denominations and many Catholics that are well versed in the foundations of their beliefs don't have any major problems with most other major Christian groups. It's only really generally agreed to be a problem when you get groups like Mormons, 7th Day Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses that have made major and core theological changes to the foundations of Christianity that have rendered the core views unrecognizable. Pretty much every denomination that holds those core views has a problem with them.
The only argument I've ever heard from protestant/evangelical circles about the Catholic church is that they have too many people that don't really know their religion and end up with a works based or genealogical based mode of salvation, but this isn't actually consistent with Catholic teaching, it's just an incorrect understanding held by many Catholics that haven't really dug in to their religion.
AJ Henderson
These guys sound like Bond Villains. And not Bond Villains from one of the good movies. More like the bad guy from Octopussy or For Your Eyes Only.
... and they have been with us since before the U. S. Constitution was signed. They had a defining influence on that document, leading to a significant disconnect between it and the principles found in the Declaration of Independence.
It was these individuals who invited the King of Prussia to reign over the new United States and it was they who opposed the Bill of Rights. Bear in mind that no small number of the wealthy who came to American shores did so to establish themselves as the new plutocratic aristocracy. Often, they had in their pockets grants of land and privileges from the crown.
It is simply a symptom of the times that they are coming out of the closet now, though their influence has always been with us. Take for instance, Leo Strauss' embrace of the Platonic "noble lie", which was a touchstone for legitimizing nobility's grip on power long before there was a United States of America.
What makes 7th Day Adventists outliers? I skimmed the Wikipedia article and the only thing that really stuck out was the millennial stuff, and how big a deal is having different unactionable opinions about the future, really?
(actually curious)
P.S: Okay, so they're kosher, anti-alcohol, etc., but that's not so abnormal.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
In the 17th century as the Divine Right of Kings declined in legitimacy, the race was on for an alternative reason to obey the government (other than that they would shoot you otherwise). Both Hobbes and Locke constructed the idea that there is an implicit contract between the citizens of a country and its rulers: you do your job and we will accept your ordering of society. A small but significant element of this was the right to leave if you didn't like what the government was doing. Interestingly the refusal of this right to the subjects of Marxist regimes marks them out as nastier than their predecessors (the Berlin Wall and the rest of the Iron Curtain was a largely successful attempt to keep East Germans at home). For Hobbes this was the ONLY right of the subject; Locke argued that the contract implied a right to participate in the government, which was seminal in the American revolution.
Seventh-day Adventists actually can be categorized quite nicely into conservative evangelicalism. They step outside the mainstream on issues like the weekly sabbath, the state of the dead and by maintaining a historicist approach to prophetic interpretation. They also have an unusually strong emphasis on religious liberty and the separation of church and state. But their soteriology/christology/etc... tend to be very orthodox evangelical.
Source: Grew up Adventist, still am a practicing Adventist, MA in Religion, and I read the work of many non-Adventist theologians and scholars.
Capitalism does not lead to corruption, lack of character does.
In the days of kings, someone would come to power typically because they were a powerful warrior. Indeed, in medieval Europe, the economy was based on a number of monarchs frequently going to battle with each other over land and resources. If you were a king of England, and you didn’t try to take over some part of France during your reign, you were a failure. (This explains the right of succession by blood. They didn’t know about DNA, but they did know that relatives had similarities and wanted people similar to successful past rulers.) Interestingly, the most successful monarchs were those who were loved by their own people (good management ability) feared by everyone else (mindless slaughter of people in foreign lands). This delicate balance between aggression and empathy was hard to find, and looking at the history of the English monarchy, not everyone managed it. This sounds like Ender’s game: In the history of the English monarchy (which I am a bit less ignorant of than others), there were plenty of Valentines and Peters those reigns ended in one kid of dismal failure or another, while the Enders are well-known in history. In the abstract, this sounds cool, except Ender and those successful kings were responsible for wide-spread slaughter of countless.
So this idea of returning to a monarchy sounds really bizarre to me. Rule by the one or few is not a recipe for peace, security, or freedom. In medieval Europe, if you were a peasant, you might live out your life unmolested, or you might fall victim to the whims of a foreign army or your own. Peasant life was essentially worthless except for the bit of farming they could do. This sort of attitude was the case into the 19th century. Have a look at the way the English treated the Irish when the potato blight killed off their only economical source of food. The Irish were under English rule, but apparently not under English protection, because all Parliament did was quibble while people starved to death. We also tried communism in several countries. The Soviet Union fell due to a collapsing economy, and China systematically converted to capitalism. Of course, capitalism is a system of economy, and China is still a dictatorship, but it’s a step in the right direction. Basically, when your life and your work have no value, then you have no motivation to work, except under the whip. So what these monarchists are suggesting is a return to slavery.
This isn’t the Christian fantasy of Jesus returning to earth to rule as a benevolent king. People will come to power because they want power, and then they will maintain that power by destroying others. We have that happening in our republics today. The differences are that (a) people are elected or not based on how their constituents perceive the representative to further their interests, (b) there are enough conflicting opinions that sometimes the bad ideas get filtered out, and (c) we have a judicial system that can find bad laws unconstitutional and overrule them. (Frankly, I think the executive branch in the US has too much power and is a vestige of the US legal system being a derivative of the English legal system, which has a figurehead king. We get to elect ours, but ours don’t seem to be very effective at anything other than being a scapegoat for the failures of the legislative branch.) Basically, a republic has problems, but a dictatorship is much much worse.
And let’s not forget to address the baloney about returning to traditional gender roles. As a society, we’re only beginning to respect individual human rights and dignity, regardless of ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation. If we’re going to experiment with totalitarianism, why don’t we try putting some women in control? Oh, sure, they’ll screw it up too. Humans in power always do. But at least it won’t be a bloodbath.
Yeah, unless it's a resurgence of a previous movement, isn't every reactionary group "neo" by definition?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
The differences are a lot more serious than that. In theological terms they are very different. Most importantly the protestants place great value on the personal relationship between each believer and Christ, while the Catholic church place themselves as the divinely appointed intermediary. This also means they claim for themselves the exclusive power to interpret or decree God's teachings. The two major branches of Christianity are on good terms right now, but remember that past centuries were characterized by the two taking turns to persecute and torture each other in the struggle for influence.
The summary is right about one thing: democracy appears undesirable, or at least sub-optimal, to many intelligent successful geeks.
The actual support for wanting to "turn back the clock" or to have gender roles or whatever is fragmented, and may range from "this is probably worked better than what we're doing today" to "yeah, I'd enforce this via the sword", with relatively few people advocating the latter.
In the last 15 years I've given up on the GOP, given up on libertarianism, and now consider myself squarely an anarchist.
There's a strain of people, lets call them "technocrats", who are probably very smart, and believe that if only they were in charge, they could make things better.
These people want to believe in democracy, but they see the very real impediment it presents to them getting anything done. It's ridiculous to them that they must put up with climate deniers and intelligent design blowhards (and critically, those that these groups elect to office) when there is critical work to be done.
They may be right, but invariably the powerful institutions they build will be co-opted by people who are either less capable or less moral, or often, both. You build a state science department, and invariably, Pat Robertson is going to end up running it somehow.
Then you have people like me, who have become so disillusioned with government that I contend the whole affair should be done away with.
I was fed a steady diet of government school growing up, and I've found out how much of that was pro-state mythology. And so one naturally questions other parts of the mythology. Is our government good? Is it effective? Does it have the right goals? What about the "right" to vote? Who really ought to have it? Why?
I, for instance, take the unpopular view that voter suppression is probably a good idea - as long as it is done for the right reasons. Voting in this country is by no means an "absolute right". Felons don't get the right to vote; neither do children or the mentally handicapped (beyond some level). So let's dispense with that claim entirely. Society has always had (and will continue to have) rules on who may vote.
Some percentage of the voting public is clearly dumber than I am, and clearly unable to manage their own affairs and well-being appropriately.
So a rude question emerges: Should people who cannot manage their own lives get any role in managing mine? (e.g., a "vote")?
I'm persuaded that the answer is, "no".
The difference between an anarchist and a technocrat, on this issue, is that an anarchist ALSO doesn't recognize the right of a successful man to govern an unsuccessful one.
The tech crunch article listed Herman Hoppe as one of the members of this club. I'm a fan of Hoppe, and he in no way is an advocate of Monarchy. He is a critic of the state, and specifically a critic of democracy. He has an excellent bit of writing that explains immigration policy from the POV of a monarch vs. an elected official, and in his conclusion, the self-interested monarch has a much better set of incentives for a positive immigration policy than does the elected official who panders for votes. Pointing out situations where a monarch behaves preferably to a democratic body does make one an advocate of Monarchy, any more than saying "the trains ran on time!" make one an advocate of Mussolini.
What you're seeing here is a group made up of successful, intelligent people, who grew up with the internet in its wild-west days -- there was no authority to crush dissent and no censorship.
They're questioning the mythology of society. Either our society is on firm enough footing that it stands, or it isn't, and these ideas spread.
It's worth pointing out that the fastest growing socio-cultural group is socially conservative Islam. Proponents of progressive social democracy had better have some pretty damn good answers (and more kids), because there's a storm coming. Not helping the impending clash is the reality of this article: Some of the best and brightest that our progressive society has produced are having second thoughts about the society that birthed them.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Sorry, I think my statement was overly ambiguous. I meant "most protestant denominations" and "most/many Catholics who actually understand their religion". I clarified because I've run in to many Catholics who are more culturally catholic than practicing that have problems with protestants, however most devout Catholics who dig in to the official views of the catholic church don't have any major problems with most protestants.
AJ Henderson
That is why I put in the part about having to understand their beliefs. Personally, I'm protestant, but the actual orthodox Catholic view is that Saints should not be worshiped but rather that they intercede on behalf of the person praying to them. They don't have any power or honor beyond being a hero of the faith so to speak. It does end up leading to (what I see as a minorly incorrect view) that their being "better" Christians results in God listening to them more, but it isn't idol or saint worship if properly following formal Catholic beliefs.
AJ Henderson
That's true that there are very fundamental differences in how they see the structure and role of the church, however the means of salvation remains consistent in both. Much of the fighting is the same as it is today, it comes from politicians attaching themselves to the church (or at times abuse of the church when politics and the church were one and the same). The views of both groups are not that fundamentally at odds even if the practices and minor points have considerable differences. Most conflicts between the groups were about power or revenge, neither is related to theology.
AJ Henderson
The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill. The problem is not the type of government, but rather that people suck. People are selfish, biased, territorial, cliquish, bribe-able, stubborn, irrational, etc.
Asking for a new or different government system to compensate for ALL the crappiness off human nature is simply asking too much. It can compensate for some of the weaknesses, but not all. And it's often a trade-off such that compensating for one weakness may magnify another.
That being said, I'm all for small-scale tests, just not on me. If you can form a voluntary colony somewhere to test a different kind of government, that's wonderful. Just don't invade and force it.
Table-ized A.I.
...it's only a model.
Table-ized A.I.
Perhaps you should read about Catharism or one of the many other Catholic Cursades? The fact is, the Catholic Church has engaged in plenty of purges and multiple "councils" to discuss matters of the faith, eventually deciding "the one true way" and burning/killing the heretics who kept going. Most Protestants are so far removed from these decisions that once you actually start reading some of the decisions, you start to see how many people you've met in your life are at least partial believers in at least one of the "heretical" ideas.
You see, the point isn't that the Catholic Church is per se some evil organization. It's that people just presume a lot of their own personal beliefs are (a) similar to others or (b) at least tolerable enough if they have the same "core" beliefs--and it's only after they start really talking that the find out differently. Hence, Protestants have had their own purgings--not always any less bloody than the Catholic kind. They've just had fewer years to have a long history of it. So, the very idea that the US is all some sort of happy Christian family, even as a majority, I think is rather ludicrous. And the more that we actually focus on being "Christian", the more only the "true" Christians will be tolerated.
Hence, the very notion of bring up the point is an act of intolerance is the slippery slope to the same inquisitions that supposedly were the foundation of "Freedom of Religion" in the US. No, the truth is that no denomination had the monopoly on power to reign, so everyone agreed to a sort of truce. And for that, I despise any attempt to pretend or grant any religion a consideration as a majority because any group, religious or not, should not reign. Oh, and, yea, that's why I'm against monarchies too. :)
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
2. Grinding poverty and inequality: Monarchial rule begets serfdom and a midevil class structure. furthermore that class is infected upon your name for generations. Kings decide what you can and cannot eat with hunting laws, and who you can and cannot marry by proxy of the church. in the past, even certain hats and colors were banned by monarchies.
While there are problems with monarchies, this is not one of them, not relative to modern society. Gaps in inequality were much less in feudalism (though everyone had less overall, too), and the life of a serf.... Really actually wasn't that bad, no worse than your average modern wage-slave (and serfs actually tended to work fewer hours each day than we do).
Class is still present, it's just less formally structured than it used to be. Despite what "the American dream" tries to get everyone to believe, it's nearly impossible to actually make any significant change in social class throughout one's life. The exceptions to this are all that you hear of (and especially all you remember), so it gives the illusion of being much more possible than it really is.
And there are many rules just as arbitrary as the ones you listed, including hunting laws (still, especially considering that these have never been that arbitrary), laws against gay marriage (in some places), and some restrictions on clothing (such as forcing people to wear it).
Was monarchy and feudalism problematic? Sure, but the economic aspects of it really weren't terribly awful, not in comparison to 'democratic' capitalism.
Not serfdom. Serfs were bound by traditional duties, but the same traditions bound their liege lords with obligations and to recognize certain rights. So, for example, you cannot turn a serf off the land his father worked. You cannot threaten him and his family with hunger in order to compel new concessions. He has a great many days guaranteed off since they're holy days. Most days of the week, he's actually working for himself and only a fraction was her required to work on his liege's land and projects.
Compare this with the circumstances your cite. Some rights are granted by our legal system but the obligations owed to a worker (esp. pay) have been in decline since the 1970's. But the employee has no security. High unemployment makes them easily replaceable; Walmart doesn't allow them to organize; they could be left at any moment with more bills than money. Thus, concessions are easy to secure for the employer who knows his employees only work for him because they've few other options. Sure, they don't lower their worker's salaries but they do reduce labor costs by having ever fewer workers perform ever more tasks. And who can complain? As for days off, Walmart workers certainly don't get our civic holidays off. Days like Sunday were once a great and beautiful thing. They were guarantees that an employer was not the master of an employees life. They granted all people the very human dignity of being able to spend time with family. They even allowed time for people to recognize a god other than Mammon. Walmart employees even have to work on Thanksgiving now and the holiday season has the most taxing schedule for them. A retail worker often does not know when he'll be working two weeks hence, and can therefore make few sure plans to spend with family and friends. Oh well, it's easier just to stay home and watch TV ($199 at Walmart!) and eat popcorn than to have to risk cancelling on friends again. As for the fraction of pay, I would be willing to bet that the ratio of profit, Walmart:"associate", is far better for Walmart than ever was the ratio of produce, liege:serf.
So, I do not think it best to say Walmart wishes to make its employees serfs. Serfs are a meddlesome bunch and tend to riot when their traditional rights are usurped. I think rather that Walmart wishes to leave its employees in a servile condition, as a great master over so many slaves. And while I'm at it, I'll throw this little bomb: the current form of consumerist capitalism undermines friendship, family, the human dignity of workers, and even religion.
Wasn't this basically Plato's argument a long time ago? The best theoretical form of government is to have a "philosopher king" that has a lot of power but always acts in the interests of the people, this way things get done efficiently and even if the uneducated people think its not correct to do. But of course the problem is making sure the king is a philosopher -- most of the time, these type of people are not the ones that even want to be king. Otherwise, you end up with a very bad situation. Democracy is not perfect but it tends to smooth out the problem of not having philosophers as leaders, but we don't always know what is best for ourselves.
Please realize that this end of filibustering only applies to the Senate confirmation process. Where the Senate votes on whether a proposed appointee is fit to hold the appointed office. Filibustering on policies and legislation is NOT affected.
The Tea Partiers brought this situation on by their attempts to cripple the Federal government until they got their way. That is tyranny by a minority. As a group, the Tea Party is walking closer to the line that defines treason and impeachable actions than any other political faction in living memory. They do not seek the compromises that make a democratic republic work; they push a "my way or the highway" agenda which risks everyone's safety and pushes the cost of government higher and higher.
Will