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. That 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".
|
