Has The Left Proven The Greek Philosopher Plato That Democracy Eventually Leads to Tyranny

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by BentBow

Problem was, it was already here before WW-II. 1913 to be exact.
The 16th Amendment created Fascism in the USA.

How does levying income taxes cause people to think their country is gonna be destroyed by foreign powers? I mean, a lot of countries have for decades (if not over a century) had higher tax burdens than we do. Yet they weren't attacked by foreign powers. Same thing with racism: I see no evidence that tax increases lead to increases in racism. Fascism has nothing to do with taxes, only with paranoia about (usually imagined) enemies "foreign and domestic".

At least in this country and other democracies, people can "throw the bums out" if taxes get too high. I can't think of a single fascist government that caved in because taxes got too high.

[Robertfchew]

Originally Posted by odanny

Trump supporters keep speaking of "tyranny' yet we have a President who is deeply ignorant of the Constitution (as are his supporters, of course) and wishes to supersede established laws with executive orders and end any investigations into his illegal conduct before an election, while his own party, which almost all opposed him, are now sitting back and supporting him as he does openly what they had to do secretly.

Yes, what we have today is neofascism, and it is what Trump supporters have wanted all along.

But there is good news: There are more patriots than there are fascists in America, and when the fascists try to usurp established laws and the Constitution, patriots will rise up in greater numbers and smash these Nazis.

At this point you cannot be any form of a democrat and reference the constitution. It automatically paints you as a bumbling idiot.

[blktoptrvl]

"With the lefts violent crack down on free speech."

White House bans CDC from using words

Irony!

[banjomike]

Originally Posted by phma

Its being tried but thankfully we elected Trump president. He will tamp it down and with some help crush it.

That's what tyrants always do.

[dechatelet]

Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest

Oh & almost forgot to confirm, your preferred is what we see today? That is, being captained by a "small, unaccountable" elite?

No, I'm opposed to that.

What I prefer is rule by an hereditary aristocracy under a constitutional monarchy.

Originally Posted by Catgirl64

You don't sound especially crazy about it, yourself.

I'm not. Democracy, Republic -- both are failures. Same with capitalism and communism.

Societies in whatever form are always going to be ruled by an elite. So the question is, what sort of elite is best. I prefer an hereditary aristocracy because such aristocracies, apart from their initial creation on the basis of some criterion of merit, are fair in their very unfairness -- you're in it because you were born to it -- and they have historically taken pride in their role as stewards of the nation and its culture. It is because of this that we have our legacy of magnificent European art created through royal, aristocratic, and church patronage.

The old aristocracies were formed through service to the king in various capacities, usually as soldiers. Grants of land were given for feudal estates, but there were also "commons" where peasants could graze their livestock. I would form an American aristocracy out of the descendants of the original settlers who would be selected on the basis of a range of factors: intelligence, bravery, good looks, health, good character, good personality -- the sort of people others would naturally look up to as leaders.

This sound stock would be the seed bed for future generations of leaders. Of course, there would be some rotten apples along the way that would have to be tossed aside and denied their privileges. Some provision would be made for this.

A constitution would ensure basic freedoms, justice, and a fair distribution of resources. A single national Christian church would be established for those who are religious. No other religions would be allowed. Taxes would pay for both the church and the government. No one outside the aristocratic class would be allowed to become rich. Nor would anyone be poor. Banking would be done by the state, and the state would print enough currency to match the productivity of labor in the economy. The state would never borrow money, but print what it needs. Military defense would be provided by paid mercenaries, the best of whom would be made a part of the nobility. Immigration would be limited to those who fit the profile of the nation's founders.

I would demolish the hideous superstructure of capitalist democracy. Every skyscraper would be torn down. America would become a nation of villages, towns, and cities no larger than one million inhabitants. Suburbs of tract houses would be returned to nature. People who did not care for this new regime would be invited to leave the country.

What I have described here might seem extreme. But it indicates the direction that I think is best.