Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.
Look, Mr./Mrs. iAmATotallyReasonablePersonAndNotAnInsufferableCunt, are you going to provide some evidence of whatever point you’re trying to make, or should we do this tit-for-tat some more?
Either way, no sweat. Happy to yell at the clouds with you until the heat-death of the universe.
Will you provide any evidence for your claims? It’s not me who’s claiming Roman republic was a democratic state (lol). “popular assemblies composed of common citizens” lol, look up centuriate assembly and see how many votes common sitizens had in it (spoiler: 0.5% of total votes).
If the Roman Republic, isn’t democratic enough for you, then, as I said, we could talk about the Athenians
Athenian democracy existed for less than 200 years and Athens were a village with 10k population. Might as well just talk about US so that democracy doesn’t embarass itself.
Or perhaps the Iroquois League.
What about it?
The merit and utility of a system of governance is measured by how long it lasts
Yep.
What are you talking about, and send some links to back up whatever that is.
What’s not clear to you? You said it yourself: “>The merit and utility of a system of governance is measured by how long it lasts”. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. What’s better, your current government, or or new ideal government that has perfect conditions for its citizens, but only lasts for 1 day and then the state collapses?
A dictatorship may last for millennia, but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.
You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a sociopath’s dictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.
but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.
Not all government forms have the institution of citizenship
Why isn’t longevity the most important attribute? Any organization’s goal is to last as long as possible. All other goals come second.
You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a sociopath’s dictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.
Once again, duration is irrelevant to the claim of legitimate authority because time doesn’t solely and objectively provide any evidence of people’s willing acceptance of that group or individual’s authority. This is more commonly known as the social contract via consent of the governed.
The group/individual, of course, can make claims to not needing said consent via spurious arguments like the one you’re making, but the claim does nothing to objectively show any utility, and thus, merit, for the populace they seek to exert power and influence over.
Basically, if you say “I’m in control forever because I’ve always been in control and my goal is to always be in control forever.”, most thinking people, including myself, would rightly say “Gargle my bullets after gargling my balls.” Also, your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people, effective at the tasks of governance, or even objectively good for yourself.
A similar argument to what you’re saying would be, “Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest.” It’s demonstrably false, to use your own words.
Whether you consider my opinion of your opinions and you as ad hominem or not is irrelevant.
Popular assemblies composed of common citizens could maybe decide where to put a public toilet on a street. Most laws were passed by the senate (composed of aristocrats), and consuls/other top magistrates were appointed by the senate.
So you were there and knew everything about it?
Look, Mr./Mrs.
iAmATotallyReasonablePersonAndNotAnInsufferableCunt, are you going to provide some evidence of whatever point you’re trying to make, or should we do this tit-for-tat some more?Either way, no sweat. Happy to yell at the clouds with you until the heat-death of the universe.
Will you provide any evidence for your claims? It’s not me who’s claiming Roman republic was a democratic state (lol). “popular assemblies composed of common citizens” lol, look up centuriate assembly and see how many votes common sitizens had in it (spoiler: 0.5% of total votes).
Evidence I was talking about were links to books about primary historical sources that I could read.
If the Roman Republic, isn’t democratic enough for you, then, as I said, we could talk about the Athenians. Or perhaps the Iroquois League.
But what was your point again? The merit and utility of a system of governance is measured by how long it lasts, or something to that effect?
In your words,
and,
in response to (paraphrasing), “other systems of government other than democracy are worse.”
So, educate me and everyone else, then. What are you talking about, and send some links to back up whatever that is.
Athenian democracy existed for less than 200 years and Athens were a village with 10k population. Might as well just talk about US so that democracy doesn’t embarass itself.
What about it?
Yep.
What’s not clear to you? You said it yourself: “>The merit and utility of a system of governance is measured by how long it lasts”. Let’s conduct a thought experiment. What’s better, your current government, or or new ideal government that has perfect conditions for its citizens, but only lasts for 1 day and then the state collapses?
A dictatorship may last for millennia, but the duration of a system of government’s continuity is not the sole, nor most important, attribute when judging its legitimacy, utility, merit for all its citizens.
You’re taking a teenage edgelord’s, or if serious, a
sociopath’sdictator’s position, as if that’s something to aspire to be.Not all government forms have the institution of citizenship
Why isn’t longevity the most important attribute? Any organization’s goal is to last as long as possible. All other goals come second.
Unrelated to the discussion, ad hominem.
Once again, duration is irrelevant to the claim of legitimate authority because time doesn’t solely and objectively provide any evidence of people’s willing acceptance of that group or individual’s authority. This is more commonly known as the social contract via consent of the governed.
The group/individual, of course, can make claims to not needing said consent via spurious arguments like the one you’re making, but the claim does nothing to objectively show any utility, and thus, merit, for the populace they seek to exert power and influence over.
Basically, if you say “I’m in control forever because I’ve always been in control and my goal is to always be in control forever.”, most thinking people, including myself, would rightly say “Gargle my bullets after gargling my balls.” Also, your reasoning on why you have to be in charge has no bearing on whether you being in charge is good for people, effective at the tasks of governance, or even objectively good for yourself.
A similar argument to what you’re saying would be, “Ford makes the best cars because they have been making cars the longest.” It’s demonstrably false, to use your own words.
Whether you consider my opinion of your opinions and you as ad hominem or not is irrelevant.