Rome

Redundant Post

I think FC’s complaint is actually about political monopolies. It is monopolies that destroy democracies. When there is only one monopoly you have socialism - a type of autocratic dictatorship.

Most pseudo-democratic nations have many political parties and that makes them a little more democratic - but not much more. The US has 3 registered parties - Republican, Democrat (socialist now), and Independent (totally ineffectual) but they also have monopoly unions, media cabal, and corporations - each a type of monopoly. So even in the US there are actually many political parties but most are not called a “party”.

The biggest mistake that the US has ever made is allowing unions to not be separation of power constitutional entities (as they did for their States). They allowed socialism and other monopolies to grow like cancers within their body. Now the cancer is festering and killing the body.

Rome was not so complex - easier to stabilize.

“It is monopolies that destroy democracies. When there is only one monopoly you have socialism - a type of autocratic dictatorship.”
rsz_quote-democracy-is-a-kingless-regime-infested-by-many-kings-who-are-sometimes-more-exclusive-benito-mussolini-69-90-58.jpg

knowthyself.forumotion.net/t107 … k-or-roman

And what both share in common – in my own opinion of course – is the fact they employ ponderous intellectual contraptions in order to avoid references to reality out in the world of actual human interactions that precipitate conflicting points of view about any number of things.

Unless of course either here or there they might be willing to focus in on a particular set of circumstances and exchange components of their own moral and political and philosophical TOE.

Why is the second copy paste regarding Satyr in this thread when it has NOTHING to do with Rome?

Let’s just say that we all connect the dots here differently.

Or, perhaps, subconsciously, my aim was to remind you that there are dots that you aren’t connecting with me here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5&t=197118

Why is the second copy paste regarding Satyr in this thread when it has NOTHING to do with Rome?
[/quote]
Let’s just say that we all connect the dots here differently.
[/quote]
Only a horses ass would be contemptuous enough to connect those dots in a mean spirited advertisement.

=D> Applause for the glib horse’s ass! =D>

Nope, nothing about Rome here.

Come on, Wendy, most of threads here are like the game “telephone”. There’s the OP and then the last post. You tell me: How many times has the latter bore almost no resemblance to the former?

You may not see the dots I’m connecting but if Satyr and Fixed Cross think long and hard enough, they might. As I noted, it can be about Rome or any number of things. It’s not the points being raised but how far up into the clouds they are being hoisted. One of my own “things” here.

So, see you on that other thread then, okay?

.

When in Rome? :sunglasses:

Wendy, it’s a good thing that iambiguous has finally found his way into the sewer, it was about time. Predictably, he relishes its “meaning”.

Thats not wrong. Not precisely what I mean but close enough, and given the abysmal intellectual level of the average reader here it would count as remarkably accurate.

But what is most problematic about political parties is that they guarantee deception in terms of agenda - most of all, their self-deception. A political party can never understand its own motives, other than the obvious one of primitive dominion. So you get a monopoly of entities which are forced by the factor of power and their own lack of structural integrity to deceive themselves.

I see this differently. Rome was highly complex at first, but the monopolies represented by the Caesars found this complexity burdensome.

Speaking of sewers, why don’t you join us here: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … &start=550

You popped up recently. You know, given Satyr’s own take on your own take on my own take on “meaning”.

And, of course, Wendy is invited. :sunglasses:

_
Rome’s power dissolved for the same reason that Alexander the Great’s did… and of whom the latter never did conquer India, save for only the most north-western aspects of its territories, in the Indus Valley Basin.

Alexander’s power did not dissolve.
He died and his generals carried on their separate kingdoms formed from the empire. This formed the Hellenistic world, which dominated until Rome replaced it.
Rome’s fall was utterly different and would take several pages of explanation to show how it was invaded, changed, divided recombined, evolved, and survives today in the Vatican which is the last place that shows a contiunous link back to the Ponfiex Maximus of Caesar.

His generals descended into civil war and lost control of large swathes of their territories as well as their army, following the untimely death of Alexander… he didn’t conquer India for the same reason that Rome’s empire became curtailed over time.

You have decided (presumed) that I know nothing of Roman history… dude, that’s the first thing we study in History class here… that, and the Norman conquest… amongst a few other pivotal battles in British-historical time.

Alexander was a person, Rome is a city.
You may be thinking of Caesar, who was also a person.
Still, big differences.

Rome is actually rather complex, I disagree with observer on that. Their political system was more complex than the American one, it had more different kinds of offices for the people’s representation than the US does, at least per its constitution.

I intentionally mentioned Rome and Alexander in the same breath, for a very specific reason… that of which why both their military advancements collapsed.

If I was thinking of a Caesar, I would have mentioned a Caesar… I was obviously not thinking of a Caesar, but of the Roman Empire as a unit, in comparison to Alexander as a unit.

I just don’t see that MagsJ.

In my view, Alexanders might fell apart as soon as he died, the Alexandrian might didn’t really form ‘a thing’, it was just him. His friends were asked to divide his legacy and they failed him.

Rome on the other hand got slowly overtaken by the army, who, from around the time of Severus onward basically controlled who would be emperor.
There were several emperors who attempted to bring them back into some form of discipline, but they murdered all of them. The army just murdered every emperor that tried to reverse their decadence and re-introduce some form of ethics.

Basically my objection to your statement is that Rome’s might lasted well over a thousand years, and its decay was very slow and painful, humiliating for the Romans and for all of Europe in fact. But Alexanders might just … vanished. (I understand he tried to slip into the Euphrates the night he died, so that his servants would think he had ascended as a god. His wife supposedly dragged him back to bed.)

Following the death of Rome a thousand years ago there was nothing but a wilderness of misery, barbarism, feudalism, war, and disease - for quite a long time: the most perfect cesspool ever known. There was a moment, of course, in the Middle Ages when men thought they had a new Rome to imitate, but it too perished. In the end, Rome’s collapse became the collapse of its own means, the triumph of its own method: as all great civilizations perish by their own virtues.

The Romans understood the power of method, from beginning to end. This was the gift of the Greeks of course, to the Romans. The Roman way will never become obsolete. That is the lesson. The Romans knew how to defeat barbarism, too. For their empire was too large to be held together in the typical fashion: no, to avoid compromising themselves from within, barbarians had to be remade in Rome’s image. Thus: the Romans understood that the empire would not stand in a man, but in an ethos. The Romans became one of the world’s first true empires, holding together tribes of barbarians while the Roman culture, the ethos, held their minds and souls.

Without the ethos, Rome was torn apart from within as the old barbarian tribes re-asserted their old identities. Without such an ethos, we in the West are seeing our own ‘empire’ come apart.