Is a 'National Divorce' Inevitable?

submitted by trident765 from (youtube.com)

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This should answer your question.

[–]Zvezda 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Interesting piece you wrote. Is there any way for a prole to become a freeman or an elite to become a prole? Also, do you agree with the assessment that conservatism and progressivism is simply a way to show how old/new an idea is? A person I was talking to said this and he said it mattered more about whether it was an authoritarian or a liberal idea. I think it encompasses more than just time, but I would like to hear your opinion on his statement.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is there any way for a prole to become a freeman or an elite to become a prole?

Yes, of course.

Also, do you agree with the assessment that conservatism and progressivism is simply a way to show how old/new an idea is? A person I was talking to said this and he said it mattered more about whether it was an authoritarian or a liberal idea. I think it encompasses more than just time, but I would like to hear your opinion on his statement.

I agree at the current time because (recently) old is when freemen ruled, and so rule by the elite is new. At least this is true in the West, not necessarily elsewhere. This is all relative to the cycle of a culture. So when the Magna Carta was signed, the freemen position was new and elite rule was old, the inverse of now.

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Freemen ruled? I would have thought that for the last few hundred years mercantilists have ruled, and they are the very antithesis of freemen.

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you have any data to support this? Here is one indicator of the recent decline of freemen.

In early America, the political lines were clear. The Hamiltonians represented the elite and the Jeffersonians represented freemen. The Jeffersonians did well enough so that the elite couldn't destroy the freemen.

[–]Cornfed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Data shouldn't be required. It is common knowledge that in the modern era organic-based hierarchies (familial, tribal, religious etc.) as well as natural distinctions between sexes and races have been suppressed with the aim of making the populous atomised individuals who don't care about each other and interact only through the mercantilist system, answering only to the authority of the mercantilist-controlled government. The Jefferson/Hamilton dispute was an argument about tactics among mercantilists. Jefferson wanted the plebs to think they had a stake in the country, thereby giving them more incentive to develop it before the inevitable consolidation.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

About the proles vs. freeman?

[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Left is the elite-prole alliance. The Right is the freemen.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for clarification.