Forum Sections > Debate > If everyone had laughed at Cromwell |
|
Cromwell stood on a platform of bringing Democracy, a concept I have determined for myself to be a delusion. If everyone knew that Democracy was a delusion, and had laughed at Cromwell, history would of been very different. Instead of a fractured society of tiny powerless individuals constantly acting to disempower each other, we would of carried on building ever bigger and more magnificent castles, each grander and more valuable than the last and each reducing the market value of the rest until the very cheapest house in the entire country would be the size of Buckingham Palace.
The saying, everyone's home is their castle, would be accurate! Debate.... |
|||||
| Webmaster of AhoyNoob | Jan 9 2012 at 02:19:32 GMT | |||||
|
why castles, shouldn't we be humble and modest and not indulge in self serving interests of the ego like decadent luxurious palaces and owning huge plots of land that's not ours to own? if we all lived in castles they might well be cheap but there would be no open space left, you need an area the size of a housing estate just for your foundations. | |||||
| Jan 9 2012 at 13:08:14 GMT | ||||||
|
As the most successful mafia and organised crime ring in the world says
"The fish rots from the head down" - Russkaya Mafiya And no matter what form of power it is... the pursuit of mans control over other will result in pain no matter the system. |
|||||
| Connor De Revron | Jan 9 2012 at 13:29:14 GMT | |||||
|
Could you imagine the wealth you would be privileged to if the wealth of the ENTIRE Rogers clan as concentrated into a single spot? And adjusted for the fact that you wouldn't of had 50% of it stolen from you annually by the government? Instead of thousands of small houses scattered around, you could of been living in Rogers Palace... one of the proud Rogers Clan. Tbh I doubt the living accomodation, luxurious as it would be, would neccessarily take up much more ground space than the fractured accomodations we live in under the system we have. Indeed Rogers Palace might of been a sky-scraper, and thus take up a lot less room on the ground than lots of small houses scattered all over. |
|||||
| Webmaster of AhoyNoob | Jan 9 2012 at 14:02:59 GMT | |||||
|
I rather Japanese feudalism than european... still doesn't mean I like feudalism.
 |
|||||
| Connor De Revron | Jan 9 2012 at 19:04:43 GMT | |||||
|
Firstly under monarch rule most people never even lived in or near a castle. Much of the population was spread across the lands. In Europe we seen with the fall of monarchy rule people started to come together when their class system was replaced allowing for the development of industrial concepts. And with people coming together to any criminologist who knows their history. The more people came together the more crime. Same for disease aswell. For us to all live in one big castle would in fact result in high crime... and then to deal with that the monarch would have to oppress their people to keep order thus making a kind of monarchical police state. It could also result in euthenics.. as with the spread of disease throughout this castle concept... the monarch may have to start forcing certian injections and segregation to control the spread..... of course this would be done in the benefit of the "people" Also the idea of taxes is nothing new. It was the same system you are proposing that taxed people. Sure look at quitrent for example..... if you did install a monarch it would be the same thing, just a man in a nice suit going "In the name of the King, you must pay thy tax" rather than "Mr. Bla Bla Bla, you appear to have not paid your council tax" |
|||||
| Connor De Revron | Jan 9 2012 at 19:25:50 GMT | |||||
|
You both completely missed my point... rather than debating you on yours (perhaps another thread would be good for that), let me give you a couple of examples.
Ancient Eqypt : They had a weird sort of society, the primary product of which was pyramids. Human nature being what it is, every generation they had to build a bigger and better pyramid. There is just one problem with that... pyramids are basically fucking useless. You can't live inside a pyramid, and once built it contributes nothing at all to the economy which built it. Modern UAE : They have an absolute monarchy, the primary product of which is sky-scrapers. Human nature being what it is, they want to keep building bigger and better sky-scrapers, which is why the worlds tallest building is in Dubai, and the next worlds tallest building is planned to be built in Abu Dhabi being just a little bit taller than the last one. Luckily for them, sky-scrapers are useful, you can live and work inside them, they are luxurious, secure, and pleasant environments to be in, and once built the building itself contributes to the economy. Now, a long time ago, before we caught the democracy delusion from the crazy greeks, British society had two primary products, castles and cathedrals. Cathedrals are about as fucking useful as pyramids, so forget about them, but castles on the other hand have the same useful properties as skyscrapers. You can live and work within them. Human nature being what it is, if the trend had remained un-interrupted, and had continued to modern day with our massive advantages of technology, we would all now be living in castles and palaces, instead of slums and terraces. There would be no notion of trying to build "affordable" housing, and trying to cram 15 people into a fucking shoebox, because all new building work would go into building bigger and better castles, which would automatically make all the smaller older castles more affordable! Can you imagine what sort of castle we could build today with our technology? It would make the pyramids look pathetic and show them (and the cathedrals) up for the complete waste of time and resources they actually are. |
|||||
| Webmaster of AhoyNoob | Jan 9 2012 at 23:18:24 GMT | |||||
 Go To Top |
Please login to add reply |
|||||
