Rhodesia thread

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
I'm sorry, but I don't count the veritable sewer of the internet as carrying much weight. I know that sampling bias is an issue, but I also know that I have never seen a politician in a prosperous western nation say 'we should never send any more aid to African nations' or 'It's all their own fault!' etc.

I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find some local or state level people who do, simply due to the law of large numbers. That said, until I see serious national players trying to argue this position, I'm going to treat this issue as just another way the left is trying to beat the 'white guilt' horse.

When I was a kid, my parents were giving to charities that worked in Africa. They did that 'sponsor a child' thing. We moved to the Middle East when I was 4 so that they could engage in mission work there. The primary consideration for my tithe this year, is an international not-for-profit that includes Africa in the places it goes to.

'But colonialism!' is, from all of my experience, just another thing like 'but how the native american tribes were treated!' that the hard left tries to use to whip up sympathy. Yes, there were bad things done in the past. Yes, there are a few fringe nuts who actually argue against them. But trying to blame me or anybody under the age of 60 for what happened during Colonialism is ridiculous, and stirring up racial/regional hatred and resentment doesn't help anyone.

If you show me some ancient colonialist man who was part of an oppressive regime back in the day, I can believe that person might owe some guilt or reparations. But that's about as far as it goes at this point.

(Note: I'm aware there are more contemporary (but less drastic) issues with specific reservations and programs with native americans in the US more recently, but this isn't the place to derail into that)
No one here is putting the blame on individual people. We are pointing the finger at the Nation States. Because just like Corporations. Nation States are counted as people in the courts. And such a nation state can to held responsible for past actions. Don't blame me blame the Lawmakers that came up with that concept.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
Founder
No one here is putting the blame on individual people. We are pointing the finger at the Nation States. Because just like Corporations. Nation States are counted as people in the courts. And such a nation state can to held responsible for past actions. Don't blame me blame the Lawmakers that came up with that concept.

Those "Lawmakers" are not here to defend their point of view - but you are. And we're not blaming you, just disagreeing.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Those "Lawmakers" are not here to defend their point of view - but you are. And we're not blaming you, just disagreeing.
Well I think the concept serves a good purpose. If a Corporation or Nation State wrongs a person or people. They have a means of redress that can gain some form of justice. It has been used to good effect here in the US when a Nation State or Corporation did someone wrong. And in international courts as well.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
I will say the unpopular opinion. Colonialism in Africa should have never happened. It set the ground work the mess we a dealing with today.
Which one? The bantus killing, conquering and raping thier way across Africa. Is at least as bad as anything the Euros did. I'd imagine thier were various conquests before them to. So which set of colonialism shouldn't have happened?
 

remulian

Member
The basic problem with Democracy, is that all the stupid people get to vote.

But... all of this assumes something that isn't true - that Zimbabwe is a democracy. Nope. Rhodesia was arguably far more democratic, in that more of the population got an actual say in things.

Communists don't do real Democracy, they do "People's Democracy" where The Party dictates what the "correct" answers are.
The "supports of democracy" regarding Africa were either useful idiots, or on the side of the Communists.

Universal Democracy will always end in some kind of Communism or Socialism. It is inevitable.

The only way to preserve it from sliding is restricted franchise to those that actually contribute to the budget and not drain it.

If you want to see such an actual functioning democracy buy some shares in a company and go to a minority shareholders meeting. You vote according to what you are responsible for.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Universal Democracy will always end in some kind of Communism or Socialism. It is inevitable.

The only way to preserve it from sliding is restricted franchise to those that actually contribute to the budget and not drain it.

If you want to see such an actual functioning democracy buy some shares in a company and go to a minority shareholders meeting. You vote according to what you are responsible for.
Problem is, a restricted franchise will inevitably lead to greater and greater discontent-and the people not allowed to vote outnumber the people who do.

So you have a resentful and numerically powerful lower class that eventually will want to line up the "right and proper" citizens up the wall.
 

remulian

Member
Problem is, a restricted franchise will inevitably lead to greater and greater discontent-and the people not allowed to vote outnumber the people who do.

So you have a resentful and numerically powerful lower class that eventually will want to line up the "right and proper" citizens up the wall.

The right and proper citizens ought to be better armed. If they are not they deserve the fate they will get.
All authority at the end of the day rests in the barrel of a gun or the edge of a blade.

When the cash runs out the same purgation will happen anyway once the country goes bankrupt due to mismanagement.

Thus if you have to choose between doing the purgation yourself and ensuring prosperous possibilities for those willing and able or surrendering that capability and letting the purgation happen due to the inevitable stupidity of the mob, I find agency and self determination to be better, and I lament and despise the cowards who thus surrender said agency for a few generations of bought peace.

To the winner the spoils.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Hmm, your more a cynic than I am.

Perhaps, you might one day be able to engineer a better man. And hence a better or no mob.
 

remulian

Member
Hmm, your more a cynic than I am.
Well, you are perhaps not a completely hopeless idealist...
There is time.
Perhaps, you might one day be able to engineer a better man. And hence a better or no mob.
Hah, I was right. Your cynisism exams are looming and you are unprepared.

Human conditon is immutable. Trans- and Posthumans are a completely different kettle of fish, but even then depending on culture and engineering self interest always wins out. Unless you are making genejacks and servitors.

But I find the shareholder analogy to be quite fitting. The amount you contribute to the budget is the amount of electoral power you have for the elections regarding the budget.
Want to vote? Contribute.
Get aid from the budget- don't vote.
Simple and efficient. The vast majority of people will be able to pay even current state funded services through taxes and reach positive budgetary balance somewhere around 35.
This way the whole special interest groups thing will be in the open and they will be set against another transparently with the majority of the willing population able to align themselves with one or another to form a majority block.

An average pleb who managed to be budget positive is nothing to a major contributor but most , a half or a third might just match at least a member of a interest coalition.

This way the voters will go in it with eyes wide open and aware of the political maneuvers they have to make and with what devil they choose to get in bed, instead of having it decided for them.
Then I might call it actual democracy and not demagoguery and scammery.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Well, you are perhaps not a completely hopeless idealist...
There is time.

Hah, I was right. Your cynisism exams are looming and you are unprepared.

Human conditon is immutable. Trans- and Posthumans are a completely different kettle of fish, but even then depending on culture and engineering self interest always wins out. Unless you are making genejacks and servitors.

But I find the shareholder analogy to be quite fitting. The amount you contribute to the budget is the amount of electoral power you have for the elections regarding the budget.
Want to vote? Contribute.
Get aid from the budget- don't vote.
Simple and efficient. The vast majority of people will be able to pay even current state funded services through taxes and reach positive budgetary balance somewhere around 35.
This way the whole special interest groups thing will be in the open and they will be set against another transparently with the majority of the willing population able to align themselves with one or another to form a majority block.

An average pleb who managed to be budget positive is nothing to a major contributor but most , a half or a third might just match at least a member of a interest coalition.

This way the voters will go in it with eyes wide open and aware of the political maneuvers they have to make and with what devil they choose to get in bed, instead of having it decided for them.
"Scratch a cynic and you'll find a disgruntled idealist" is my life story.

I'm of the opinion that improving the human condition is possible at least on a contingent basis. People can be taught how to be virtuous. However, government is designed to take into account man's true nature.

Also no way you'd ever get your shareholder idea through. Once the franchise is extended, the populace will fight and even kill to ensure it isn't taken from them.

Another issue is that those with the largest shares(i.e. the wealthy) do not necessarily have the best interest of the company at heart. Nor are they the wisest, most virtuous, far sighted, or intelligent.

Wealth ≠ good.
 

remulian

Member
"Scratch a cynic and you'll find a disgruntled idealist" is my life story.

I'm of the opinion that improving the human condition is possible at least on a contingent basis. People can be taught how to be virtuous. However, government is designed to take into account man's true nature.

Also no way you'd ever get your shareholder idea through. Once the franchise is extended, the populace will fight and even kill to ensure it isn't taken from them.

Another issue is that those with the largest shares(i.e. the wealthy) do not necessarily have the best interest of the company at heart. Nor are they the wisest, most virtuous, far sighted, or intelligent.

Wealth ≠ good.
Cicero I think wanted to do something like that. He failed. They always do. Virtue as a rule is mostly forged through hardship.

Ermm... This good thing you are talking about. Really hard to quantify in numbers.
Wealth however is a good measure of power and as such it acknowledges the financial power everyone has on the budget -thus reducing the need for special bribes and sinecures and other such things that those who have the financial power will still use to get their political agenda seen through. Better it is majoritarily in the open than behind the shadows I say. You will also note that I mentioned only elections concerning the budget. Other positions that are not tied to the budget ought to be similarly organized by what they represent. Soldiers and vets for the commander in chief out of higher staff, landowners and renters for mayor etc.

The government is not there for the explicit good of the people it is there to organize stabilize and exerts the power to ensure those things. That is its function. I prefer a system that acknowledges that function so that the people who thus want something better or good or whatever have a chance to do something about it and are aware of what and with whom they must compromise to do it.

And yes the francize can not be restricted through electoral means. Only through force. Be it by forceful reform due to collapse or takeover. But no empire is eternal. Entropy always wins and this too shall pass. Hopefully it will be reformed in something better and more longterm stable while keeping the high performance aspects of it and not descend into more ... Primitive mechanisms of governance.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Cicero I think wanted to do something like that. He failed. They always do. Virtue as a rule is mostly forged through hardship.

Ermm... This good thing you are talking about. Really hard to quantify in numbers.
Wealth however is a good measure of power and as such it acknowledges the financial power everyone has on the budget -thus reducing the need for special bribes and sinecures and other such things that those who have the financial power will still use to get their political agenda seen through. Better it is majoritarily in the open than behind the shadows I say. You will also note that I mentioned only elections concerning the budget. Other positions that are not tied to the budget ought to be similarly organized by what they represent. Soldiers and vets for the commander in chief out of higher staff, landowners and renters for mayor etc.

The government is not there for the explicit good of the people it is there to organize stabilize and exerts the power to ensure those things. That is its function. I prefer a system that acknowledges that function so that the people who thus want something better or good or whatever have a chance to do something about it and are aware of what and with whom they must compromise to do it.

And yes the francize can not be restricted through electoral means. Only through force. Be it by forceful reform due to collapse or takeover. But no empire is eternal. Entropy always wins and this too shall pass. Hopefully it will be reformed in something better and more longterm stable while keeping the high performance aspects of it and not descend into more ... Primitive mechanisms of governance.
We had systems of government like this. The Dutch republics and Venice. Where a small class of oligarchs with a stake in the system ran things.

Neither of those two governments still rule today.
 

remulian

Member
We had systems of government like this. The Dutch republics and Venice. Where a small class of oligarchs with a stake in the system ran things.

Neither of those two governments still rule today.

Like today?
Or every other contemporary or previous country?
Just because the ruling caste is not officially recognized does not mean it is not still there.
The only issue is to not prevent people for entering it if they manage to qualify or prevent them from reaching said qualifications.

Moreover their performance record is quite impressive for the rather limited amount of resources they had compared to their contemporaries.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Like today?
Or every other contemporary or previous country?
Just because the ruling caste is not officially recognized does not mean it is not still there.
The only issue is to not prevent people for entering it if they manage to qualify or prevent them from reaching said qualifications.

Moreover their performance record is quite impressive for the rather limited amount of resources they had compared to their contemporaries.
Venice and the Dutch could not compete with larger stronger polities. In spite of their wealth.

Being urban trade focused states-a stockholder like system worked due to the Burgher class and what not having a stake in the state's strength and prosperity.

On a larger scale, what your advocating wouldn't work.
 

Vargas Fan

Head over heels in love :)
I always thought that this albeit years out of date article made for interesting reading.

 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
I always thought that this albeit years out of date article made for interesting reading.


Saddest thing there was how the Farmhands lost their homes and livelihoods to people who weren't employed by their bosses to begin with

"Unions" are usually made up of a company's employees, but I don't think workers and bosses account for outsiders and unemployed people suddenly popping by and taking over

Well, those farmhands at the very least still have farming-skills if they can grow some crops in improbable areas......they should have been the ones in charge instead
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top