Well, thanks to Weimar republic(semi socialism) and the defeat in WW1, germany was pretty weak in 1930. The fact that Germany while was a monarchy, proof that monarchy > democracy and no, i an not monarchist, i only recognize the superiority of monarchy.
...
Of course have impact. Democracy tends to evolve into populism and bigger states. A king needs to think in long therms because he will pass his kingdom to his son, while in a democracy, the short therm is priority. See how many economic crisis European countries suffered after the monarchy ended in many countries.If Monarchy din't ended in Germany, will be no Weimar republic and no national socialism, Germany will eventually break the Versailles treat and recover.
This is a specious argument. To suggest that National Socialism is a product of the Weimar Republic because it was a republic and not specifically related to the socio-political position of the German population in the 1920s and early 1930s is flatly incorrect. Fascism rose in Germany as a ultra-right wing movement that preyed upon people's insecurities related to the financial ruin wrought on Germany by World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. Simultaneously, it also stoked the flame of German Nationalism by suggesting that the government (The monarchy, as it happens) had betrayed the German army by surrendering when the actual conflict hadnt technically reached German lands (The mythological "Stabb in the back") and lastly provided a scapegoat in the form of bolshevism and Judaism to rally the population around a perceived enemy.
To your second point - *All states* evolve into more centralized states. It's a process that has played out historically for millennia. Monarchies went through the exact same transition (For example, the relative difference between a feudal monarchy and an absolutist monarchy).
As a side note - I'm only pushing back on this harshly because I studied History (and Electrical Engineering) in school. My focus was on Napoleon France, but there was plenty of modern European history to go arund.
To your second point - *All states* evolve into more centralized states. It's a process that has played out historically for millennia. Monarchies went through the exact same transition (For example, the relative difference between a feudal monarchy and an absolutist monarchy).
I actually think monarchies went the other way. Monarchs gradually gave up power in response to social unrest, until the people had enough power to oust the institutions, leaving only a few remnants (Constitutional Monarchs). There is a reason the Magna Carta was so groundbreaking a document.
@SorcererV1ct0r Germany's status after WW1 was forced on it by other nations. Its governing system had no impact on that. You also need a bigger sample size than 2 to form any kind of a conclusion.
Show me one democracy that din't resulted in bigger government and centralized power and populism.
How can a governement made of multiple branches be MORE centralized than being ruled by a monarch? You have being goverened by mmultiple people (plus a voting populace) on one side, and literally one person calling all the shots on the other. Simply by hpw its structured, a Democracy CANT be more centralized than a monarchy.
Simple, in democracy, some regions will be more wealth than others. In a democracy, politicians have all incentive to exploit wealth regions and take his resources to give no less productive regions. That is why my region(South) loses 80% of our income and we only receive stupid bureaucracy and laws, only to make useless Keynesian investments that gives no return in other regions.
Well, thanks to Weimar republic(semi socialism) and the defeat in WW1, germany was pretty weak in 1930. The fact that Germany while was a monarchy, proof that monarchy > democracy and no, i an not monarchist, i only recognize the superiority of monarchy.
...
Of course have impact. Democracy tends to evolve into populism and bigger states. A king needs to think in long therms because he will pass his kingdom to his son, while in a democracy, the short therm is priority. See how many economic crisis European countries suffered after the monarchy ended in many countries.If Monarchy din't ended in Germany, will be no Weimar republic and no national socialism, Germany will eventually break the Versailles treat and recover.
This is a specious argument. To suggest that National Socialism is a product of the Weimar Republic because it was a republic and not specifically related to the socio-political position of the German population in the 1920s and early 1930s is flatly incorrect. Fascism rose in Germany as a ultra-right wing movement that preyed upon people's insecurities related to the financial ruin wrought on Germany by World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. Simultaneously, it also stoked the flame of German Nationalism by suggesting that the government (The monarchy, as it happens) had betrayed the German army by surrendering when the actual conflict hadnt technically reached German lands (The mythological "Stabb in the back") and lastly provided a scapegoat in the form of bolshevism and Judaism to rally the population around a perceived enemy.
To your second point - *All states* evolve into more centralized states. It's a process that has played out historically for millennia. Monarchies went through the exact same transition (For example, the relative difference between a feudal monarchy and an absolutist monarchy).
As a side note - I'm only pushing back on this harshly because I studied History (and Electrical Engineering) in school. My focus was on Napoleon France, but there was plenty of modern European history to go arund.
Yes, is truth that all states tends to become each time more centralized but democracy accelerate this. With a monarchy, a terrible weimar republic or socialism will simple never be possible.
@SorcererV1ct0r "In a democracy, politicians" See this? This right here? Its an example of power spread across multiple individuals. By DEFINITION, this reduces centralization. Having all the power in one person is the LITERAL PERSONIFICATION of centralization.
" in democracy, some regions will be more wealth than others." You mean like nobles and *gasp* royalty compared to the rest of the population? I dare you to find a SINGLE country where there is no wealth inequality.
" In a democracy, politicians have all incentive to exploit wealth regions and take his resources to give no less productive regions."
Again, going back to nobles and royalty having more wealth than the general populace. In fact, because the monarchy has all the power, there is ZERO incentive for them do otherwise.
@SorcererV1ct0r your theory would only work out in a fantasy land where the monarch happened to be the perfect person for the job. A person with that level of wisdom and competence might not even exist. It's as fanciful as communism.
Alex Jones is routinely banned from entering the Capitol building in Austin--his protests all have to be held outside.
Right now, it isn't being made clear in news stories I can see whether the victims took the packages inside or if they exploded on the front porch. If they were taken inside first then the triggering mechanism is fairly complex and is linked to the box being opened; if they went off on the front porch then they were probably just set with a timer. Obviously, no details about the devices in question are being released at this time--this helps authorities rule out the kook callers claiming responsibility.
I suspect the real concern is that all these are test runs leading up to the actual planned event.
Wait what? *wiki search*
Oh fuck, this douche is a native Texan.
While not surprising, it's one more black mark against my state to have this crazy inhabiting it.
Needless to say, I despise people who deny massacres happened, especially when the victims are children.
" in democracy, some regions will be more wealth than others." You mean like nobles and *gasp* royalty compared to the rest of the population? I dare you to find a SINGLE country where there is no wealth inequality.
@SorcererV1ct0r your theory would only work out in a fantasy land where the monarch happened to be the perfect person for the job. A person with that level of wisdom and competence might not even exist. It's as fanciful as communism.
Communism, at least in the way it's been historically implemented, is effectively a monarchy. There's the same concentration of power and personality cult (Mao, Stalin, Castro etc) with pretensions to being more than human and a desire to set up a dynasty. For nobles just read committee members and for gentry party members.
@SorcererV1ct0r your theory would only work out in a fantasy land where the monarch happened to be the perfect person for the job. A person with that level of wisdom and competence might not even exist. It's as fanciful as communism.
Communism, at least in the way it's been historically implemented, is effectively a monarchy. There's the same concentration of power and personality cult (Mao, Stalin, Castro etc) with pretensions to being more than human and a desire to set up a dynasty. For nobles just read committee members and for gentry party members.
My point is that it is another system that does not intend to devolve (people are misusing the term "evolve" in this discussion) into despotism, but inevitably does so. The same is true for monarchy imho
@SorcererV1ct0r your theory would only work out in a fantasy land where the monarch happened to be the perfect person for the job. A person with that level of wisdom and competence might not even exist. It's as fanciful as communism.
In Monarchy you need one person that was raised to rule since his childhood to be good. In democracy, is the better manipulator and populism. I know that a bad king can be born BUT no king govern alone.
@SorcererV1ct0r "In a democracy, politicians" See this? This right here? Its an example of power spread across multiple individuals. By DEFINITION, this reduces centralization. Having all the power in one person is the LITERAL PERSONIFICATION of centralization. (...)
The power is centralized in a party that controls more politicians. If each politician can "rule" a small region, then the power is decentralized. You have concurrency between regions; to show how centralization is bad, an example. Gun control. If a single city pass a gun control law, the criminalty will grow up in that city, but if a country pass gun control, the criminality will grow in a country. Centralized power make a bad think exponentially worst.
You mean like nobles and *gasp* royalty compared to the rest of the population? I dare you to find a SINGLE country where there is no wealth inequality.
Wealth inequality is natural. Some people are tall, some are short, some are rich, some are poor, some are beautiful, some are ugly. The problem is a enormous inequality and guess what. The world is much become much more unequal after the fall of monarchies. Exactly because the best "manipulator", best lobbyst, etc can profit under democracy.
@SorcererV1ct0r your theory would only work out in a fantasy land where the monarch happened to be the perfect person for the job. A person with that level of wisdom and competence might not even exist. It's as fanciful as communism.
Communism, at least in the way it's been historically implemented, is effectively a monarchy. There's the same concentration of power and personality cult (Mao, Stalin, Castro etc) with pretensions to being more than human and a desire to set up a dynasty. For nobles just read committee members and for gentry party members.
No, do you really think that Liechtenstein is terrible like soviet union? Or that the German empire was terrible like Weimar republic or national socialism?
@SorcererV1ct0r I still don't understand. How can power be more centralized than putting it all in the hands of one individual. Being a nation governed by laws and not by men is essential to liberty, but you seem to think that putting the full force of the law into the hands of one man would somehow create a more free society.
Monarchs are not raised to be good; they're raised according to whatever values their parents held. If a monarch is raised to exploit his people and enrich himself at the expense of his nation, that's what he'll do. And that's usually how they operate; monarchs are famous for being the richest people in their nation, and the only nations with low inequality and monarchs are nations where the monarch has no formal power and whose role is primarily symbolic.
@SorcererV1ct0r I still don't understand. How can power be more centralized than putting it all in the hands of one individual. Being a nation governed by laws and not by men is essential to liberty, but you seem to think that putting the full force of the law into the hands of one man would somehow create a more free society.
No king rule alone. Even in a absolutist monarchy. When i mean centralized, i mean same law in completely different places, not centralized in popular participation, but Hitler got much more power than any emperor had he got his power democratically.
LBJ? Other than maybe the civil rights stuff I consider him one of the worst presidents we've ever had. The Vietnam War was on him more than anybody. I don't think Kennedy would have escalated the war like he did, and Nixon tried to actually win when he took the reigns but ultimately got us out when it was clear the war wasn't winnable. It's hilarious to me that the Republicans take the blame for Vietnam when Kennedy didn't get us out and Johnson escalated the conflict...
Monarchs are not raised to be good; they're raised according to whatever values their parents held. If a monarch is raised to exploit his people and enrich himself at the expense of his nation, that's what he'll do. And that's usually how they operate; monarchs are famous for being the richest people in their nation, and the only nations with low inequality and monarchs are nations where the monarch has no formal power and whose role is primarily symbolic.
A king is just another name for a dictator.
Unless they are a ... *drumroll* philosopher king! Schooled in philosophy, steeled in debates across endless fora, they shall lead us to a new golden age with their knowledge of the truth and the good. Of course it's probably not for nothing that Popper argues that Plato's philosopher king concept helped lay some of the groundwork for justifications of 20th century dictatorships.... It would be interesting to attend a philosophy class with some of today's world leaders, assuming that the teacher could survive the course...
@SorcererV1ct0r your theory would only work out in a fantasy land where the monarch happened to be the perfect person for the job. A person with that level of wisdom and competence might not even exist. It's as fanciful as communism.
Communism, at least in the way it's been historically implemented, is effectively a monarchy. There's the same concentration of power and personality cult (Mao, Stalin, Castro etc) with pretensions to being more than human and a desire to set up a dynasty. For nobles just read committee members and for gentry party members.
My point is that it is another system that does not intend to devolve (people are misusing the term "evolve" in this discussion) into despotism, but inevitably does so. The same is true for monarchy imho
They all devolve at some point. How do they handle that though? Will they go away forever or will they come back as something new.
LBJ? Other than maybe the civil rights stuff I consider him one of the worst presidents we've ever had. The Vietnam War was on him more than anybody.
Yeah, I was mostly referring to Johnson's progress on civil rights. I don't consider him one of our best presidents in other areas. He was notorious for shouting down his subordinates and generally being an abrasive personality.
Effective leaders inspire people by example; they don't browbeat people into submission.
@SorcererV1ct0r your theory would only work out in a fantasy land where the monarch happened to be the perfect person for the job. A person with that level of wisdom and competence might not even exist. It's as fanciful as communism.
Communism, at least in the way it's been historically implemented, is effectively a monarchy. There's the same concentration of power and personality cult (Mao, Stalin, Castro etc) with pretensions to being more than human and a desire to set up a dynasty. For nobles just read committee members and for gentry party members.
My point is that it is another system that does not intend to devolve (people are misusing the term "evolve" in this discussion) into despotism, but inevitably does so. The same is true for monarchy imho
They all devolve at some point. How do they handle that though? Will they go away forever or will they come back as something new.
That's yet to be seen. The US has not devolved into despotism yet, and that was after two World Wars and the Great Depression.
Not to mention the Civil War, the Cold War, the War on Terror, and the Great Recession! All of those things could have destroyed our faith in democratic governance. The United States Constitution was designed to be flexible and divide up powers to prevent any one group from attaining total power, even if just for a few years.
I'm sure eventually the United States will cease to exist, in the same way that someday the sun will get hot enough to boil all the water on the planet. But we're still one of the most stable countries on the planet, even now.
I actually think monarchies went the other way. Monarchs gradually gave up power in response to social unrest, until the people had enough power to oust the institutions, leaving only a few remnants (Constitutional Monarchs). There is a reason the Magna Carta was so groundbreaking a document.
Yeah. I was definitely painting with too broad a brush there. There have clearly been steps to avoid too much centralization of power at times. They seem to typically occur right after a lot of power has been accumulated in one sport or another.
Monarchies have gone in both direction. The concept of Absolutism (L'etat c'est moi) was something that came around in the 17th century. This is after Feudalism and before Constitutional Monarchies. Monarchies gathered power into centralized, absolutist regimes, and then were forced to hand it back in the Age of Revolutions.
This is more broadly the concept I was talking about. Most societies tend to centralize over most of their existence, with brief (and dramatic) decentralization. Even Constitutional Monarchies are constantly investing more and more power in their centralized governments over time.
Not to mention the Civil War, the Cold War, the War on Terror, and the Great Recession! All of those things could have destroyed our faith in democratic governance. The United States Constitution was designed to be flexible and divide up powers to prevent any one group from attaining total power, even if just for a few years.
I'm sure eventually the United States will cease to exist, in the same way that someday the sun will get hot enough to boil all the water on the planet. But we're still one of the most stable countries on the planet, even now.
guys uh the US is only 241 yrs old. A baby.
Other countries can count back thousands of years. A "Great Recession" might not even register as anything in a thousand years of US history if the US survives that long.
Not to mention the Civil War, the Cold War, the War on Terror, and the Great Recession! All of those things could have destroyed our faith in democratic governance. The United States Constitution was designed to be flexible and divide up powers to prevent any one group from attaining total power, even if just for a few years.
I'm sure eventually the United States will cease to exist, in the same way that someday the sun will get hot enough to boil all the water on the planet. But we're still one of the most stable countries on the planet, even now.
guys uh the US is only 241 yrs old. A baby.
Other countries can count back thousands of years. A "Great Recession" might not even register as anything in a thousand years of US history if the US survives that long.
Yes, but the US is the second oldest democratic republic, and the Constitution is the longest surviving founding document.
All three Austin explosive devices went off while they were being carried. I thought they were just on the front porch, which could be a simple timed delay, but this means they were set to detect motion as the condition for detonation...unless the suspect was watching from a distance and detonating them by pushing a button when he saw someone pick it up (I highly doubt this scenario--staying in the area would be too risky). Either way, this isn't a rookie bombmaker--this person knows what they are doing.
Many students staged a walkout today over the Florida shooting from last month. Just for the sake of discussion, let us presume that a student decided *not* to walk out. What will be the consequences of that student's decision? Will they face possible ridicule or ostracism for not following along with the crowd? Will they be publicly shamed or bullied, called names such as "gun nut" or even "murderer"? (this hypothetical student is merely hypothetical; our teenagers are not in school this week due to spring break)
This is the second time I've come in contact with this idea today, the other being an article by conservative golden boy Ben Shapiro CLAIMING to have received emails from kids who felt pressured to participate and fear of being ostracized if they didn't. He offered no attribution for any of them, and they all, to me, seemed like they were written by one person, but whatever. This seems to be the talking point of the day in regards to these walk-outs. That shadowy figures (never mentioned by specific names or organizations) on the left are using kids to push their radical agenda. How are they doing this?? Were thousands of kids implanted with a computer chip that caused them to walk out of class when a button was pushed?? Then we get this dose of "conservative kids are being bullied", though all we have are some very suspect "emails" that I'm 90% sure are fake. And why is it assumed that kids who come out of the womb with smartphones in their hands wouldn't be able to organize stuff like this on their own?? On New Year's Eve in 1999, me and my best friend managed to get hundreds of people from 5 different towns to come to party simply by word of mouth. I think kids today can organize a protest without being "manipulated".
To the main question, are we asking for a move to eliminate peer pressure in schools among adolescents?? That's a lofty goal. Shit, I felt ostracized or like an outcast all the time, and I was generally pretty popular. I was one of the only people in town who didn't hunt or own a gun. I ran cross-country instead of playing football. I don't think that made me a victim. It wasn't intolerable (actually, by far the worst shaming I ever received for not playing football in the fall was from the adult head basketball coach, not other kids). As for the consequences to the other students?? I don't imagine there would be any consequences at all. Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".
@smeagolheart: The U.S. is only 241 years old if you define a nation's birth as the adoption of its current or near-current Constitution or government. By that definition, it's one of the oldest countries in the world. Some governments have only been in existence for a few decades. China's government hasn't even been around for 70 years.
If you instead define a nation as its earliest inklings of civilization, as the Chinese do when they claim their country dates back thousands of years, then the United States is still one of the oldest countries in existence, because people have lived on American soil for thousands of years.
You can object by saying that, back then, America was filled with different people speaking a different language living in a different society working different jobs worshipping different gods under a different government who didn't even have the same name for the country...
...but the exact same thing applies to any other nation.
In a world where every generation vanishes every 100 years, every government office filled by those people is replaced every 50 years, every language changes daily, every religion changes yearly, every river changes by the decade, every mountain crumbles by the millennium, and every day is forever forgotten every day, it's silly to say one "country" is older or younger than another.
We all came from the same earth, and we all travel time at the same rate. Give me a definition of a nation's birth, and then we can argue which nation has been around how long.
The reason I bring up the issue is because the Chinese love to brag about how old their country is, and say that their nation is "continuous," but the reality is that China is no less ephemeral and ever-changing than any other country on the planet.
Does the government date back thousands of years? No, it dates back to 1949.
Does the language date back thousands of years? No, the ancient Chinese script has long since evolved into a completely different script, and Mandarin was only known by a tiny percentage of the population until less than 100 years ago. Before then, barely anyone knew the script, and every other region had a dialect that was completely unintelligible with those of its neighbors.
Does the religion date back thousands of years? No, it's not even consistent. Chinese religion is a collection of multiple different overlapping philosophies and ideas, and as of the twentieth century, Confucius is no longer a guiding figure. People in China don't look to the Analects for guidance anymore; that tradition has been replaced by a mishmash of modernism and some vague Chinese ideals that are terribly old but not even Confucian (God knows Confucius was no fan of the pursuit of money or status).
Does the culture date back thousands of years? A hundred years ago, Chinese women practiced footbinding almost universally. Today, footbinding is considered a backward and cruel custom that was rightfully outlawed. Every day, attitudes towards gender continue to evolve. The Communist Party is pushing a cultural agenda of nationalism and Party loyalty that did not exist before 1949--or even 1978.
Do the people date back thousands of years? We don't even know what the earliest peoples called themselves; the script they used was not phonetic. During dynastic times, traveling scholars would write lengthy descriptions of local regions and all the various ways that the people of this village of this province lived completely different lives from that of the neighboring village or the neighboring province. We say that China is a majority Han country, but that category is so broad, the Hanren are so non-homogenous, and Chinese villages stayed genetically separate for so long that, to this day, you can very easily tell the difference between a Hanren from Guangdong and a Hanren from the Liaodong. They call themselves the same ethnicity, but they don't even look the same.
Does the way of life date back thousands of years? No, only a few rural locales still practice premodern agriculture, and the examination system that shaped upper-class life has a completely different curriculum and a completely different preparation process. People live in modern buildings and skyscrapers made of steel. Farmers grow maize. Manufacturing dominates the economy. The Internet exists. China actually has regular contact with foreign countries now, instead of being virtually sealed off from the rest of the world.
Do the borders date back thousands of years? No, Beijing didn't have formal control over Tibet until the 1950s, and Beijing didn't even have regular contact with Tibet until the Yuan. Ancient maps do not contain the modern borders. Xinjiang literally means "new territory."
The Chinese government wasn't even always Chinese. At its peak, dynastic China was run not by Hanren, but by Manchus. During the Yuan dynasty, China was controlled by the Mongols, who did not even attempt to learn Chinese or assimilate. The country nearly went bankrupt funneling money to monasteries in Tibetan monasteries that Chinese officials had previously never visited.
Was the nation continuous? No, every dynasty has taken over its predecessors in a violent coup, and at one point, the country was simultaneously controlled by two competing dynasties. In between, every dynasty was wracked by multiple rebellions while that dynasty lasted, up until the last emperor finally abdicated.
The old China no longer exists--and rightfully so. There are excellent reasons why Chinese students use calculators instead of the abacus, and why government posts are not filled by people who studied poetry for half their lives.
All nation states have those kinds of myths, regarding territory, language culture etc. For example what is referred to as Old English is not as linguistically close to modern or even Middle English as the name would suggest. Nationalism uses myths to create coherency. States without these myths tend to be chaotic and persons have other loyalties such as to their ethnic group, whereas if the state ideology becomes too inflexible it will become stifling and exclude some groups.
That's all well and good but not exclusive to the point about the USA being relatively a baby as a country. China has evolved. The US will decay and evolve. We can't be clinging to the 2nd ammendment which was made in the times of muskets in 2130 AD when gun technology has evolved further and handguns will fire hundreds of rounds of laser bullets a second for example.
Some say it's already happening. There used to be a few superpowers, that's kind of changed where we were the last one standing. Now we're fading away ourselves screwing around with "hmm let's arm the teachers! and take away people's healthcare insurance. Also rollback financial protections on banks after the last financial crisis and cut taxes on corporations while we're at it. Oh and don't forget to not field a competent State department to interact with other countries!"
Comments
This is a specious argument. To suggest that National Socialism is a product of the Weimar Republic because it was a republic and not specifically related to the socio-political position of the German population in the 1920s and early 1930s is flatly incorrect. Fascism rose in Germany as a ultra-right wing movement that preyed upon people's insecurities related to the financial ruin wrought on Germany by World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. Simultaneously, it also stoked the flame of German Nationalism by suggesting that the government (The monarchy, as it happens) had betrayed the German army by surrendering when the actual conflict hadnt technically reached German lands (The mythological "Stabb in the back") and lastly provided a scapegoat in the form of bolshevism and Judaism to rally the population around a perceived enemy.
To your second point - *All states* evolve into more centralized states. It's a process that has played out historically for millennia. Monarchies went through the exact same transition (For example, the relative difference between a feudal monarchy and an absolutist monarchy).
As a side note - I'm only pushing back on this harshly because I studied History (and Electrical Engineering) in school. My focus was on Napoleon France, but there was plenty of modern European history to go arund.
Democracy can't work in long run.
Yes, is truth that all states tends to become each time more centralized but democracy accelerate this. With a monarchy, a terrible weimar republic or socialism will simple never be possible.
" in democracy, some regions will be more wealth than others." You mean like nobles and *gasp* royalty compared to the rest of the population? I dare you to find a SINGLE country where there is no wealth inequality.
" In a democracy, politicians have all incentive to exploit wealth regions and take his resources to give no less productive regions."
Again, going back to nobles and royalty having more wealth than the general populace. In fact, because the monarchy has all the power, there is ZERO incentive for them do otherwise.
Oh fuck, this douche is a native Texan.
While not surprising, it's one more black mark against my state to have this crazy inhabiting it.
Needless to say, I despise people who deny massacres happened, especially when the victims are children. There are "less unequal wealth" countries.
A king is just another name for a dictator.
And me and @Mathsorcerer!
Effective leaders inspire people by example; they don't browbeat people into submission.
I'm sure eventually the United States will cease to exist, in the same way that someday the sun will get hot enough to boil all the water on the planet. But we're still one of the most stable countries on the planet, even now.
Monarchies have gone in both direction. The concept of Absolutism (L'etat c'est moi) was something that came around in the 17th century. This is after Feudalism and before Constitutional Monarchies. Monarchies gathered power into centralized, absolutist regimes, and then were forced to hand it back in the Age of Revolutions.
This is more broadly the concept I was talking about. Most societies tend to centralize over most of their existence, with brief (and dramatic) decentralization. Even Constitutional Monarchies are constantly investing more and more power in their centralized governments over time.
Other countries can count back thousands of years. A "Great Recession" might not even register as anything in a thousand years of US history if the US survives that long.
To the main question, are we asking for a move to eliminate peer pressure in schools among adolescents?? That's a lofty goal. Shit, I felt ostracized or like an outcast all the time, and I was generally pretty popular. I was one of the only people in town who didn't hunt or own a gun. I ran cross-country instead of playing football. I don't think that made me a victim. It wasn't intolerable (actually, by far the worst shaming I ever received for not playing football in the fall was from the adult head basketball coach, not other kids). As for the consequences to the other students?? I don't imagine there would be any consequences at all. Maybe they can hang out in the library all day and read "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead".
If you instead define a nation as its earliest inklings of civilization, as the Chinese do when they claim their country dates back thousands of years, then the United States is still one of the oldest countries in existence, because people have lived on American soil for thousands of years.
You can object by saying that, back then, America was filled with different people speaking a different language living in a different society working different jobs worshipping different gods under a different government who didn't even have the same name for the country...
...but the exact same thing applies to any other nation.
In a world where every generation vanishes every 100 years, every government office filled by those people is replaced every 50 years, every language changes daily, every religion changes yearly, every river changes by the decade, every mountain crumbles by the millennium, and every day is forever forgotten every day, it's silly to say one "country" is older or younger than another.
We all came from the same earth, and we all travel time at the same rate. Give me a definition of a nation's birth, and then we can argue which nation has been around how long.
Does the government date back thousands of years? No, it dates back to 1949.
Does the language date back thousands of years? No, the ancient Chinese script has long since evolved into a completely different script, and Mandarin was only known by a tiny percentage of the population until less than 100 years ago. Before then, barely anyone knew the script, and every other region had a dialect that was completely unintelligible with those of its neighbors.
Does the religion date back thousands of years? No, it's not even consistent. Chinese religion is a collection of multiple different overlapping philosophies and ideas, and as of the twentieth century, Confucius is no longer a guiding figure. People in China don't look to the Analects for guidance anymore; that tradition has been replaced by a mishmash of modernism and some vague Chinese ideals that are terribly old but not even Confucian (God knows Confucius was no fan of the pursuit of money or status).
Does the culture date back thousands of years? A hundred years ago, Chinese women practiced footbinding almost universally. Today, footbinding is considered a backward and cruel custom that was rightfully outlawed. Every day, attitudes towards gender continue to evolve. The Communist Party is pushing a cultural agenda of nationalism and Party loyalty that did not exist before 1949--or even 1978.
Do the people date back thousands of years? We don't even know what the earliest peoples called themselves; the script they used was not phonetic. During dynastic times, traveling scholars would write lengthy descriptions of local regions and all the various ways that the people of this village of this province lived completely different lives from that of the neighboring village or the neighboring province. We say that China is a majority Han country, but that category is so broad, the Hanren are so non-homogenous, and Chinese villages stayed genetically separate for so long that, to this day, you can very easily tell the difference between a Hanren from Guangdong and a Hanren from the Liaodong. They call themselves the same ethnicity, but they don't even look the same.
Does the way of life date back thousands of years? No, only a few rural locales still practice premodern agriculture, and the examination system that shaped upper-class life has a completely different curriculum and a completely different preparation process. People live in modern buildings and skyscrapers made of steel. Farmers grow maize. Manufacturing dominates the economy. The Internet exists. China actually has regular contact with foreign countries now, instead of being virtually sealed off from the rest of the world.
Do the borders date back thousands of years? No, Beijing didn't have formal control over Tibet until the 1950s, and Beijing didn't even have regular contact with Tibet until the Yuan. Ancient maps do not contain the modern borders. Xinjiang literally means "new territory."
The Chinese government wasn't even always Chinese. At its peak, dynastic China was run not by Hanren, but by Manchus. During the Yuan dynasty, China was controlled by the Mongols, who did not even attempt to learn Chinese or assimilate. The country nearly went bankrupt funneling money to monasteries in Tibetan monasteries that Chinese officials had previously never visited.
Was the nation continuous? No, every dynasty has taken over its predecessors in a violent coup, and at one point, the country was simultaneously controlled by two competing dynasties. In between, every dynasty was wracked by multiple rebellions while that dynasty lasted, up until the last emperor finally abdicated.
The old China no longer exists--and rightfully so. There are excellent reasons why Chinese students use calculators instead of the abacus, and why government posts are not filled by people who studied poetry for half their lives.
Some say it's already happening. There used to be a few superpowers, that's kind of changed where we were the last one standing. Now we're fading away ourselves screwing around with "hmm let's arm the teachers! and take away people's healthcare insurance. Also rollback financial protections on banks after the last financial crisis and cut taxes on corporations while we're at it. Oh and don't forget to not field a competent State department to interact with other countries!"