|
Anybody have any thoughts on the relationship between demagoguery and tyranny?
Then, there are figures associated with tyranny that weren't rulers themselves: Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes.
Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a "how to survive the mess that was Renaissance Italy". His Republic was more in line with his personal beliefs.
So, I kinda have to disagree with that one.
|
|
Anybody have any thoughts on the relationship between demagoguery and tyranny?
Then, there are figures associated with tyranny that weren't rulers themselves: Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes.
Machiavelli wrote The Prince as a "how to survive the mess that was Renaissance Italy". His Republic was more in line with his personal beliefs.
So, I kinda have to disagree with that one.
Unfortunately, he got the association with tyranny. :\
Its kind of funny to see "enlightened despot" figures like Fredrick the Great later writing counter arguments against him despite their absolute authority being derived from birth-right and control of the media (art, news, and writing) through patronage systems.
|
Well, I didn't vote for you ;)I would make a good one.Okay, that adds more questions:
Is there such a thing as an Enlightened Despot? Could there ever if not? If there was, then who?
Silly puffin, you don't vote for a King!
Wasn't there some Roman emperor that was handed a scepter by the Senate and given absolute power, so that he could effectively fight some war, went out and won the war, came back and handed the scepter back and ordered them never to give that to him or anyone else again, because no one man could be trusted with such power? He seems like a decent candidate for 'enlightened despot.'
History of Rome was, uh, twenty-five years ago, and all I remember are the dirty jokes. :/
|
|
Well, I didn't vote for you ;)I would make a good one.Okay, that adds more questions:
Is there such a thing as an Enlightened Despot? Could there ever if not? If there was, then who?
Silly puffin, you don't vote for a King!
Wasn't there some Roman emperor that was handed a scepter by the Senate and given absolute power, so that he could effectively fight some war, went out and won the war, came back and handed the scepter back and ordered them never to give that to him or anyone else again, because no one man could be trusted with such power? He seems like a decent candidate for 'enlightened despot.'
History of Rome was, uh, twenty-five years ago, and all I remember are the dirty jokes. :/
Cincinatus was given the Fasces (origin of the word Fascist) in order to repel an enemy attack as Dictator (the term origianlly ment a military commander in a time of crises). He returned the fasces (an axe surrounded by arrows) in order to return to his farm to reap his harvest like a good land owning Roman. This was about 200 years before there were "emperors" though. He was a popular figure for early American government officials like Washington.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Wasn't there some Roman emperor that was handed a scepter by the Senate and given absolute power, so that he could effectively fight some war, went out and won the war, came back and handed the scepter back and ordered them never to give that to him or anyone else again, because no one man could be trusted with such power? He seems like a decent candidate for 'enlightened despot.'
That sounds like Washington after the Revolution. IIRC, he was offered kingship over America, but he turned it down. He also established the precedent of the 2 term limit, which wasn't violated until FDR (surprise, surprise), and became law with the 22nd Amendment.
But the Roman you mention is Cincinnatus. EDIT: Ninja'd.
As I understand the word, 'tyrant' means an illegitimate ruler who uses his position of power to enrich himself at the cost of his people.
Many people who have the word 'tyrant' thrown at them gained their positions quite legitimately, and, no matter how horrific their actions may have been in the eyes of every other nation on the planet, improved conditions for their own people, which, in many cases, is what a ruler is appointed to do by a selfish electorate.
It shouldn't be hard to find figures in history (or literature) who left their nations in rags, fantastically richer than they were when they started and there are tons of leaders who abused their positions (and their people) for self-enrichment, and yet were legitimate rulers, either by inheritance, people's revolution or popular election.
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”-Albert Camus
|
|
Wasn't there some Roman emperor that was handed a scepter by the Senate and given absolute power, so that he could effectively fight some war, went out and won the war, came back and handed the scepter back and ordered them never to give that to him or anyone else again, because no one man could be trusted with such power? He seems like a decent candidate for 'enlightened despot.'That sounds like Washington after the Revolution. IIRC, he was offered kingship over America, but he turned it down. He also established the precedent of the 2 term limit, which wasn't violated until FDR (surprise, surprise), and became law with the 22nd Amendment.
But the Roman you mention is Cincinnatus. EDIT: Ninja'd.
High five still!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Holy Roman Emperor
Which was, of course, neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Emperor.
|
|
Holy Roman EmperorWhich was, of course, neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Emperor.
Well, Emperor is up for debate... I mean if you count Charlemagne, Otto the Great, and Frederick Barbarossa... but definitely not the first two.
Cincinatus was given the Fasces (origin of the word Fascist) in order to repel an enemy attack as Dictator (the term origianlly ment a military commander in a time of crises). He returned the fasces (an axe surrounded by arrows) in order to return to his farm to reap his harvest like a good land owning Roman. This was about 200 years before there were "emperors" though. He was a popular figure for early American government officials like Washington.Well, I didn't vote for you ;)I would make a good one.Okay, that adds more questions:
Is there such a thing as an Enlightened Despot? Could there ever if not? If there was, then who?
Silly puffin, you don't vote for a King!
Wasn't there some Roman emperor that was handed a scepter by the Senate and given absolute power, so that he could effectively fight some war, went out and won the war, came back and handed the scepter back and ordered them never to give that to him or anyone else again, because no one man could be trusted with such power? He seems like a decent candidate for 'enlightened despot.'
History of Rome was, uh, twenty-five years ago, and all I remember are the dirty jokes. :/
Thing is, Diocletian effectively did the same.
Holy Roman EmperorWhich was, of course, neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Emperor.
Some ka-zingers just never get old. Thanks, Mr. Gibbon, you prose-mastering yet bigoted old goat. *Smacks Gibbon upside the head with volumes of Lord Norwich.*
|
|
Thing is, Diocletian effectively did the same.Cincinatus was given the Fasces (origin of the word Fascist) in order to repel an enemy attack as Dictator (the term origianlly ment a military commander in a time of crises). He returned the fasces (an axe surrounded by arrows) in order to return to his farm to reap his harvest like a good land owning Roman. This was about 200 years before there were "emperors" though. He was a popular figure for early American government officials like Washington.Well, I didn't vote for you ;)I would make a good one.Okay, that adds more questions:
Is there such a thing as an Enlightened Despot? Could there ever if not? If there was, then who?
Silly puffin, you don't vote for a King!
Wasn't there some Roman emperor that was handed a scepter by the Senate and given absolute power, so that he could effectively fight some war, went out and won the war, came back and handed the scepter back and ordered them never to give that to him or anyone else again, because no one man could be trusted with such power? He seems like a decent candidate for 'enlightened despot.'
History of Rome was, uh, twenty-five years ago, and all I remember are the dirty jokes. :/
Sort of... Its a guy who established himself as a god-emperor. He relinquished power to make sure his succession system worked (considering the old system of choosing Emperors led to crisis of the thrid century). Other than that, full on true despot. Just a forward thinking one.
Unfortunately, Constantine undid most of his work. :\
Well, he retired, came out of retirement when forced to, set things straight, and then retired again, right?
So...not the place to wave my Constantinian flag, eh?
Heh. All of the above?
For this particular inspiration, I'm wanting an unqualifiedly evil tyrant to feast upon.
Yeah, I keep rereading and mulling, but so far, I haven't found the figure to inspire me.
Inspire you... um.. to what, exactly? Role model? O.o
|
|
Heh. All of the above?
For this particular inspiration, I'm wanting an unqualifiedly evil tyrant to feast upon.
Has this guy been mentioned? He feels pretty tyrant-y.
The older guy had a better voice, too.
Sulla!? To the infamy of his name! To the utter damnation of his line!
That was Marcus Licinius Crassus' line in Spartacus.
I love Cathleen McCullough's characterizations of Marius and Sulla. Love love love.
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”-Albert CamusAs I understand the word, 'tyrant' means an illegitimate ruler who uses his position of power to enrich himself at the cost of his people.
Many people who have the word 'tyrant' thrown at them gained their positions quite legitimately, and, no matter how horrific their actions may have been in the eyes of every other nation on the planet, improved conditions for their own people, which, in many cases, is what a ruler is appointed to do by a selfish electorate.
It shouldn't be hard to find figures in history (or literature) who left their nations in rags, fantastically richer than they were when they started and there are tons of leaders who abused their positions (and their people) for self-enrichment, and yet were legitimate rulers, either by inheritance, people's revolution or popular election.
I would also add:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
(1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice
Date:1928
Source:Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
|
|
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”-Albert CamusAs I understand the word, 'tyrant' means an illegitimate ruler who uses his position of power to enrich himself at the cost of his people.
Many people who have the word 'tyrant' thrown at them gained their positions quite legitimately, and, no matter how horrific their actions may have been in the eyes of every other nation on the planet, improved conditions for their own people, which, in many cases, is what a ruler is appointed to do by a selfish electorate.
It shouldn't be hard to find figures in history (or literature) who left their nations in rags, fantastically richer than they were when they started and there are tons of leaders who abused their positions (and their people) for self-enrichment, and yet were legitimate rulers, either by inheritance, people's revolution or popular election.
I would also add:
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Justice Louis D. Brandeis
(1856-1941) US Supreme Court Justice
Date:1928
Source:Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 479 (1928)
Words we should all take to heart, regardless of political affiliation.
Stop your bleating and line up for shearing!
Stop your bleating and line up for shearing!
Ya'll got a funny name.
Says the bear with the hat on the unicycle.
Treppa should be REALLY worried now...
Batman.
Wow, cheap shot from a talking tobacco plant. :)Says the bear with the hat on the unicycle.
Treppa should be REALLY worried now...
What? I'm over here.
Methinks the Roy is going for controversy, but I've got neither horse nor bat in that race. As long as we all agree that Batman is Chaotic Lawful...
The true alignment of Batman is one that has been debated for years.
Sorry. Wasn't really responding to previous post. Just adding to list of tyrants. I didn't read all the previous post.
I got you, Roy.
You might suppose that I would want to check that out. You might very well suppose that; I couldn't possibly comment.
Well, Emperor is up for debate... I mean if you count Charlemagne, Otto the Great, and Frederick Barbarossa... but definitely not the first two.Holy Roman EmperorWhich was, of course, neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Emperor.
I always thought that was suppossed to read..The Holy Roman empire was neither wholly Holy, wholly Roman nor wholly an Empire..it is one of my favourites.
And I agree about FU in House of Cards he was the perfect tyrant..the perfect tyrant being off course the one who never lets people realise he is a tyrant.
Only half-way through the Wiki but would agree that Chief Whip is a tyrant.
I think I missed something. Serves me right for not reading it all the way through.
|
|
I always thought that was suppossed to read..The Holy Roman empire was neither wholly Holy, wholly Roman nor wholly an Empire..it is one of my favourites.
Well, I don't think you can really call it an Empire after the fall of the Hohenstauffen dynasty. The various princes through out Germany seized a lot more power, and power continously flowed into their hands until Napoleonic times. Even the Kings IN Prussia would become the Kings OF Prussia then. Protestantism made it official when Charles V abdicated and no subsequent Emperors were crowned by the Pope.