The examples in this video (picture wise) are bad.

A big point in 'the prince' was that one needs to appear as a good person, regardless of whether or not you are or are not good.

Hence the best examples would be people who were perceived as virtuous, when they behind the scenes were sometimes not [when they needed to be not virtuous in order to achieve their goals].

Showing plenty of examples of people historically perceived as villains, is actually not the point. In fact, Machiavelli makes a point of how being perceived as bad runs a high risk of ending your reign.

One example in the book is of a ruler who assigns a man to ruthlessly crush disorder in a city. The man ruthlessly crushes disorder, and earns the hatred of the citizens. The ruler comes to the city, kills the man (cuts off his head and takes it out to show people), and claims to have liberated the people from this abusive man. In doing so, he both swiftly eliminates the disorder, demonstrates his authority, and ends up appearing as the good guy (one who cares for the suffering of the people and earns the people's appreciation).




The prince is a historical case study of different rulers throughout history, their circumstances, their intentions, their actions, and their success/failure, and what functional elements interconnected these factors. It's a game theory analysis for monarchs. Primarily technical (morality outside of its scope, morality being neither promoted nor admonished).

(The prince was not Machiavelli's personal opinion of how one should act - he personally preferred virtue and the republic. Personal preference was not the point of 'the prince'.)

-scheherazade

Is not the "immorality" of homosexuality derived from Leviticus, in the Old Testament? (and as I read it, it only speaks about bi-sexuality, laying with a man as you lay with a woman is not the same thing as homosexuality, homosexuality is a man laying with a man as a different, straight man lays with a woman)

If, as research suggests, that's the case, are not those who advocate against homosexuality non-Christians? Didn't Jesus teach that love and acceptance for others supplants all the Old Testament rules?
If not, why do Christians not picket Red Lobster for serving shellfish and Banana Republic for selling blended fabrics, and hold re-education seminars for shrimp and spandex lovers?

@worm
thanks for your input ron swanson!

your comment exemplifies that our own,personal politics tend to reside somewhere in the middle.
that is where the majority of us reside,and your comment is a literal macrocosm of the federalist papers.

federal vs state power.

which is a great discussion.

but that's not what we get ..is it?

we get a circus of buffoonery,cult of celebrity,and all conversation occur in this weird "twitter speak".

the art of discussion and debate has been traded for faux outrage and sanctimonious moralizing.to even admit that an opposing political philosophy has a good idea is tantamount to treason.

compromise is now viewed as weakness,and not common sense.

the extreme left and right have hi-jacked this countries national discussion,NOT because they both have put forth such amazing ideas,but rather it makes for good television.

and i say this as a person who holds many "left" ideals.i am a fucking anarchist for fuck sakes!

donald trump winning this years surreal election cycle is only a symptom of the disease eating away at our republic.

in my opinion?
both the democrats and republicans have become monolithic institutions that no longer represent their core ideals,having sold their soul to their corporate masters.

and while i can respect the republicans for being open on who they prostituted themselves to,the democrats STILL play the "feel your pain" tripe while simultaneously giving exxon a tugjob under the table.

the extreme left and right do not represent the majority.
and they should be ridiculed and shamed for their utter lack of anything resembling a good idea.

let's kill them.

@transmorpher
i respectfully disagree.

and i would submit that you believe the two party dictatorship is still a functioning arm of this republics political system,whereas i do not,i think it a broken and utterly corrupt and dysfunctional system.

but i do find your idealism adorable! /pinches cheek

Absolutely.

The process produces shit-sandwich corrupt candidates.

More info from Lawrence Lessig in his talk: Why Are There Only Shit Sandwiches On The Menu?

@newtboy: Trumps appeal to the LCD is successful mostly because the LCD has been allowed to grow so much in our post-Regan society. With inequality on the rise and decades of trickle-down government-by-the-wealthy-for-the-wealthy, those "left behind" have been growing faster and faster every year.

It Trump fails to win this go around then the pendulum may keep swinging further. My concern is that the next 'protest' candidate will be even worse than he.

@ChaosEngine:

We'll have to agree to disagree about some things. For me, as bad as Trump is, I'm not convinced that he is worse than what Hillary was revealted to be by the DNC Leaks...

...but perhaps instead of arguing about which shit sandwich is worse, it is more productive to work together to find out why there are only shit sandwiches on the menu?

On this:

"But things will never change until you fix your broken political system. You're barely a democracy these days."

I am in complete agreement.

When I first heard of the Brexit vote, I thought it was some nasty xenophobic/racist group that had somehow managed to capture 51% of a nation. But could Britian really be that full of xenophobes? It was in a bit of casual research on the subject when I discovered that J. Pie video I referenced in my earlier comment. I had to revise my first assumption about the group that voted to leave the E.U.. While there may have been an element of xenophobia involved, it was economic factors that was the driving force behind the Brexit vote.

People who have been screwed over by years of government for corporations which has only worsened since Glass–Steagall was repealed by Bill Clinton. The hold the wealthy have on government was tightened after Citizen's United.

Much of the support Trump has been able to marshal is a reaction to years of governance-for-the-wealthy-by-the-wealthy.

Lawrence Lessig's does a better job unpacking this quagmire in his talk: "We The People: the Republic We Must Reclaim" which has far too few views on YT or votes on the sift, IMO. For anyone who's ever been unhappy with the political system in the past number of years, I consider it a must-watch.


Link here:

http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-2016-will-have-two-elections-TED-talk

Once upon a time there was a bear and it was put onto a flag waved by Americans who had entered Mexico illegally and were denied the right to own or rent property. They were sick of being treated poorly as immigrants, so they said fuck the Mexican government, we are gonna revolt. And they did. And for a small time in history, they ruled their slice of Mexico as The California Republic.

Then the really real American military showed up and said, "Fuck you, you're gonna be drafted into the really real republic and yer gonna fight the Mexicans for real. And we're gonna take your land that you took from the Mexicans, and it's gonna be called America, bitch."

True Story.

Why would getting on and off a paternoster be different from stepping onto a normal moving staircase (escalator)? Its just one step.

As for "I can easily imagine severed limbs" or "slow moving guillotine" web articles - I have never seen severed limbs or heads anywhere near a paternoster. Difficult to compare but I would expect accidents to be similar to escalator accidents (which can be pretty bad, Ive had one myself).

In any case paternosters are just as popular (though rare) all over central (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria) northern (Sweden, Finland), part of western Europe (Germany, England, Denmark, Netherlands), and even as far as the Austrian Empire extended southward into the Balkans (Beograd).

The President does have enough power to totally sink us IF they're volatile enough. Simple incompetence in a president doesn't sink us. However, that can cost lives. 1,833 people died officially from Katrina, although obviously not that many were directly from the utter incompetence of the Bush administration. 4,500 Americans have died in Iraq during the invasion and subsequent occupation. These things don't "sink" the US completely, but they're VERY consequential.

But Trump is incompetent AND volatile. Bringing both of those qualities to the table as president, and you've got much much bigger issues.

Finally, I absolutely do not get the charges of personal corruption against Hillary Clinton, especially when compared to Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, so far as I can tell, is an agent who is operating within a system that has been corrupted, and not personally by her. The system needs to be reformed. She's done things to win within the system that you'd ideally not do. But I don't get how she is personally corrupt.

But you speak as if Clinton is the competent but corrupt one, and Trump is the incompetent but non-corrupt one, which blows my mind. How is the only way you can be corrupt is through accepting campaign contributions? How is Trump University not an indictment of how corrupt Trump personally is? How is it not corrupt to appeal to white supremacists? How is it not corrupt to name call, incite your supporters to violence, and dismiss women because they must be on their periods? How is it not corrupt to have your daughter make a speech at the RNC and then tweet how to buy the dress she was wearing, so she could make some coin?

Because one of those forms of corruption is being potentially corrupted by a corrupt system, but they're at least trying to reform that system. Hillary Clinton is the one against Citizens United, officially calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of it. Has Donald Trump?

I don't think HRC will be a great president. I don't particularly like her much. However, she is qualified to be President. She's done nothing illegal, which is the hallmark of whether someone is corrupt.

And don't kid yourself about our government's ability containing a fascist. The Weimar Republic's government had structures in place to prevent the rise of Hitler, too. They had separation of powers. The government was one of the most democratic governments in the world. Fat lot of good that did.

I'm not saying necessarily that Trump is the next Hitler. But I am saying that there are enough similarities that I can't vote for him, and the mere fact he got a major party's nomination is scary beyond all reason. And voting for someone like that proves out their blueprint for future candidates across the board for offices in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at all levels of government.

As much as I don't like HRC, Trump is easily the worse major party's nominee in a very very very long time.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-we-the-people-the-republic-we-must-reclaim

lawrence lessig-we the people the republic we must reclaim has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

lawrence lessig-we the people the republic we must reclaim has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/lawrence-lessig-we-the-people-the-republic-we-must-reclaim

Honestly, there's never been any sign that Hillary plans to move right -or- left after the election. I think it's quite obvious that she'll stay absolutely center-of-the-Hillary-road, just like she's always been.

The US is well down the path to becoming a banana republic, and voting Hillary is the -best- way to continue that direction. I'll watch the country burn first, at least that's a clean death.

According to separation of powers... and the roles defined for each branch.

Parsing words is fine.
Persons vs people is moot. People = multiple persons. Unless your intent is to give a right to a single individual, you're always dealing with people.

The flip side is that if the 2nd amendment only protects militias and their armament, then it protects militias. So you are free to start a militia and get armed.
(Again, by 1791 parlance, well regulated meant well adjusted. There is no prerequisite for government regulation re the 1791 English it was written in.).


"well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" doesn't work when :
- Y and Z did not even exist at the time of X.
- Y and Z did exist, and the writers chose not to include them.
In either case, you end up legislating from the bench.

It's a simple matter to make a new law covering Y and Z. There is no need for a court to jump the gun. Just find the case by the classic scope, and inform the legislature of the circumstances so they can take it into consideration. Heck, there is no guarantee that the legislature even wants the scope expanded. They could even want it contracted.
If it becomes a complicated matter with parties arguing - then it clearly needs debating and would have been inappropriate to decide elsewhere.

As a republic, the people are the state, and the state has all authority. The government exists strictly to record, execute, and enforce the state's will, by the state's authority (govt. has no authority inherent to itself).
The legislature is the channel that codifies the state's will. No other functional element serves that purpose. To codify something, it must go through the legislature. Else it does not carry state authority.

-scheherazade