Rationals (NTs)

When someone misunderstands this thread and is mean will they-

  • A, claim all NTs are evil because of a single bad experience or

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • B, argue that NTs are the master race

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • C, inevitable joke answer: Xylophone

    Votes: 16 44.4%

  • D, use their unlimited power to edit this poll. Xx, Lady Palpatine

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
@Reason With Logic Filling
@Ren

I want to explore two sub-ideas here under the umbrella of World Domination.

How powerful can a person become? Provide examples of the most and least powerful people who've ever lived to support your points.

How large can a state (polity) become before it collapses like the Roman Empire? Provide examples of successful or unsuccessful states, forms-of government, or economic systems to support your points.

Take your time.
 
Last edited:
Pin said:
Yeah.

I'm steering this topic towards World Domination. Your thoughts on the idea?
Click to expand...
Service guarantees citizenship

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Just what quickly jumps to mind Pin, is aliens. Nothing would more quickly solidify a worldwide hegemony quite like the discovery of aliens. If I wanted to be dictator of Earth I would just manufacture the best evidence of aliens I can and demand loyalty to combat the threat.

The world would panic and give unfettered power immediately to whoever they felt could protect them the best.

EDIT: this is not how I imagined this thread going XD
 
Pin said:
I want to explore two sub-ideas here under the umbrella of World Domination.

How powerful can a person become? Provide examples of the most and least powerful people who've ever lived to support your points.
Click to expand...
I believe that there are limitations to one's control over the world around them. Age, sickness, incapability, death, and poverty, to name a few. That's why it's important to keep healthy. Napoleon died in his early-fifties. He was the Emperor of France! All of that work and sacrifice on behalf of his country, only to die before reaching seniority, it's unfortunate.
How large can a state (polity) become before it collapses like the Roman Empire? Provide examples of successful states, forms-of government, or economic systems to support your points.

Take your time.
Click to expand...
I feel that a state should master the art of administration before expansion. Rome had numerous internal problems, the most prominent being the conflict between the rich and the poor. This never really went away. In modern times, states that follow the Nordic Model seem to function very well. In fact, I think it's the best form of government that's ever been tried. Not necessarily out of principled reasons, but the observable results conferred by this system. There's a reason why Norway has the highest Human Development in the world.
 
Last edited:
Pin said:
How powerful can a person become?
How large can a state (polity) become before it collapses like the Roman Empire?
Click to expand...

These questions are too extensive to answer because in order to give an answer several other questions need to be addressed, not only thinking about power relations and political science, but veering deep into the realm of philosophy.

What is power? Does it primarily mean control over a large land mass and its resources or the greatest number of people possible? Or the percentage of people? What if the number is very small but the percentage is great? How can we compare an ancient ruler who was very dominant with the leader of a smaller nation that can destroy the world with nuclear weapons? And if it means influencing people, does it mean absolute obedience or subtle control of their minds which goes unnoticed. Power of course means a combination of these things, but to give an answer to how powerful a person can become, we'd first have to define which aspect is emphasized.

And when it comes to the second question, even more problems arise because we'd have to define exactly what contributes to the fall of a state and historians can never agree about those things. While there is some consensus on the reasons why the Roman Empire disintegrated, there isn't a reason that stands out as the decisive factor. People can blame the stagnation of a homogenous culture or demoralization of a heterogenous culture, and both viewpoints might have credible supporters.

In conclusion, if you want to become a real dictator, don't think about these problems. They're too complex for one person to solve for good and you'll spend a lifetime trying to understand the concept of power instead of seizing it.
 
Reason With Logic Filling said:
Just what quickly jumps to mind Pin, is aliens. Nothing would more quickly solidify a worldwide hegemony quite like the discovery of aliens.
Click to expand...
Ok, interesting idea.
If I wanted to be dictator of Earth I would just manufacture the best evidence of aliens I can and demand loyalty to combat the threat.
Click to expand...
These demands would be met with opposition, I presume.

The world would panic and give unfettered power immediately to whoever they felt could protect them the best.
Click to expand...
As in, absolute power in the hands of one person?

EDIT: this is not how I imagined this thread going XD
Click to expand...
We're getting more productive as time passes; we've just got to keep building this thread.

Post by post.
 
Fidicen said:
These questions are too extensive to answer because in order to give an answer several other questions need to be addressed, not only thinking about power relations and political science, but veering deep into the realm of philosophy.
Click to expand...
Let's attack these questions together.

What is power?
Click to expand...
[I prefer Robert Greene's definition]
"Power is the measure of the degree of control you have over circumstances in your life and the actions of the people around you. It is a skill that is developed by a deep understanding of human nature, of what truly motivates people, and of the manipulations necessary for advancement and protection. Power works best when it is indirect — never coercing people; instead, getting them to voluntarily align with your interests."


Does it primarily mean control over a large land mass and its resources or the greatest number of people possible? Or the percentage of people? What if the number is very small but the percentage is great? How can we compare an ancient ruler who was very dominant with the leader of a smaller nation that can destroy the world with nuclear weapons? And if it means influencing people, does it mean absolute obedience or subtle control of their minds which goes unnoticed. Power of course means a combination of these things, but to give an answer to how powerful a person can become, we'd first have to define which aspect is emphasized.
Click to expand...
Absolute obedience without coercion. Is this even possible?

I'm already seeing problems.

And when it comes to the second question, even more problems arise because we'd have to define exactly what contributes to the fall of a state and historians can never agree about those things. While there is some consensus on the reasons why the Roman Empire disintegrated, there isn't a reason that stands out as the decisive factor. People can blame the stagnation of a homogenous culture or demoralization of a heterogenous culture, and both viewpoints might have credible supporters.
Click to expand...
You don't think that there are enough failed states throughout history to determine a series of factors that lead to disintegration?

In conclusion, if you want to become a real dictator, don't think about these problems. They're too complex for one person to solve for good and you'll spend a lifetime trying to understand the concept of power instead of seizing it.
Click to expand...
Ha! Noted.
 
Pin said:
[I prefer Robert Greene's definition]
Click to expand...

I see, so the definition of power we're going for means first and foremost being able to control people. In that case becoming a religious leader would be the best option. We can also broaden the concept to include people like Lenin since many totalitarian regimes have functioned by turning a secular idea into a sort of religion.

Pin said:
Absolute obedience without coercion. Is this even possible?
Click to expand...

Yes. Manipulation through mass media. Think of religious cults made global. As Reason mentioned, an outside threat is a good approach. However, in squishing the opposition the army is not always effective. If we get enough people to believe in the sanctity of our state under attack and label dissidents as traitors, we'll be sowing the seeds of doubt in the opposition. While they might not give up their beliefs, this doubt will be of crucial importance since it makes them weaker and may even make them crumble under peer pressure without the army doing anything.

Pin said:
You don't think that there are enough failed states throughout history to determine a series of factors that lead to disintegration?
Click to expand...

We can determine factors, yes, and even point out which mistakes are more severe than others. But the fall of any empire is a complex series of events that defies simple answers. We can find a number of reasons why the Third Reich failed, some of them related to military decisions, others to domestic and economic policies, and yet others to the changing dynamics of the Allies and their powers. My point wasn't that there would be no factors to be found, but that in most cases it's very difficult to determine which one was decisive. For example, for Japan WW2 ended when the nuclear bombs were used, so it's possible to say that was decisive. But what led to the situation in which the US felt it was justified to use them? And wasn't the Japanese army in shambles at that point anyway? When you start to take into account the earlier decisions and the complex chains of causality, the whole issue of decisive factors becomes blurred.

"A feeble body weakens the mind" - Rousseau:engarde:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top