Then you need to ramble about being supreme leader some moreThe. Show. Must. Go. On.
Or you could let me have the job, I promise an end to the cruelty of the old world....
And a whole new type of cruelty under my despotic resolve
Then you need to ramble about being supreme leader some moreThe. Show. Must. Go. On.
despotic resolve
Then you need to ramble about being supreme leader some more
Or you could let me have the job, I promise an end to the cruelty of the old world....
And a whole new type of cruelty under my despotic resolve
Pretty large, provided they have an impeccable bureaucracu.@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.
I'm seeing a pattern, all of these countries are in Asia.Pretty large, provided they have an impeccable bureaucracu.
E.g.
China
Japan
Korea
Any nation of any political ideology can be successful, from Monarchies, Fascism, Communism to Democracy. Also of any size from Luxembourg to China.
This is not true. States experience selective pressures just like any organism, and they can be more or less fit to their environments as a result. For example, before the advent of brass cannons in Europe, the invulnerability of castles in war meant that smaller, decentralised polities were favoured over larger ones. After about 1453, however, cannons (which nullified the advantages of castles) enabled the rise of large, centralised nation-states ruled by the powerful 'new monarchs'. Any smaller states in this era who tried to resist had their fortifications rubbled and forcibly annexed.But in theory any system could work, but Authoritarians usually have a vested interest in not putting the best people in positions of power, rather people who will be loyal...
This is not true. States experience selective pressures just like any organism, and they can be more or less fit to their environments as a result. For example, before the advent of brass cannons in Europe, the invulnerability of castles in war meant that smaller, decentralised polities were favoured over larger ones. After about 1453, however, cannons (which nullified the advantages of castles) enabled the rise of large, centralised nation-states ruled by the powerful 'new monarchs'. Any smaller states in this era who tried to resist had their fortifications rubbled and forcibly annexed.
This is a simple example, but similar selective pressures apply to modern states - whatever system 'works' is dictated by the contemporary political and technological environment. To believe that it's simply about some kind of vaguely defined 'competence' is wildly ignorant of the reality of the global system.
Excel is for plebs who don't know R/Matlab.
That's a good use of excel though.Confession
Teach me, senpai!Excel is for plebs who don't know R/Matlab.
That's a good use of excel though.