RWDT XXI: The Apocalypse is Now

[Cisairse]

When a monarchy can beat us in a war they can talk about definitions.

Most of the American narrative involving George III are outright lies.

Last time I checked the narrative includes America's victory, which isn't a lie.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Hot take: corruption, especially nepotism, is not avoidable.

Since when has this been a hot take?

I left something off: it's natural and potentially even desirable.

[The Village Green SSR]

Since when has this been a hot take?

I left something off: it's natural and potentially even desirable.

>Nepotism
>Desirable

Pick one.

[Salus Maior]

Most of the American narrative involving George III are outright lies.

Last time I checked the narrative includes America's victory, which isn't a lie.

The narrative that George III was a "tyrant" who was responsible for oppressing America was. Even John Adams said as much.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I left something off: it's natural and potentially even desirable.

>Nepotism
>Desirable

Pick one.

It creates a stable class of well-educated and experienced bureaucrats who are secure in their position.

[Cekoviu]

Since when has this been a hot take?

I left something off: it's natural and potentially even desirable.

oh god umn what are you saying

[Cisairse]

Last time I checked the narrative includes America's victory, which isn't a lie.

The narrative that George III was a "tyrant" who was responsible for oppressing America was. Even John Adams said as much.

It's all bourgeois propaganda from my point of view.

[The Marlborough]

A lot of Americans assert that they didn't really lose the Vietnam War. I.e. that it was the civilians and political leaders that gave up right when the US military was at the cusp of victory. Most Americans also don't know about Red Cloud's War.

The US fought the communists into making a peace agreement that they violated only after we left. Technically, it was a victory, we just switched priorities very quickly.

No, it didn't. By 1973 US ground forces had been vastly reduced, had ceased offensive campaigns, and relegated to the coat. The North Vietnamese immediately broke the Paris Peace Accords; the ceasefire lasted less than a day between North and South Vietnam. By March 1973, the NVA had made significant territorial gains and the US did nothing. The reason the North Vietnamese agreed to the Paris Peace Accords is because Nixon offered them a one sided ceasefire and the North Vietnamese were worried about being diplomatically isolated if they were seen as refusing to agree to peace talks but had no intention of ever honoring it or taking it seriously because they knew they were in the stronger position.

[Cisairse]

>Nepotism
>Desirable

Pick one.

It creates a stable class of well-educated and experienced bureaucrats who are secure in their position.

That just sounds like monarchy with extra monarchs.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I left something off: it's natural and potentially even desirable.

oh god umn what are you saying

It's totally unavoidable, you might as well take advantage of it. Like I said, states are multifaceted actors with many constituent parts. Crushing nepotism would take more resources than it's worth and also force your people into a competitive rat race.

[Northern Davincia]

In this instance, it's true. The US was stabbed in the back by the media and Johnson's stupidity.

Johnson stabbed the U.S. in the back by escalating the war.

Yes. Kennedy also stabbed Diem in the back, which I am forever salty about.

[The Archbishopric of York]

Monarchy is when the sovereign does stuff, and the more stuff the sovereign does, the more monarchist it is. Ergo, only absolute monarchies can exist and be considered monarchical. Thus, it stands to reason that the contemporary United Kingdom is thus thoroughly republican in character. Checkmate.

Nuance? What's that?

Actually the Kingdom of England and its successor states have been recognised since the Tudor period as a republic in the classical sense of being a "mixed government," with the king or queen representing the monarchical element, the House of Lords the aristocratic element and the House of Commons the democratic element. I don't recall the author's name but there was a widely influential political work published under Elizabeth I that compared England at the time to the Roman Republic.

[Salus Maior]

The narrative that George III was a "tyrant" who was responsible for oppressing America was. Even John Adams said as much.

It's all bourgeois propaganda from my point of view.

It is. It's bourgeois propaganda against the aristocracy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It creates a stable class of well-educated and experienced bureaucrats who are secure in their position.

That just sounds like monarchy with extra monarchs.

It happens in all systems. Bureaucracy is unavoidable in large polities.

[Cisairse]

Monarchy is when the sovereign does stuff, and the more stuff the sovereign does, the more monarchist it is. Ergo, only absolute monarchies can exist and be considered monarchical. Thus, it stands to reason that the contemporary United Kingdom is thus thoroughly republican in character. Checkmate.

Nuance? What's that?

Actually the Kingdom of England and its successor states have been recognised since the Tudor period as a republic in the classical sense of being a "mixed government," with the king or queen representing the monarchical element, the House of Lords the aristocratic element and the House of Commons the democratic element. I don't recall the author's name but there was a widely influential political work published under Elizabeth I that compared England at the time to the Roman Republic.

Roman Republic didn't have a monarch

[Cisairse]

That just sounds like monarchy with extra monarchs.

It happens in all systems. Bureaucracy is unavoidable in large polities.

Oh I agree, I think bureaucracy is fine.

Nepotism not so much.

[Cisairse]

It's all bourgeois propaganda from my point of view.

It is. It's bourgeois propaganda against the aristocracy.

The symbolism is pretty lit, though.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It happens in all systems. Bureaucracy is unavoidable in large polities.

Oh I agree, I think bureaucracy is fine.

Nepotism not so much.

You literally can't get rid of it, for the reasons I stated above. Everyone has a material and powerful incentive to be nepotistic, including the people who will be enforcing anti-nepotism laws.

[The Archbishopric of York]

>Nepotism
>Desirable

Pick one.

It creates a stable class of well-educated and experienced bureaucrats who are secure in their position.

So what you are saying is, we should emulate the pre-Catherinian system of Russian nobility? Because I am all for that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It creates a stable class of well-educated and experienced bureaucrats who are secure in their position.

So what you are saying is, we should emulate the pre-Catherinian system of Russian nobility? Because I am all for that.

Yes, or maybe Confucianism.

[Diarcesia]

Oh I agree, I think bureaucracy is fine.

Nepotism not so much.

You literally can't get rid of it, for the reasons I stated above. Everyone has a material and powerful incentive to be nepotistic, including the people who will be enforcing anti-nepotism laws.

That sounds like giving up to entropy.

[Cisairse]

Oh I agree, I think bureaucracy is fine.

Nepotism not so much.

You literally can't get rid of it, for the reasons I stated above. Everyone has a material and powerful incentive to be nepotistic, including the people who will be enforcing anti-nepotism laws.

Seems like there's ways to get around this.

For example, what if we didn't hire anyone? Let's say, hypothetically, every official in the government (from the top to the bottom) was popularly elected to six-year-terms and could not be re-elected.

[The Archbishopric of York]

Actually the Kingdom of England and its successor states have been recognised since the Tudor period as a republic in the classical sense of being a "mixed government," with the king or queen representing the monarchical element, the House of Lords the aristocratic element and the House of Commons the democratic element. I don't recall the author's name but there was a widely influential political work published under Elizabeth I that compared England at the time to the Roman Republic.

Roman Republic didn't have a monarch

Well, no. And 16th century England didn't have censors or consuls. The point isn't that the system of government of 16th century England was the same as the system of government of the ancient Roman Republic, but that in the eyes of this particular Elizabethan author both represented the ideals of classical republican government.

So what you are saying is, we should emulate the pre-Catherinian system of Russian nobility? Because I am all for that.

Yes, or maybe Confucianism.

I am all for that as well. I find much to appreciate in Confucian philosophy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You literally can't get rid of it, for the reasons I stated above. Everyone has a material and powerful incentive to be nepotistic, including the people who will be enforcing anti-nepotism laws.

Seems like there's ways to get around this.

For example, what if we didn't hire anyone? Let's say, hypothetically, every official in the government (from the top to the bottom) was popularly elected to six-year-terms and could not be re-elected.

Every official? Come on, we're going to elect every Internal Revenue agent? Every police constable? Every military officer?

[The Marlborough]

>is the aggressor
>fails to capture any objectives
>loses its capital
>loses most of its army
>is forced into full retreat?
but they won one battle (after peace was declared), so clearly the US won.

Britain:
>permanently loses parts of Maine
>most of Canada is in ruins
>doesn’t even keep control of the capital
>loses any chance of reconquering its colonies
>is repeatedly defeated at sea
>only keeps Canada because the US attacks the wrong area
>US ends up with the casual belli achieved (though that was just a coincidence)
>US army actually is stronger by the end of the war
>Native American nation is gone
>British invasions defeated

But they burned down some buildings in a swamp shortly before being driven out so clearly the won.

The Webster-Ashburton Treaty was in 1842. Further, most of Canada was not in ruins, the economic linchpin at the time was Quebec, not Ontario and most of Ontario was still fine outside of York. D.C. was never meant to be permanently captured to boot. Your actual casus belli was not achieved, the British did not agree to stop impressing US soldiers, it was actually something US negotiators agreed to drop during peace negotiations. The reason it stopped is because the Napoleonic Wars ended and the Royal Navy didn't need as many sailors. "British invasions defeated" is a weird way of saying "British Army occupied 10 million acres of US territory". The only one that is actually correct is the loss of an independent indigenous nation, which is not something I'd wrest your laurels on at this point in time lmao.