So, why not an Enlightened Despot in the States?

Sun_Fortune

I was doin' some thinking and I realized that democracy doesnt work in a country the size of the united states. The government is simply much too big and so corruption, beuarocratic ineffieciency and malaise clog the system. Not to mention that a democracy requires world class public education -- which it seems due to those problems above, is not possible in a nation the size of the states. Americans are stupid and they elect frauds, charlatans and criminals.So why not an enlightened despot? I remember reading some elnightenment political theory in high school which said that types of govnernment should be determined by the size of the nation. For a nation the size od the States, he recommended an absolute monarchy. I also like the Platonic idea of a philosopher king. When I say enlightnened, I mean truly enlightened in the Tibetan Buddhist sense. So lets annoint someone. Who's down??????

Reynaldo

Who would choose the person?

the3rdstream

I also like the Platonic idea of a philosopher king.

the3rdstream

Who would choose the person?

your mom and marcofunk

Sun_Fortune

I suppose jaweh would.



Or the electorate.

BreakSelf

When I say enlightnened, I mean truly enlightened in the Tibetan Buddhist sense. So lets annoint someone. Who's down??????

Tibetan Buddhists are Mahayanists, and are therefore never truly enlightened (by choice). If you're looking for a solid, already enlightened Theravadin I'd suggest India, or somewhere in South East Asia. At this point I'd settle for a frat guy in an intro to Asian religions course at the local community college.

the3rdstream

I suppose jaweh would.

BreakSelf

I also like the Platonic idea of a philosopher king.

What if we want a leader that we can be more than "just friends" with?

yuck, yuck, yuck...

Swayze

I also like the Platonic idea of a philosopher king.

What if we want a leader that we can be more than "just friends" with?

yuck, yuck, yuck...

well bush has been fucking us for six years now, maybe its time for some distance.

the3rdstream

I also like the Platonic idea of a philosopher king.

What if we want a leader that we can be more than "just friends" with?

exactly, then we have to see them on tv after the break up and thats always uncomfortable, we have to act like we don't see each other when out with our new bf or gf

Sun_Fortune

Tibetan Buddhists are Mahayanists, and are therefore never truly enlightened (by choice).

Wow, .

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

What I mean by enlightened is someone who has looked into his or her unconscious and shed light on the horrible darkness within. With our current leader, such introspection is out of the question. He therefore projects his shadows on the world at large and must make continuous war to mirror his own distorted mind.

BreakSelf

I also like the Platonic idea of a philosopher king.

What if we want a leader that we can be more than "just friends" with?

yuck, yuck, yuck...

well bush has been fucking us for six years now, maybe its time for some distance.

Touch??.

BreakSelf

I also like the Platonic idea of a philosopher king.

What if we want a leader that we can be more than "just friends" with?

exactly, then we have to see them on tv after the break up and thats always uncomfortable, we have to act like we don't see each other when out with our new bf or gf

SOOO awkward!

Birdman9

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

The_Non

Choose me as your enlightened despot. I will pat you on the back with my right hand and smack you in the face with the left.

Sun_Fortune

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

Really, Im not so sure it is. Most leaders would fall into the category of barbaric. Probably 99 percent. Then there are the Ahkenatens (Moses?), the legendary Arthurs, the Martin Luther Kings, the Bobby Kennedys and so on who were peaceful creatures. While the other 99 percent are the political animals who do anything to gain and maintain power.

CousinLarry

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

Really, Im not so sure it is. Most leaders would fall into the category of barbaric. Probably 99 percent. Then there are the Ahkenatens (Moses?), the legendary Arthurs, the Martin Luther Kings, the Bobby Kennedys and so on who were peaceful creatures. While the other 99 percent are the political animals who do anything to gain and maintain power.

If you don't think the Kennedys were political animals you have some reading to do.

Sun_Fortune

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

Really, Im not so sure it is. Most leaders would fall into the category of barbaric. Probably 99 percent. Then there are the Ahkenatens (Moses?), the legendary Arthurs, the Martin Luther Kings, the Bobby Kennedys and so on who were peaceful creatures. While the other 99 percent are the political animals who do anything to gain and maintain power.

If you don't think the Kennedys were political animals you have some reading to do.

Listen I know all about the Kennedy's history, but I didnt mention any other Kennedy besides Bobby. From what I know about him, I think he was truly enlightened to the struggles of humanity. And that's why he was shot. He was born to the Kennedy family and essentially born into a world of dirty money. But I think that had he not been shot, the United States would have taken a far more contemplative and humanistic path. Of course, my mom may have never met my Dad, so there you have it.

Birdman9

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

Really, Im not so sure it is. Most leaders would fall into the category of barbaric. Probably 99 percent. Then there are the Ahkenatens (Moses?), the legendary Arthurs, the Martin Luther Kings, the Bobby Kennedys and so on who were peaceful creatures. While the other 99 percent are the political animals who do anything to gain and maintain power.

How is this not simplistic?

Sun_Fortune

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

Really, Im not so sure it is. Most leaders would fall into the category of barbaric. Probably 99 percent. Then there are the Ahkenatens (Moses?), the legendary Arthurs, the Martin Luther Kings, the Bobby Kennedys and so on who were peaceful creatures. While the other 99 percent are the political animals who do anything to gain and maintain power.

How is this not simplistic?

Earlier you used "simplistic" in a negative light and to connote, among other things, that my statement does not take into account the many different gray areas involved. Now, I think you're using the word differently. If you want to play language games, then Ill say that what I said was simplistic and ill take your comment as a compliment and in a postive light as sometimes a simple truth is often more profound than a complex one.

Birdman9

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

Really, Im not so sure it is. Most leaders would fall into the category of barbaric. Probably 99 percent. Then there are the Ahkenatens (Moses?), the legendary Arthurs, the Martin Luther Kings, the Bobby Kennedys and so on who were peaceful creatures. While the other 99 percent are the political animals who do anything to gain and maintain power.

How is this not simplistic?

Earlier you used "simplistic" in a negative light and to connote, among other things, that my statement does not take into account the many different gray areas involved. Now, I think you're using the word differently. If you want to play language games, then Ill say that what I said was simplistic and ill take your comment as a compliment and in a postive light as sometimes a simple truth is often more profound than a complex one.

Not when it comes to human history encompassing leadership of societies all over the globe. I mean, you can believe what you want, but I have to take issue with it as childishly simplistic. I am not trying to play language games or be a dick, but I can't believe you are being serious here.

Rockadelic

Despot...



Vice Despot

Sun_Fortune

When you look at history, there are two types of leaders. The enlightened and the barbaric.

dude....come on. This is beyond simplistic.

Really, Im not so sure it is. Most leaders would fall into the category of barbaric. Probably 99 percent. Then there are the Ahkenatens (Moses?), the legendary Arthurs, the Martin Luther Kings, the Bobby Kennedys and so on who were peaceful creatures. While the other 99 percent are the political animals who do anything to gain and maintain power.

How is this not simplistic?

Earlier you used "simplistic" in a negative light and to connote, among other things, that my statement does not take into account the many different gray areas involved. Now, I think you're using the word differently. If you want to play language games, then Ill say that what I said was simplistic and ill take your comment as a compliment and in a postive light as sometimes a simple truth is often more profound than a complex one.

Not when it comes to human history encompassing leadership of societies all over the globe. I mean, you can believe what you want, but I have to take issue with it as childishly simplistic. I am not trying to play language games or be a dick, but I can't believe you are being serious here.

I understand. But i do think that those I might call enlightened were really of a higher or different category of human. I think those with high consciousness or super consciousness are actually different than the ordinary mass of humans. I know Im treading into Neitzche's waters here but in history, every now and then, somehow an enlightened individual has been able to seize power. I think they are categroically differenet than the average leader. Maybe thats a childish, untestable and unprovable claim but there really are people scattered around the globe that are, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually, in a class by themselves.