Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (197161)	3/11/2023 2:41:24 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218068

The structure of checks and balances imposed in the Constitution is not "random" in its origins, or the consideration applied in seeking to find that balance. The need being universal, doesn't impose any "only possible right solution" issues... as many ways to skin a cat as there are cats with skins. America's origins in "opposition to the king"... did color our perception of the nature of the need... given the nature of the king. But, note, even in that opposition, while willingly committing treason to enable change... the founders were not all themselves capable of understanding the implications of their choices. Many people at the time... could not conceive of a country existing without a king... seeing that as an "essential" in definition both of "separateness" in "we've got our own, thanks"... and as an essential element in our definition of ourselves as... embodied in that person... because... that's how its always been... Obviously still see more than "remnants" of that in modern culture... whether here, in the elevation of JFK to fill those shoes as some (mostly on the left) in the culture demand... or the fawning of the media over Castro... or the Queen. Why Britain and its former colonies are still choosing to be the properly of the royals... is a puzzle to me... but, "I get it"... as cultural adornment... not as... having other value. The obvious on the left... in the "imposition of community rule" always meaning... "that guy decides" ? LOL!!! We're pretty well past the point in history where selecting a tribal chief with absolute power... makes a lick of sense. That it is senseless... does not mean perception of that fact... "wins" ? And that defines our modern reality... where we're accelerating around in jets and rocket ships as routine... where we can see reality as never before (only if willing to see)... while governed by "the best" that our legacy in tribalism can offer us. However, the proper perception of "politics"... MUST account for the fact that "the politics" that exist in the royal court... are not different today than they have ever been ? But, the politics of "the royal court"... are very dramatically at odds with the politics of public discourse. (Ask Mr Khashoggi ?) So, you know how "shocked" I am... to find Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China... might find themselves thinking alike on some issues ? LOL !!! The SAME failure of vision... almost destroyed this country in the early years... The Articles of Confederation (right, Europe ?) weren't strong enough to guarantee function, much less cohesion. So, the "second go at it" was based in understanding prior failure... as well as necessity in "resisting kings". That didn't stop John Adams, following Washington as our second President... from secretly seeking to have himself elevated to King, while make the title hereditary ? The "royal" politics the Federalists adopted in result... when war erupted saw the northeastern states, dependent on trade with England... engage in a conspiracy to remove themselves from the Union... and rejoin those loyal to the (British) crown. I'm sure there was nothing of "some countries seek to divide others" occurring in that ? Purely organic ? But, as the result... when the public caught wind of their conspiracy... the Federalists ceased to exist... exactly as Democrats today have positioned themselves, by adopting the Federalist policy of that era. Perhaps sweeping that history under a rug... in the interest of "stability"... was counter-productive ? China has plenty of history of its own from which to learn, of course... but, most of that history is not really divisible from the pre-modern... while "learning curves" require... post-modern ? And, there's that nagging, again... Why are communists, capitalists and kings... more the same than different... and how does that relate to "choices" [make better decisions] under the influence of awareness in modernity ?