Awesome! Model of state is basically what form of government you have; democracy, monarchy, dictatorship etc.
I thought that's what it meant but wasn't sure. 🤪
Stellar flag! A Machiavellian state here in Scandinavia would most definitely be a break in tradition. One thing though, it's Fjords and not Fjörds, it's only with an Ö in Norwegian and that's the variance of Ö without the punctuation above but the line across the O, which is the Norwegian Ö. :) Do you see any challenges with a direct democracy though given the scale? The only functioning examples of direct democracies are within countries with a very low populous who conduct several elections locally.
Oh no that’s just my ideology lol the state would be direct social democracy I speak Norwegian that’s why I do the ö lolI don’t think so, and way I see it, it gives everyone an equal voice in matters that affect them. It’s not perfect, but it’s equal at the very least.
And thanks! I’ve considered this stuff for a while now lol
Oh you do now do ya, well thing is, Norwegian is very closely related to Swedish, we most often understand each other quite well, så om jag skulle skriva dessa nästa rader på Svenska så kan jag kanske anta att du förstår utan problem? ;P If elections can be managed in that way then sure. Personally though I have never prioritized that things must be equal, but rather that things must be done well. In my humble opinion people get so fixated upon equality that they sometimes forget that equality isn't always good. Though suggesting that is a bit of a taboo these days. Representative democracy as explained by Edmund Burke is something I agree with, although representative democracy isn't necessarily my favored model. But that's me.
Lol ja jeg kan forstå deg. Perfectly reasonable and I agree. Machiavelli even says that citizens don’t necessarily want a good (virtuous) ruler, they want an effective ruler, so I can concede on that.
Häftigt! True. But even without regard to the wishes of the people, I have always believed we ought to have the right people for the right jobs rather than everyone being equal about it and that's that. Isn't after all, the welfare of the nation and its people what is more important. But anyways, a good opinion (y)
tusen takk :) I agree completely. I guess my answer was tainted with idealism as opposed to proper logic. Thank you for showing me that :) After all, the body politic tend to be content when the nation is prosperous, is in a good light and they are able to live contently.
I'm glad we can see eye to eye on the matter. Indeed. When it comes to it, people want to have good and effective rulers who know what to do and produce good results, rather than having to be included in governmental processes at every turn. The post-materialist desire of self-realization is a good effect of modern affluence as people may lead the lives they desire, but it spills over too much when trying to shape governance into an "open house for all", kind of model. The materialist values of the World Wars and before, such as safety, food, law and order aren't often in the limelight due to it being far more common and accessible now, but they are nonetheless more important as a foundation for making post-materialist values possible, such as mentioned self-realization and climate awareness. This giving rise to the saying that in good times people are liberal, in bad times they are conservative. One reason for me being conservative is because I know materialist values are never a given, history is a continuous testimony to that, and must be prioritized and protected.
Agreed. Society follows as Hegel said, a dialectical line. It goes from one end to the next until an equilibrium is found, and then the cycle starts anew from that point. But the fundamental basics of society never really change, only in how they are acted upon.
While I certainly do not profess myself to Hegelianism and take fundamental issues with some claims made, it is certainly a more on point doctrine than subsequent Marxism that built upon it.
Agreed. No ideology is perfect, that’s why I find it’s good to be flexible in a sense. I don’t care if someone is liberal, conservative, a communist or a nationalist. All have good and bad points. I’m not against bolstering or attacking those points for certain things. Granted that may not be seen as moral, but morals aren’t my concern lol
Also agreed. I am a pragmatist in the sense that good policy may differ depending on what issue in what context during what time under what circumstances we speak of. I have always loathed to be constricted by ideological ditches that must have sweeping one-way solutions for everything. Though as both a Christian and Conservative of course, I have many uncompromising fundamentals that I believe undergird any good society.
That’s a fair and reasonable policy. Granted I’m not christian, I’m an occultist and a centrist libertarian. But ideologically I’m a Machiavellian. I’ll work with who ever and do what must be done to keep power and bring prosperity and safety to those under me. I don’t feel a need or desire to push my beliefs onto others. If I fail, I fail. If I’m deemed a monster, so be it. That’s my burden.
You do not stand alone in that Machiavellian disposition at least. I even believe many might be secretly aligned with that philosophy, or agrees with it without realizing.
Or with some of its practices, at the minimum. Which is understandable, they’re pretty effective. That’s why at least out here, shifty policies are done during natural disasters or at night when nobody is really looking.
Even if I don’t like that policy, I still respect the maneuvering to get it done that way.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!