reply to post by poet1b
The Roman Catholic Church viewed anything outside of faith as witchcraft, and that includes most medicine, and all science and technology in general.
I simply don't view this as true. Mostly because I don't think Europe, in their right mind, saw witchcraft as medicine.
Medicine and witchcraft have been separate things since ancient Greece. And for that matter, witchcraft in both the Roman time period as well as the
medieval time period, became a sucker's game of taking advantage of uneducated people. To that end, I'd have burned them myself.
There were cases of innocent people dying. Like the Salem witch trials. But that was 1600 years later, and in a new world cut off from the rational
I'm just not really remembering any sort of real medicine or real science being destroyed by the church before the late 1400s. One thing I recall.
Ignorant scribes taking science documents to write the bible on, but that's only because they didn't know better. They didn't think it was magic. I'd
even go so much as to say they wanted more science and technology from their Muslim neighbors and once the Spanish special interests ended, most of
Europe sought to gain technology from the East. The Church was one of the first types to get cannons and guns. And that, by the way, was one of the
oldest forms of "witchcraft"
How can you claim the church saw technology and science as witchcraft when it was one of the first ones to buy, literally, magical explosive tubes?
The Italians all rushed to get their hands on ottoman tech and science as fast as possible.
You state you like instability, well, oligarchy and empires always create instability. The Roman Empire was always a cauldron of conflict, and China's
history of constant warfare as well. When bankers and the super rich have the greatest levels of power, such as in the early days of American
Industrialization, instability was the biggest problem.
In those turbulent times of Rome, the common man was most free. For China, what you said is not so true. China alternated between period of stability
and instability. The Chinese people were most free in the points of flux: As stability became unstable, and as instability stabilized. Everything in
between they viewed as merely transition into the next dynastic cycle.
For America, the instability prevented oligarchy. One of the reasons the Federal Reserve was established was to create a cushioning for the
instability of the market. IE, have a way for rich men to ride out the storm. Ergo, proton-oligarchy. I don't know if they knew what they were doing
would create oligarchy, but it did.
Oligarchy attempts to reach stability quickly. Naturally this creates instability because things are moving fast.
It follows that humanity is too stupid to realize that oligarchy inherently leads to national suicide in most cases.
They put themselves into oligarchy to protect from the instability occurring, and all that leads to is a quick path to anarchy.
I don't think oligarchies flourish in times of instability. When exactly has this occurred?
In my eyes, there are two types of oligarchies. Those founded over time through repeated trust in a line of individuals (stability), and those founded
quickly by some messianic figure. (instability leading to stability)
Let's look at the Roman Emperors for this relationship.
The Roman Emperors did not begin with Caesar. Caesar was simply the first man to hold the title and not give it up, having been killed; unable to give
up the power if he had any plans to.(there is historic precedence for doing this)
Romans had constructed a situation where their congress was their oligarchy born from trusting a continued line of individuals. The Senate WAS the
oligarchy. Rome constructed an ideal of a man of the people, rising to the cause, then being done with his job and retiring. And a man came along just
like that. before Caesar, there was Lucius Cornelius Sulla. A man whom quickly came to power, marched on Rome, amended the constitution by force, and
then retired, choosing not to keep the power. Rome's history has a lot of these kind of men.
Caesar was the first to be killed before he could do anything. As a result, he was a messianic oligarchy. And because he never got rid of his power,
being killed (mind you, the senate still existed), Rome became an empire. Even more so, an oligarchy from that figure. What is more impressive though,
is that eventually Rome did stop having an emperor. 300 years later, Diocletian retired the position and split the empire into four pieces. The
emperor(s) became more like high governors than anything else.
Point is this. In both situation, Stability and its goal was the leading cause of oligarchy. Instability ended it. Diocletian was born in instability,
and ended the prolonged Roman imperial oligarchy. Sulla dismantled the stable oligarchy of the senate and made things fluctuate again.
In the case of Diocletian, his actions did cause stability. And this in turn saw the return of the imperial oligarchy that would in time destroy
itself. Why? Because it lead to economic instability. That which kills oligarchy.
The people who founded the U.S. definitely believed in democracy. A Republic is a form of democracy. You want to claim that democratic institutions
create oligarchies, and that is the opposite of reality. You want to claim that instability is better, and ignore the reality that oligarchies
flourish under instability.
The founders did not like democracy. They liked a republic. They wanted the rule of law. They also believed in freedom and liberty and the right to
peruse one's happiness. However, these were personal ideals that, knowing them to be ideals, they did not put into the core document, but rather, the
edit on 26-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason
edit on 26-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: Le