Read on Twitter
not sure if i'm considering becoming pro-tyranny or recognizing that liberalism is just tyranny that's forgotten the point of tyranny. maybe both
a tyrant is like a king, but without the role of priest. the tyrants were supported by the plebs, who had no religion, against the aristocracy which held itself together by religion.
liberalism believes in people-power but it's not running on the same formulation of grievance
liberalism believes in people-power but it's not running on the same formulation of grievance
do the masses under liberalism rise up to break the monopoly on worship, have their own altars made, and have something to pray to?
of note is that money as fungible status was a result of this original process, so pointing the process back at 'the rich' is of limited utility, that's not what it's for, exactly. so what, bring back the Eupatridae? they already failed
the masses supported tyranny because of a difference in kind between then and the aristocracy, reducing it to a changeable difference in wealth.
the promise of america is that it doesn't matter where you started, you too *could* be rich. hmm
the promise of america is that it doesn't matter where you started, you too *could* be rich. hmm
tyranny is the masses defeating the aristocracy, but it's also the reason: resentment over the worship.
modern liberalism seems to be fine with the rich existing, forbids someone with comparable wealth to you to actually think he's better than you by blood. interesting taboo.
modern liberalism seems to be fine with the rich existing, forbids someone with comparable wealth to you to actually think he's better than you by blood. interesting taboo.
(yes, ancestor worship wasn't really by 'blood' in the way liberals imagine modern racialists to be, but if we're honest the modern racialists aren't even always about blood either, and non-racialists certainly aren't)
so what is liberalism really opposed to? it's certainly not opposed to wealth or concentration of power, it's made of those things. it's opposed to claims of legitimacy opposed to its own, of course, but so are many thing.
liberalism is opposed to claims of legitimacy that aren't revocable by liberalism; the ancient king could not say you failed your family's secret worship, but liberalism can say that your [TOP SCHOOL] degree isn't enough if you step out of line. centralization all the way down.
(this is strength, of course. the heads of the phratry, tribe or city lacked the capacity to scrutinize the members of their sub-units, we can't simply credit as virtuous for not doing so, the idea that it was possible likely didn't occur to them)
and when the last patrician is just another guy with a coinpurse, the tyrant's job is done, and the people probably get rid of him after a few years. liberalism seems to be the trick of instituting a new worship without setting off related taboos in the process.
the old worship was held together by exclusivity. is the new worship really held together by being open to all? are the only ones excluded from it hypotheticals and ghosts? i ask after its self-image; in practice it excludes plenty, but i am not sure it's that simple
the old worship wasn't as exclusive as it appeared at first glimpse: adoption did exist, even of adults; families branched. but there was the idea of exclusivity.
the new worship is the idea of universalism, but a practice of exclusivity, still keeping shibboleths.
the new worship is the idea of universalism, but a practice of exclusivity, still keeping shibboleths.
the old worship made concessions to the fact that sometimes you just didn't have a surviving son. we can imagine it making less concessions if medicine et al allowed.
the new worship seems more sleight-of-hand; it breaks promises that it makes but the old never did.
the new worship seems more sleight-of-hand; it breaks promises that it makes but the old never did.
the old worship's claim to legitimacy was that it was the way things had been done forever; the new's claim to legitimacy, from the tyrants to the modern day, is that it holds the old back, that it is a weapon against those who previously held power/status.
curiously the claim of fighting the past continues, even though the past referred to changes. it transmuted from a particular wrongdoing to a positional one. is that why liberalism lasted so much longer than any of the ancient tyrants, or is it just the hydra-head trick?
i think that's all i've got for now. tyranny is either a great evil against the social order or an amazing innovation, possibly both, and as the origin of democracy fairly tied in to liberal thought, though not often publicly in those terms.
