I have approximate knowledge on every historical topic.
>>849717
That's nice
>>849717
History doesn't real, faggot.
>an absolute monarch is benevolent and grants his people many rights and privileges
vs
>in a democracy 60% of people decide the remaining 40% should be beheaded
Which is better?
But did you know that the Catholic Church killed 66 inquistillion people in Europe and 100 Nativillion in America?
>>849743
I don't know but the second one sounds like an Aristocracy
>>849743
This is why i'm an unironic utilitarianist. Models which maximize wellbeing are intuitively better for society, with some important caveats to cover extreme cases. By evaluating systems of government this way, you are not beholden to labels but by results.
>>849789
I think many people are dumb enough to be concerned with WHO rules rather than HOW he rules. They thing that king = tyrant, democracy = freedom, ignoring that it's very possible for a king to be very tolerant of his subjects and it's also very possible for a democratically elected ruler to be a tyrant.
>>849717
Op's pic is everything thats wrong with people who rule themselves ideological. Its about as emotional and juvenile as it gets.
All I care about is results. Fuck you feeble pansies.
>>849884
>All I care about is results.
>If I have to kill everyone but me to achieve utopia, then the ends justify the means!
>>849850
A lot of that stems from perception of trustworthyness.
People are suspicious of "Kings" due to historical abuses of power, maybe in the past the people welcomed "Nobility" or "Divine Right". Similarly now we are very familiar with brutal military juntas and installed puppet governments.
>>849717
Who is to blame for the existence of Mexicans?
>>849913
You're damn straight.
It's not like they're gonna be upset about it.
>>849930
The Spanish. They wanted to become an empire, took over Central America, raped the natives, and Mexicans were born.
>>849941
Were the Aztecs of old as short, fat, and flatulent as modern Mexicans? Is that why so many of their women hopped on conquistador dick?
>>849913
Utopia is a loaded word, and I would argue no meaningful utopia could be brought from killing literally everyone.
However if we rephrased the purpose to be "the most peaceful and least of amount of human suffering going forward plus optimal technological progress" and the answer was unequivocally and with certainty "nuke 60% of the word and create a world empire" I would find that to be the most logical and reasonable thing to do.
Would I do it myself? Probably not because I don't want to task myself with that level of responsibility but I wouldn't begrudge someone who did.
>>849949
Would you agree if you knew you'd be one of the nuked ones?
>>849945
They were actually much shorter and uglier than modern Mexicans. Except for the dinaricized plain Indians, native Americans tend to be ugly as fuck, just a little step above the Australian abos.
Tell me about the Proto-Indo-Europeans
>>849958
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
>>849958
I would be on the other side of the chess-board fighting for my personal utopia i.e. my own survival because I happen to be selfish.
I would completely understand the perspective of my enemies, and not try to take some moral cuckroad just because it suits me personally.
If I were a more altruistic person I may even accept death for the sake of history.
>>849945
I assume that most of the dominant traits came from natives since modern Mexicans are closer to the natives of Central America than they are Spaniards.
>>850020
>described
>depicted
No need for that, it's not like native Americans completely vanished. They're still ugly.
>>849743
That's what a constitution is for, anon.
