I think removing the warrior class was a mistake.

File: 32ee8ed02ee1c12ef2c4fdf9cdbca2b6.jpg (21KB, 324x268px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 324x268px

STUDY PHYSIOGNOMY

THE WARRIOR CLASS NEVER LEFT

>>2636835
>the way things got set up created an eternal fight between wealthy interests VS populists rabble rouses
That's exactly what they wanted

File: 1468412984950.jpg (45KB, 523x476px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 523x476px

>>2636835
>I propose an amendment to the US constitution, to create a knightly/samurai/equite/aristocrat type class that controls one of the two houses of congress, the senate.

>>2636861
>That's exactly what they wanted

It really is not. The founders expected aristocrats, what they got was 'politicians'.

>>2636920
No, it's exactly what they wanted. Thomas Jefforson was a veritable Tiberius Gracchus

File: 1460514403431.jpg (37KB, 562x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 562x600px

>not a government where voting is given only to those who serve.

>>2636951
look at the us military. do you really want those people to decide the future of the country?

>>2636835
We get it, you play videogames often.

>>2636843
netanyahu was a chad

>>2636963
Not him, but considering that 25% of the U.S population has too low IQ to even be inducted into the U.S Army, I'd rather have them voting than the general public.

>>2636963
>look at the us military. do you really want those people to decide the future of the country?

The wonderful thing about the military is that is has a strict hierarchy, it would be too easy to simply allow only officers and ncos to vote.

>because the way things got set up created an eternal fight between wealthy interests VS populists rabble rouses, and that was the biggest flaw with American style democracy.

The same occurred in most Greek city-states (especially Athens) and with the Roman Republic. Athens didn't even have land-owning or wealth requirements. Most of the 'oligarchies' of their time were just like most colonial States and enlightenment democracies which actually had assemblies and citizenry that voted, but only allowed full citizens who met wealth requirements to vote. In all of those States there was a class struggle to get more universal suffrage and wealth distribution by the populist fractions.

Warrior classes are no longer needed. The cost of providing a rifle and body-armor is just a small fraction of operating costs in modern militaries; meanwhile, back in the age of City-states, it was difficult for a State to provide arms and armour to all of it's eligible fighters unless it had very highly centralized and discipline units. The modern world is quite different. Most sufficient land-owners work in occupations that are far more skilled and specialized that they can't afford to quit them to go to war without losing out on sustaining owning their land. The necessity of States have the best military tech can supersede anything that an individual citizen, aside from a literally select few, can afford and use for his own defense. It just takes one side having air superiority to launch a JDAM to whipe out a company of men from an economical crucial backgrounds. If anything, the best way to have an effective military is to fill it up with ranks of the lower and younger classes who are able to leave their careers and are often in more better shape and mentality to fight, as a full-time career. And fill up the officers with guys who don't have families or land to tie them down and bother them and who make them retire early.

All citizens should be able to own property without fear of losing it to taxes. Every single citizen without exception.

But once property is a rent-seeking device, it must be taxed.


inb4 this whole thread: yes, but only if every citizen got it, giving it to just a limited class causes the problems you think it will solve

File: 1490977392206.jpg (42KB, 641x530px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 641x530px

>>2637028
F-f-for real?

>>2637351
Let's do some math.

>IQ mean is 100
>IQ standard deviation is 15 points
>minimum IQ for armed forces is 80

An IQ of 80 is 1.33 standard deviations below the norm, which would account for about 9% of the population on a standard normal distribution.

>>2637351

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States

>As in 2008, roughly 15% of the sample could function at the highest levels in all three categories. Roughly 50% were at either basic or below basic levels of proficiency in all three categories.

>This government study showed that 21% to 23% of adult Americans were not "able to locate information in text", could not "make low-level inferences using printed materials", and were unable to "integrate easily identifiable pieces of information." Further, this study showed that 41% to 44% of U.S. adults in the lowest level on the literacy scale (literacy rate of 35 or below) were living in poverty.

>Thus, if this bottom quantile of the study is equated with the functionally illiterate, and these are then removed from those classified as literate, then the resultant literacy rate for the United States would be at most 65-85% depending on where in the basic, minimal competence quantile one sets the cutoff.

>>2637374

Except the ASVAB doesn't test your IQ.