User talk:Theemperor/laws

Did you invent these? 20:15, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Yes- after studying three separate events-

Law One occoured after studying the Russian Revolution and various empires that lacked strong authority

Law Two occoured after studying the American Revolution

Law Three occoured after studying the rise of Emperor Han Gauzu of ancient China

User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 20:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)
 * "central authority" --> "pretense of central authority". My work here is done. User:Mei 04:11, 25 February 2009 (EST)


 * What do you mean, Mei? Please cite your sources, and remember that both dictionaries and encyclopedias are bastions of liberal deceit. Also, you lack a writing plan, so please present one to either me, or Ed Poor.  Set thrusters to Godspeed!!  User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 21:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Law the First: needs to be rephrased. I see what you're saying, but you're not saying it well. Can a "lack" of something be said to decline? Does that mean there is more or less central authority? "Arithmetically" just confuses it further, since power can't be measured arithmetically.

Law the Second: not true. Republicans & Democrats have been slugging it out for 150 years, & the victor is never a third party, & won't be for a long time. In some conflict situations, an opportunistic outside party may make some gains, but it's very unlikely for them to emerge more powerful than the main participants.

Law the Third: how do you define "the social order collapses"? Do you mean the decline of hierarchies, caste & class systems, or the complete breakdown of law & government?

13:44, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Your pitiful attempts to defraud my laws are predestined to fail. Just kidding.

A response-

1 is rhetorical- the less central authority, the greater chance of rebellion, and it's a dramatic diffrence- kust a tiny drop in government control can lead to massive rebellions.

2, unlike the other laws, applies only to ACTUAL WAR- noone dies in the R/D conflict. Fine, assassinations, but still. Once widespread death is introuduced, then the dynamic completely changes, a entirely new type person is attracted. And yes, this is seen in may places.

Alexander the Great. Persia v greece, macedonia won

American Revolution France v britan, america won

Russo-Japanese war Japan v russia, communists were strengthened( I know this one is a strech)

WWI&II US was never initially involved, but came out strengthend in both

US by proxy and USSR in Afghanistan, Taliban won

US and USSR, New World Order won

The list goes on and on and on...

3 Complete breakdown as brought about by war, ect. Exemplified by Europe during the late Dark Ages- the diMedici, for example. Much as andy would like to not believe, the middle ages were not a peacfult time of Christian scientific advancement.

This is a partial rebuttal. Post a counter rebuttal, if you like, and I'll try to refute that, too. Or, you could just be persuaded by my brilliant rhetoric. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 23:22, 28 February 2009 (EST)


 * They're right about Law 1 and phrasing "As the lack of central authority declines arithmatically, the chance of a successful revolution increases exponentially" As the "lack" declines?  Is that really what you meant, or did you mean "as CA declines"?  Also, you have a typo in arithmetically to fix.  02:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)