A Monarchist Party?

[r3volution 3.0]

A monarchy is better than a democracy in that when people realize they are being screwed, you just kill the king. In other words, the only way it is better, or even different, is the ease of which it can be abolished.

There's a difference in incentives, as I explained.

Suppose there are two farms, A and B.

A is owned and managed by Bob.

B is owned by no one, and managed by Steve, who draws a fixed salary.

Which farm is likely to be more profitable, and why?

 

[PierzStyx]

There's a difference in incentives, as I explained.

Suppose there are two farms, A and B.

A is owned and managed by Bob.

B is owned by no one, and managed by Steve, who draws a fixed salary.

Which farm is likely to be more profitable, and why?

You forgot Farm C.

C is a collection of farms really, but Fred claims the right to control all of them and demands that you swear to obey his every command for the privilege of working his fields. And if you complain too loudly he'll have his overseer, Carl, come out and kill you.


Democracy is better than monarchy. Indeed, the problem with democracy is that it more and more degrades into monarchy, with a centralized state that claims ownership of all land and the ability to kill whomsoever violates its edicts.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@PierzStyx

Would you answer my question re Farms A and B?

As owner, Bob's income equals the profits of the farm, and so he has an incentive to maximize its profits; whereas Steve the manager has no such incentive, since his income remains the same regardless of the profitability of the farm. Isn't that true?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Interesting video of Queen Elizabeth II discussing the welfare-state with Reagan in 1991



"Well, you see, all of the democracies are bankrupt now...[because of welfare spending]."

 

[PierzStyx]

@PierzStyx

Would you answer my question re Farms A and B?

As owner, Bob's income equals the profits of the farm, and so he has an incentive to maximize its profits; whereas Steve the manager has no such incentive, since his income remains the same regardless of the profitability of the farm. Isn't that true?

I did answer your question. But I'll be clearer.

Farm A is an anarchist.

Farm B is socialism as you noted the land is owned by no one.

Farm C is a monarchy.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I did answer your question. But I'll be clearer.

Farm A is an anarchist.

Farm B is socialism as you noted the land is owned by no one.

Farm C is a monarchy.

You're not answering the question Pierz and you know you're not.

Either my characterization of the incentives of owner-Bob as compared to those of manager-Steve is correct or it is not.

Which is it?

 

[pcosmar]

But they are, and inevitably so.



If a government has no money to spend, it doesn't exist.

Wrong . If a government has no money to spend it can't spend.

It can still represent the people..and have NO Authority. If the people retain that authority themselves.

 

[pcosmar]

Either my characterization of the incentives of owner-Bob as compared to those of manager-Steve is correct or it is not.

Which is it?

Good Question

It sounds like you are arguing the FOR ownership of Human beings.

and the Farming of them.

So,, what is your point ?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Good Question

It sounds like you are arguing the FOR ownership of Human beings.

and the Farming of them.

So,, what is your point ?

My point is that a monarch has the incentives of an owner, while elected officials have the incentives of salaried managers.

That is, a monarch has an incentive to maximize state profits, while elected officials do not.

Now, what is state profit? The state's revenues minus its costs.

What are state revenues? Taxes.

How do you maximize tax revenues? In the short term, you can raise tax rates. In the long run, you need to grow the tax base.

How do you grow the tax base? Liberal economic policy.

Hence, a monarch's self-interest motivates him to implement liberal policy; elected officials have no such motivation.

 

[Weston White]

Democracy is not socialism. It is rule by mood according to the mob.

Socialism, however, derives from Democracy.

 

[osan]

Socialism, however, derives from Democracy.

I don't readily see how. Could you present the chain of devolution?

 

[Weston White]

I don't readily see how. Could you present the chain of devolution?

Heh, empirical history.

 

[PierzStyx]

You're not answering the question Pierz and you know you're not.

Either my characterization of the incentives of owner-Bob as compared to those of manager-Steve is correct or it is not.

Which is it?

Your assumptions.

Indeed, it seems clearer and clearer that there is no difference between Socialism and Monarchy.

Farms B and C are really the same farm- centrally managed socialized land controlled by an authoritarian power who enacts its will "for the good of the people" who are held in check by overwhelming threats of violence- knights, KGB agents, it is all the same- and mass propaganda. In the mean time those in power drain the resources of said land for the good of themselves and the politically connected elite, leaving just enough that the serfs can continue to propagate and provide a continual productive class for the leeches in power to feed from.

 

[PierzStyx]

Heh, empirical history.

There is no such thing as empirical history.

But if you believe there is then it shouldn't be hard for you to actually present said evidence.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Heh, empirical history.

Indeed

As for the theory, it's just the inverse of the argument for monarchy.

The fact that liberal economic policy would grow the tax base and therefore increase state profits is of no interest to the elected politician, because he does not share in state profits; he's a mere salaried manager, whose salary is the same whether there's 10% economic growth thanks to laissez faire or -10% growth thanks to a massive welfare state. His primary motive is instead (re)election, which which means placating various lobbies. What do those lobbies want? They want as many benefits for themselves as possible, regardless of the cost to society at large.

 

[pcosmar]

My point is that a monarch has the incentives of an owner, while elected officials have the incentives of salaried managers.

That is, a monarch has an incentive to maximize state profits, while elected officials do not.

Now, what is state profit? The state's revenues minus its costs.

What are state revenues? Taxes.

How do you maximize tax revenues? In the short term, you can raise tax rates. In the long run, you need to grow the tax base.

How do you grow the tax base? Liberal economic policy.

Hence, a monarch's self-interest motivates him to implement liberal policy; elected officials have no such motivation.

I'm going to leave that quoted.

Just so everyone can see how truly twisted this line of thinking is.

It is what will put Lucifer on the throne.

 

[PierzStyx]

I'm going to leave that quoted.

Just so everyone can see how truly twisted this line of thinking is.

It is what will put Lucifer on the throne.

Indeed. There is a reason Hayek called his work about the destructive results of socialism, "The Road to Serfdom." Socialism is Monarchy and Monarchy is Socialism.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@PierzStyx You're not going to answer my question?

I'm going to leave that quoted.

Just so everyone can see how truly twisted this line of thinking is.

It is what will put Lucifer on the throne.

For your convenience, I've simplified the argument and broken it down into its component parts.

Tell me exactly which of the parts is wrong and why.

1. A monarch has an incentive to maximize tax revenue, because that is synonymous with his own income.

2. Maximizing tax revenue in the long run requires growing the tax base (contra just raising tax rates).

3. Liberal economic policy is the best way to grow the tax base

 

[pcosmar]

For your convenience, I've simplified the argument and broken it down into its component parts.

Tell me exactly which of the parts is wrong and why.

Who decides who the selfish bastard is?

By what authority does he Steal taxes?

and lastly,, He increases his theft by brute force as has been done since Nimrod.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Tell me exactly which of the parts is wrong and why.

1. A monarch has an incentive to maximize tax revenue, because that is synonymous with his own income.

2. Maximizing tax revenue in the long run requires growing the tax base (contra just raising tax rates).

3. Liberal economic policy is the best way to grow the tax base

Who decides who the selfish bastard is?

By what authority does he Steal taxes?

and lastly,, He increases his theft by brute force as has been done since Nimrod.

Once again, please tell me what specifically is wrong with the three-part argument I posted.

I'm not going to respond to your questions until do you me the courtesy of addressing what I said.