How would you fix South Africa?

[r3volution 3.0]

Because the King and his cronies would seek the maximum amount they could extract for use in their power struggles.

You mean, like occurs in every state, of any form? As I said earlier, politics can't be abolished, only minimized. The more dependent the ruler is on others, the more boodle he must heap on them to maintain their support. And so the ideal arrangement is absolute monarchy, at least theoretically dependent on no one (and in reality less dependent on others than any other sort of ruler).

A Council of electors who each hold a proportional number of votes to the amount of support they received in the most recent election, who chose or replace the Steward at their will. The Steward Holds all legislative and executive powers except for a few (such as the power to declare war or amend the Constitution) that are reserved to the council or the people or both, and restricted by a Bill of rights, and he may hold office indefinitely with no defined term or limit.

Why would the electors, the voters/lobbies behind the electors, or the steward be more inclined to laissez faire than an absolute monarch?

Why wouldn't the electors offer freeshit to the voters to win their support, in the same way our elected politicians do now?

GDP/capita does not take into account that the rulers have taken almost all of the assets and their profits for themselves and their cronies.

Any evidence to support that? Income distribution data, perhaps?

 

[Swordsmyth]

You mean, like occurs in every state, of any form? As I said earlier, politics can't be abolished, only minimized. The more dependent the ruler is on others, the more boodle he must heap on them to maintain their support. And so the ideal arrangement is absolute monarchy, at least theoretically dependent on no one (and in reality less dependent on others than any other sort of ruler).

Less cronies means less even distribution of the boodle, not less theft, the only way to minimize theft is to make the potential thieves vulnerable to the potential targets.

Why would the electors, the voters/lobbies behind the electors, or the steward be more inclined to laissez faire than an absolute monarch?

Because they are not secure in their positions in spite of anything they may do, they are responsible to their potential targets.

Why wouldn't the electors offer free$#@! to the voters to win their support, in the same way our elected politicians do now?

They might, and so might a king just look at Saudi Arabia.

Any evidence to support that? Income distribution data, perhaps?

1. Brunei, $80,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
2. Bahrain, $52,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
3. Oman, $46,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
4. Saudi Arabia, $55,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
5. The United Arab Emirates (a federation of monarchs, actually, rather than a single monarch), $68,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
6. Vatican City (unique and not representative of other monarchies, but nonetheless), can't find data, but must be very high Irrelevant Not a traditional Nation

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Less cronies means less even distribution of the boodle, not less theft

It's not their number that matters but how much influence they have. Politicians/rulers don't just throw money at people for fun. They throw money at people whose support they need, in proportion to how much they need it. A politician who faces election every 2 years needs other people's support vastly more than a monarch, who really only needs to pay the army well to remain in power (which costs a pittance relative the enormous sums spent on welfare in democracies). Why do you the welfare state arose simultaneous with democracy?

Because they are not secure in their positions in spite of anything they may do, they are responsible to their potential targets.

You're saying that the electors are responsible to the voters?

Indeed they are, but how does that differ from the status quo?

Why wouldn't your electors dole out freeshit to their constituents just as our politicians do to theirs?

How does your proposal differ from proportional representation democracy, as already exists in most democratic states outside the US?

1. Brunei, $80,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
2. Bahrain, $52,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
3. Oman, $46,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
4. Saudi Arabia, $55,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
5. The United Arab Emirates (a federation of monarchs, actually, rather than a single monarch), $68,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
6. Vatican City (unique and not representative of other monarchies, but nonetheless), can't find data, but must be very high Irrelevant Not a traditional Nation

Who works the oil fields? How much are they paid? Why are there 740,000 automobiles in Bahrain? You think that's the King's personal fleet?

Your assumptions are very far from the truth.

P.S. By way of answering some of my own semi-rhetorical questions, I've found some data.

http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=17&loctype=1
www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loctype=1

Average monthly salaries by profession in Bahrain (and in US):

House Cleaner, $1126 ($2058)
Call Center Employee, $1747 ($3427)
Teacher, $3162 ($4601)

So, by this metric, lower/middle class Bahrainis are less well off than their American counterparts, though by no means poor. However, Bahrain has virtually no taxes, a 6% flat income tax and some minimal excise taxes. On top of that, the salaries above are not price level adjusted. Accounting for that (by using nominal/PPP GDP as a reference), those figures should be approximately doubled, putting them well above their US equivalents. In any event, this vision of a slave withering under the whip of Al-Pharaoh is fiction.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It's not their number that matters but how much influence they have. Politicians/rulers don't just throw money at people for fun. They throw money at people whose support they need, in proportion to how much they need it. A politician who faces election every 2 years needs other people's support vastly more than a monarch, who really only needs to pay the army well to remain in power (which costs a pittance relative the enormous sums spent on welfare in democracies). Why do you the welfare state arose simultaneous with democracy?

They need the constant support of countless factions in the military, the police, the intelligence community, the media, the banks, industry etc. etc. etc.
And they still have to appease the people to stave off a revolt, how they choose to balance all those factors will depend on thousands of conditions and their own personality.

You're saying that the electors are responsible to the voters?

Indeed they are, but how does that differ from the status quo?

How does your proposal differ from proportional representation democracy, as already exists in most democratic states outside the US?

In our system or any Parliamentary system in existence they still give only one vote to each member, therefore the people have to find many representatives for any philosophy and most of those they find sell out to special interests and join in the robbery.
In my system one man like Dr. Paul Sr. or Rand could be given as many votes as people wanted, if they sold out then they could be replaced in whole or in part by someone else but if they did not there would be no need to find anyone else unless you wanted someone who more closely matched your philosophy.
And they are loaded down with separation of powers and checks and balances that allow them to point their fingers at others and always claim everything is some other person's fault.

Why wouldn't your electors dole out free$#@! to their constituents just as our politicians do to theirs?

They might, and so might a King, that is what the Saudis do.

Who works the oil fields? How much are they paid? Why are there 740,000 automobiles in Bahrain? You think that's the King's personal fleet?

Your assumptions are very far from the truth.
P.S. By way of answering some of my own semi-rhetorical questions, I've found some data.

http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary...c=17&loctype=1
www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loctype=1

Average monthly salaries by profession in Bahrain (and in US):

House Cleaner, $1126 ($2058)
Call Center Employee, $1747 ($3427)
Teacher, $3162 ($4601)

So, by this metric, lower/middle class Bahrainis are less well off than their American counterparts, though by no means poor. However, Bahrain has virtually no taxes, a 6% flat income tax and some minimal excise taxes. On top of that, the salaries above are not price level adjusted. Accounting for that (by using nominal/PPP GDP as a reference), those figures should be approximately doubled, putting them well above their US equivalents. In any event, this vision of a slave withering under the whip of Al-Pharaoh is fiction.

Drop that low a population onto that much wealth and any system would look good, but the people get a pittance compared to the rulers who have seized for their own the massive wealth of the natural resources.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

They need the constant support of countless factions in the military, the police, the intelligence community, the media, the banks, industry etc. etc. etc.

Supposing that's true (I think you overestimate the political importance of the media, banks, and industry in a non-democratic society - police and intelligence I had subsumed under the category "army"), isn't it true for all states? Why would this be a special problem for monarchy? If it's not a special problem for monarchy, then my point stands; a monarch is less prone to outside pressure than democratic politicians (both have the influences you listed, but the monarch doesn't face the giant, unwashed elephant in the room - the voter).

And they still have to appease the people to stave off a revolt

Hence the army. Popular revolts were never much of a threat, much less so now given the imbalance between civilian and military weapons.

In our system or any Parliamentary system in existence they still give only one vote to each member, therefore the people have to find many representatives for any philosophy and most of those they find sell out to special interests and join in the robbery. In my system one man like Dr. Paul Sr. or Rand could be given as many votes as people wanted, if they sold out then they could be replaced in whole or in part by someone else but if they did not there would be no need to find anyone else unless you wanted someone who more closely matched your philosophy.

It sounds like you think the problem in our system is a shortage of Paul-like candidates, but the real problem is a shortage of pro-Paul voters. Conserving on Pauls by letting one of them have multiple votes in Congress, once he received sufficient votes in his election, won't solve the problem. People don't vote for Pauls for the reason that people don't want their policies (and/or the media they consume tells them they don't want Pauls, because the lobbies the media represents doesn't want them), because those policies involve cutting off the freeshit.

Drop that low a population onto that much wealth and any system would look good, but the people get a pittance compared to the rulers who have seized for their own the massive wealth of the natural resources.

Did you look at the figures? The pittance is more than comparable workers earn in the US. On another note, what's you reaction to taxes being so low? Why doesn't the king of Bahrain raise them to 100% and steal everything (or even to the extortionate levels we pay here in the land of democracy and freedom)?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Supposing that's true (I think you overestimate the political importance of the media, banks, and industry in a non-democratic society - police and intelligence I had subsumed under the category "army"), isn't it true for all states? Why would this be a special problem for monarchy? If it's not a special problem for monarchy, then my point stands; a monarch is less prone to outside pressure than democratic politicians (both have the influences you listed, but the monarch doesn't face the giant, unwashed elephant in the room - the voter).

Since the monarch does not have to worry about the voters, then he steals the same amount and divides it among the other factions.
The voters are the only faction that might see benefit from equal treatment under the law and minarchy.

Popular revolts were never much of a threat, much less so now given the imbalance between civilian and military weapons.

All it takes is a foreign sponsor to arm and aid them, or a domestic faction that wants to improve it's share of the take.

It sounds like you think the problem in our system is a shortage of Paul-like candidates, but the real problem is a shortage of pro-Paul voters. Conserving on Pauls by letting one of them have multiple votes in Congress, once he received sufficient votes in his election, won't solve the problem. People don't vote for Pauls for the reason that people don't want their policies (and/or the media they consume tells them they don't want Pauls, because the lobbies the media represents doesn't want them), because those policies involve cutting off the free$#@!.

The voters are the only faction that might see benefit from equal treatment under the law and minarchy.
There is no system that can guarantee liberty, but my type of Republic is the system that would give it the best chance.
Many voters have voted for smaller government for generations, but they have constantly been sold out by most of the politicians who profess to embody their values or been manipulated with the "lesser of two evils" game because they couldn't just give more power to the good politicians of the day.

Did you look at the figures? The pittance is more than comparable workers earn in the US. On another note, what's you reaction to taxes being so low? Why doesn't the king of Bahrain raise them to 100% and steal everything (or even to the extortionate levels we pay here in the land of democracy and freedom)?

Why tax what you deigned to give them in the first place? they have determined what they think will keep them from facing a popular revolt ripe for their enemies and rivals to use to overthrow them and given it out, they only have some taxes so the people will feel their collars and not their oats.
And if they were not drowning in oil wealth the pittance they hand out would be truly pitiful.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Since the monarch does not have to worry about the voters, then he steals the same amount and divides it among the other factions.

No, because those other factions don't have the kind of influence over the king that voters have over elected politicians.

The voters are the only faction that might see benefit from equal treatment under the law and minarchy.

It's in every person's material self-interest to extract as much boodle as possible for the treasury (tragedy of the commons).

There's nothing magical about the common voter who makes him immune from human nature and economic law.

All it takes is a foreign sponsor to arm and aid them, or a domestic faction that wants to improve it's share of the take.

In any event, revolts happen in democratic states as well.

There is no system that can guarantee liberty, but my type of Republic is the system that would give it the best chance.
Many voters have voted for smaller government for generations, but they have constantly been sold out by most of the politicians who profess to embody their values or been manipulated with the "lesser of two evils" game because they couldn't just give more power to the good politicians of the day.

Say I'm a voter who wants to vote for liberty.

Scenario #1: The status quo, if I vote for Paul, and he wins, he gets one vote
Scenario #2: Your system, if a vote for Paul, and enough other people vote for him, he may get more than 1 vote

Why am I more likely to vote for Paul in #2 than in #1? Seems to me that I'd vote for him in both scenarios, and the people who wouldn't vote for him in #1 also wouldn't vote for him in #2. Alternately, say you have a Paul and a Trump running, same two scenarios. If I, someone wanting to vote for liberty, get conned into voting Trump in scenario #1, why wouldn't I likewise be conned in scenario #2?

Why tax what you deigned to give them in the first place?

I don't know what that means.

 

[Swordsmyth]

No, because those other factions don't have the kind of influence over the king that voters have over elected politicians.

Yes they do, they can replace or even kill him.

It's in every person's material self-interest to extract as much boodle as possible for the treasury (tragedy of the commons).

There's nothing magical about the common voter who makes him immune from human nature and economic law.

The strong have little impetus to see any reason they should be restrained, the weak are constantly aware of the desirability of restraining the strong, and they might therefore extend the principle to restraining themselves.

In any event, revolts happen in democratic states as well.

The point is that a King must buy off the masses as well and is therefore just as likely to take from some to give to others.

Say I'm a voter who wants to vote for liberty.

Scenario #1: The status quo, if I vote for Paul, and he wins, he gets one vote
Scenario #2: Your system, if a vote for Paul, and enough other people vote for him, he may get more than 1 vote

Why am I more likely to vote for Paul in #2 than in #1? Seems to me that I'd vote for him in both scenarios, and the people who wouldn't vote for him in #1 also wouldn't vote for him in #2. Alternately, say you have a Paul and a Trump running, same two scenarios. If I, someone wanting to vote for liberty, get conned into voting Trump in scenario #1, why wouldn't I likewise be conned in scenario #2?

When Dr. Paul was a member of the House of Reps. only those in his district were allowed to vote for him, when he ran for president it was a winner take all contest in the Republican primary only the winner came away with any power, therefore many voters were tricked into voting for someone who "could win".
In my system Dr. Paul would have received votes in the council of electors just from those of us who voted for him, not to mention the Democrat and Independent voters who would have voted for him, many more would have voted for him because they would know that a vote for him was not a "wasted vote".

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Why tax what you deigned to give them in the first place?

I don't know what that means.

Since the Royals own the oil and the oil companies and probably most or all of the other companies in those states, then anything the people get is what the Royals deigned to give them.
If you and I lived in a kingdom where I was king, and I gave you a stipend of $1,000 a month, why would I tax you $200 a month instead of only giving you $800 a month?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes they do, they can replace or even kill him.

That it's possible for them to stage a coup from time to time doesn't mean it creates the same pressure as elections.

A democracy has regularly scheduled coups, every 2 years.

The strong have little impetus to see any reason they should be restrained, the weak are constantly aware of the desirability of restraining the strong, and they might therefore extend the principle to restraining themselves.

And the seas might turn to lemonade.

The point is that a King must buy off the masses as well and is therefore just as likely to take from some to give to others.

That's simply not true. It doesn't make sense at a theoretical level (for reasons explained) and it's contradicted by history. To wit: The origins of the modern welfare state are in Imperial Germany in the 1880s. Why is it that the Hohenzollern monarchy, after the better part of a millennium of rule, suddenly implemented the world's first unemployment insurance scheme a few years after a popularly elected legislature was forced on them? Absolute monarchies did not have to buy off the masses in this way. Show me Loius XVIs Dept. of Public Welfare.

When Dr. Paul was a member of the House of Reps. only those in his district were allowed to vote for him, when he ran for president it was a winner take all contest in the Republican primary only the winner came away with any power, therefore many voters were tricked into voting for someone who "could win". In my system Dr. Paul would have received votes in the council of electors just from those of us who voted for him, not to mention the Democrat and Independent voters who would have voted for him, many more would have voted for him because they would know that a vote for him was not a "wasted vote".

Apart from the "he can't win" mentality not being the major problem (freeshit-lust being the major problem), your system only partly overcomes that mentality, no? The candidates for electors must have to get some minimum number of votes to become electors at all. So, a voter doubting whether Paul can reach that threshold is still discouraged. I think the major effect of your system would be to benefit radicals at the expense of moderates: not only libertarian radicals like Paul, but also Bernies, Steins, etc. It would look like the proportional representation system's in other parts of the world, with more numerous, differentiated, radicalized parties emerging from elections; but then, come time to govern, they have to form coalitions, so you end up with the moderate blobs we have in the US.

Since the Royals own the oil and the oil companies and probably most or all of the other companies in those states, then anything the people get is what the Royals deigned to give them. If you and I lived in a kingdom where I was king, and I gave you a stipend of $1,000 a month, why would I tax you $200 a month instead of only giving you $800 a month?

Even if Bahrain were essentially a "company town," so what?

 

[Krugminator2]

It's a hellavu jump to assume a dictator is going to be so far-sighted that he's going to set up a capitalistic country to maximize returns. What's the
current "crappy dictator"/"free market monarch" ratio? 100 to 1 maybe? What are the best current monarchs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew Not currently holding office but recent.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew Not currently holding office but recent.

Yup

...formally an elected official, but in effect something like a monarch.

RIP

 

[Swordsmyth]

That it's possible for them to stage a coup from time to time doesn't mean it creates the same pressure as elections.

A democracy has regularly scheduled coups, every 2 years.

The factions can stage a coup at any time, the reason it is so uncommon is that Kings tend to the interests of their cronies very well at the expense of everyone else.

And the seas might turn to lemonade.

That is Chemically impossible, what is also impossible is that the strong will ever see any reason to restrain themselves when their prey have no power.

That's simply not true. It doesn't make sense at a theoretical level (for reasons explained) and it's contradicted by history. To wit: The origins of the modern welfare state are in Imperial Germany in the 1880s. Why is it that the Hohenzollern monarchy, after the better part of a millennium of rule, suddenly implemented the world's first unemployment insurance scheme a few years after a popularly elected legislature was forced on them? Absolute monarchies did not have to buy off the masses in this way. Show me Loius XVIs Dept. of Public Welfare.

You have heard of the Roman Emperors' "Bread and Circuses" haven't you, and ancient history has many other examples.

Apart from the "he can't win" mentality not being the major problem (free$#@!-lust being the major problem), your system only partly overcomes that mentality, no? The candidates for electors must have to get some minimum number of votes to become electors at all. So, a voter doubting whether Paul can reach that threshold is still discouraged.

So you set that threshold at .5% or less, you still only end up with a theoretical maximum of 200 Electors and it is very unlikely that you would ever reach that, nobody could think that you couldn't get .5% and therefore nobody will fall for the wasted vote argument.

I think the major effect of your system would be to benefit radicals at the expense of moderates: not only libertarian radicals like Paul, but also Bernies, Steins, etc. It would look like the proportional representation system's in other parts of the world, with more numerous, differentiated, radicalized parties emerging from elections; but then, come time to govern, they have to form coalitions, so you end up with the moderate blobs we have in the US.

You can't avoid compromises, a King has to compromise with the crony factions that he balances to support his reign, but my system is better than the European one and than the Monarchy, it is better than the European parliament because you have a few politicians who are not dependent on a party for their seats and who can lose some or all of their power if they betray their supporters because there are no barriers to their supporters choosing someone else, and it is better than Monarchy because the interests of the powerful are balanced with those of the weak.

Even if Bahrain were essentially a "company town," so what?

The Rulers have already stolen everything and they do not allow competition, there is no laissez faire Utopia that your theory promises.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yup

...formally an elected official, but in effect something like a monarch.

RIP

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew Not currently holding office but recent.

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

 

[Krugminator2]

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him in prison and had no freedom of the press.

I basically agree with your first post for the US. I am for a republic where voting is restricted to only those who pay income tax and don't get a government check.

South Africa is a different case. As a practical matter, there is no chance the blacks in that country would give up there right to vote. Mandela is lionized. They love their democracy. The majority of people in the country have no appreciation for capitalism. They need someone to force it on them and then see the benefits and can ultimately transition to democracy. Otherwise people are going to continue to live short brutal lives there. The right dictator might be brutal but the cost will be worth it even for people living there now.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him prison and had no freedom of the press.

I basically agree with your first post for the US. I am for a republic where voting is restricted to only those who pay income tax and don't get a government check.

South Africa is a different case. As a practical matter, there is no chance the blacks in that country would give up there right to vote. Mandela is lionized. They love there democracy. The majority of people in the country have no appreciation for capitalism. They need someone to force it on them and then see the benefits and can ultimately transition to democracy. Otherwise people are going to continue to live short brutal lives there. The right dictator might be brutal but the cost will be worth it even for people living there now.

Yes despite what G. Lucas would tell you, sometimes it takes a dark jedi to "bring order" to madness.
I am sure you will agree as well that it must come from inside their own culture however, perhaps from one of them who has learned from the west but it still must come from inside, The Boers should have given them their own Nation for real, fighting a war to throw them out if necessary, the only option now is to flee and leave them to kill eachother until they exhaust their blood lust and are ready for a new order-bringer.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him in prison and had no freedom of the press.

Well in that case his legacy would not last if his successors did not liberalize the system, sooner or later after the death of the "Indispensable Man" corruption would creep in since there would be no responsibility to balance the power.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him in prison and had no freedom of the press.

...

The factions can stage a coup at any time, the reason it is so uncommon is that Kings tend to the interests of their cronies very well at the expense of everyone else.

Anything *can* happen at any time, the question at hand is about probability. You seriously believe that the average king faced the same risk of losing power as the average member of the House up for reelection every two years? I posted a thread a while back in the history sub-forum on the frequency of coups in historical monarchies. I assure you it was much less than the frequency of elected officials losing their seats in elections. And no, that's not because they throw more money at their cronies than elected politicians do to theirs, exactly the opposite is true.

what is also impossible is that the strong will ever see any reason to restrain themselves when their prey have no power.

Why don't farmers eat their seedcorn?

Why don't ranchers eat their calves?

You have heard of the Roman Emperors' "Bread and Circuses" haven't you, and ancient history has many other examples.

The Roman Empire was a most of the time a dictatorship (very unstable - see the aforementioned history thread), which explains many of its problems. Even so, bread and circuses were peanuts compared to the democratic welfare state.

You can't avoid compromises, a King has to compromise with the crony factions that he balances to support his reign, but my system is better than the European one and than the Monarchy, it is better than the European parliament because you have a few politicians who are not dependent on a party for their seats and who can lose some or all of their power if they betray their supporters because there are no barriers to their supporters choosing someone else, and it is better than Monarchy because the interests of the powerful are balanced with those of the weak.

I don't see a meaningful difference between your system and the status quo, esp. outside the US in parliamentary systems.

The Rulers have already stolen everything

They obviously haven't, since (as we established a few posts back) the people still have things, lots of things, as much or more than people here.

and they do not allow competition

If you're claiming that the state owns all enterprise, that's false.

there is no laissez faire Utopia that your theory promises.

The promise is that monarchies tend to have better incentives for laissez faire, not that every/any monarchy would ever be a utopia. The average monarchy today is quite rich and quite free by global standards, certainly more so than the average democracy. The contrast between historical monarchies and modern democracies is much starker still.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The promise is that monarchies tend to have better incentives for laissez faire, not that every/any monarchy would ever be a utopia. The average monarchy today is quite rich and quite free by global standards, certainly more so than the average democracy. The contrast between historical monarchies and modern democracies is much starker still.

Your entire defense rests on a few low population Oil states, they are the only places where the Royals could satisfy their kleptomania and still leave enough crumbs to keep the people from overthrowing them, they are also extremely repressive and not shining beacons of freedom.

The big secret is that in the west the Noble factions created their perverse versions of democracy in order to better rob and pillage, since they secretly set up the "Republics" they made sure they would be dysfunctional. Therefore you can thank your precious Royalty for "Democracy" they did it to you and they would do it again unless they thought of a better way to plunder the people.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Your entire defense rests on a few low population Oil states

It's not my fault that democratic revolutionaries such as yourself ruined my sample size, is it?

But anyway, that they rely largely on oil (by no means entirely, see Dubai as a prime example of diversification) doesn't make them useless as examples. Plentiful natural resources do not guarantee prosperity; it's quite possible to mismanage them (Venezuela comes to mind). Moreover, they have no natural resources but oil, unlike, say, the US or W. Europe, which have all kinds of other valuable minerals and some of the richest agricultural lands in the world - but that doesn't adequately explain their wealth, any more than the oil of Bahrain et al explains theirs.

they are the only places where the Royals could satisfy their kleptomania and still leave enough crumbs to keep the people from overthrowing them

As stated a couple times (you seem to be ignoring the data), those crumbs are larger than the incomes of most citizens of democracies. And, to be clear, for the purposes of your argument it makes no difference if the wealth comes from oil or not, the people shouldn't have it you say; yet they do.

they are also extremely repressive and not shining beacons of freedom.

They rank higher on the economic freedom index than the average democracy. As for political freedoms, obviously they rank lower if voting is included among those, but voting is not a fundamental right. The only fundamental right is property. Political rights are valuable only insofar as they serve the defend property rights, which certainly voting doesn't.

The big secret is that in the west the Noble factions created their perverse versions of democracy in order to better rob and pillage, since they secretly set up the "Republics" they made sure they would be dysfunctional. Therefore you can thank your precious Royalty for "Democracy" they did it to you and they would do it again unless they thought of a better way to plunder the people.

LOL