How would you fix South Africa?

[Swordsmyth]

@Swordsmyth

I think we're going in circles, and I don't have much to add to what I've already said.

I'll just say that your view of the voters, as expressed in the quotes below, is the crux of the problem with your position.

It contradicts both the economic/public choice analysis and the historical facts, as I've attempted to explain.



This idea that the people won't vote against their own interests is based on treating "the people" as a single entity with coherent interests, when actually "the people" are a variety of groups of varying interests, each working (and voting) against the other, like any other class (business, politicians, whatever). The idea was a fallacy when it became popular in the Enlightenment and it's a fallacy now (as really ought to be obvious based on how democratic politics has unfolded over the last two centuries).

My last argument is that since everyone is selfish then the only way to minimize that is to cancel out everyone's selfishness against eachother, therefore everyone must have some power, without some amount of democracy, the monarch and the nobles' selfishness remains unchecked.

P.S. If you wish you may respond, but I am done at least for now.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

My last argument is that since everyone is selfish then the only way to minimize that is to cancel out everyone's selfishness against each other, therefore everyone must have some power, without some amount of democracy, the monarch and the nobles' selfishness remains unchecked.

That's the theory of checks and balances, and it sounds plausible enough. The problem is that it doesn't actually work. Power is not restrained by being divided into smaller shares. The fact that everyone gets to vote doesn't prevent 51% from enslaving 49%. How could it? How could any system based on majority rule possibly accomplish this? Though everyone has an equal vote, not everyone has equal power, because people form coalitions - with the majority coalition oppressing the minority coalition. The fact that I have one vote has zero (0) effect on anything. Having one vote is not enough to protect oneself from oppression, while having the majority of votes is enough to oppress others. There is no escaping this problem.

 

[Swordsmyth]

There is no escaping this problem.

Even with a King

Sorry I couldn't resist a small reply.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Even with a King

Sorry I couldn't resist a small reply.

The problem in question is the impossibility of restraining power by dividing it.

That's not applicable to monarchy, since with monarchy we're not trying to restrain power by dividing it.

Rather, we're trying to give power better incentives by concentrating it.

 

[RestorationOfLiberty]

South Africa's apartheid was bad but the current system is much worse. I think the incredible downfall of South Africa is a perfect lab experiment of democracy on steroids. Forget about the race angle, it's the unproductive voting to steal from the productive that's the problem. They turned their country into a socialist basket case in 25 years. I think the solution is to change the pool of voters. You have no "right" to vote to steal from someone else. If you are a parasite to the system you should not be allowed to vote. I'm not sure the best way to implement this, maybe only net taxpayers? Maybe a poll tax? Maybe only those who receive NO government benefits? But I'm sure the current system of 1 man 1 vote is seriously flawed.

Easy, Whites get their own area of the nation. Blacks get a smaller part, massive wall between them.

Two alien groups can not co-exist in the same area, nor share them same government, so separate or exterminate, those are the only two choices. Not my opinon, just a fact.

 

[RestorationOfLiberty]

**WRONG**

Blacks in the apartheid state had more wealth then today - cuz they had more food and infrastructure that actually fkin worked. That's what happens when you go from a segregated state to one where the majority who don't know what the hell they are doing takes the land from the productive and explicitly says they must die for the color of their skin.

Segregation (while not a good thing) is NOT the same as GENOCIDE.

**EDIT** my response was to your whole statement not just what showed up in the quote. Modern black/communist controlled SA is NOT the same as the apartheid state (as incredibly flawed as it was).

Why is it not a good thing when the other outcomes are resentment, poverty, crime, war, genocide, etc?

 

[RestorationOfLiberty]

The history you trust was written by the winners.

And the history YOU trust is written by liars.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Why is it not a good thing when the other outcomes are resentment, poverty, crime, war, genocide, etc?

If they were going to be separate they should have been independent, there was no reason to either rule or subsidize them.

 

[Ender]

And the history YOU trust is written by liars.

Mirror?

 

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Mirror?

Thats not an argument.

 

[merkelstan]

you don;t know what happened to south africa

 

[Ender]

Thats not an argument.

Ahhh...so you are looking in the mirror.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

[MENTION=64691]AZJoe[/MENTION] sent me a little rep present today ("insanity") in relation to this post:

The problem in question is the impossibility of restraining power by dividing it.

That's not applicable to monarchy, since with monarchy we're not trying to restrain power by dividing it.

Rather, we're trying to give power better incentives by concentrating it.

So Joe, would you kindly explain to me why private property ownership is "insanity" and communal ownership is superior?

 

[Occam's Banana]

How would you fix South Africa?

(Would fix a few other problems as well ...)

 

[AZJoe]

The problem in question is the impossibility of restraining power by dividing it. That's not applicable to monarchy, since with monarchy ...
Rather, we're trying to give power better incentives by concentrating it.

correction: The impossibility is of restraining power by concentrating it.

R3 back with anti-libertarian, anti-Ron Paul, anti-freedom advocacy for the consolidation of power--that the way to restrain power is to consolidate power in a monopoly. The way to keep a government weak and limited is not to disperse and limit it to the smallest possible segments, but rather to monopolize all power in a dictatorship. The more concentrated the monopolization of force and power, the "better the incentives" the dictator has not use the power. Makes perfect sense. That is of course why the places with the greatest consolidation of power always turn out to be the most free: the Saudi Monarchy, The Soviets, North Korea.

So the R3 way to restrain power is to concentrate power into a centralized dictatorship. So power corrupts, but absolute power turns dictators absolutely virtuous, saintly, angelic, honest and benevolent.

The wonders of R3 newspeak - monopolizing force restrains it, just as war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is knowledge, 2+2=5, R3volution 3.0 is wise, ...

Such foolish oxymoronic sophistry persuades no one, save the fool who speaks it into believing himself persuasive.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

correction: The impossibility is restraining power by concentrating it.

Yes, I know that's what you were criticizing.

So, again, I ask: why is private property ownership inferior to communal property ownership, in your view?

 

[Krugminator2]

R3 back with anti-libertarian, anti-Ron Paul, anti-freedom advocacy for the consolidation of power--that the way to restrain power is to consolidate power in a monopoly.

So the R3 way to restrain power is to concentrate power into a centralized dictatorship. So power corrupts, but absolute power turns dictators absolutely virtuous, saintly, angelic, honest and benevolent.

The wonders of R3 newspeak - monopolizing force restrains it, just as war is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is knowledge, 2+2=5, R3volution 3.0 is wise, ...

Well, I would say that, as long-term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. At times it is necessary for a country to have, for a time, some form or other of dictatorial power. As you will understand, it is possible for a dictator to govern in a liberal way. And it is also possible for a democracy to govern with a total lack of liberalism. Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression — and this is valid for South America — is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government. And during this transition it may be necessary to maintain certain dictatorial powers, not as something permanent, but as a temporary arrangement.

I don't think monarchy is superior to a consitutional republic on the whole. But..

In the case of South Africa, how many people hold even remotely freedom oriented views in the entire country? In this context, I would include people with similar views to John McCain and Peter King and Chris Christie as freedom lovers. My guess is 15% or less clear this very low bar. Any semblance of civilization in South Africa has zero chance with democratic rule. Countries without a base level orientation toward freedom can't be reliant on the masses to vote for freedom.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Then there's Hoppe as well (Democracy: The God That Failed).

I'm not generally a big fan of Hoppe, but he makes essentially the same argument for monarchy that I have.

He's still an ancap, because he believes that's possible, but recognizes that a monarchical state is best if there must be a state at all.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

 

[Anti Federalist]