How would you fix South Africa?

[Madison320]

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.

Yes but I'll bet the black south africans that pay taxes and receive no benefits are part of that 15% that believe in freedom. I believe it has little to do with race and everything to do with parasites vs producers.

I'm disappointed that very few agree with me. It seems most here think it's either the white's fault or the black's fault. No one has a practical solution.

Only allow the productive to vote, it has nothing to do with race. It's basic logic.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The problem with this is that it mislocates the problem.

One could just as well find Boers or English "chimping out."

Neither dumb mob understands the situation.

...or needs to, provided sensible persons are willing to handle things, entirely irrespective of their feelz.

 

[Madison320]

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



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

That a bad analogy. A monarch does not "own" his kingdom the same way I own my home.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That a bad analogy. A monarch does not "own" his kingdom the same way I own my home.

Suppose I steal your car.

The odds of me getting caught and losing my prize are the same as the odds were for you to have your car stolen in the first place.

In what way do my incentives with respect to the car now differ from what were your incentives with the respect to the car before I stole it?

I will have the same incentives to change the oil, etc, in order to maintain its value, as you did, no?

 

[Madison320]

Suppose I steal your car.

The odds of me getting caught and losing my prize are the same as the odds were for you to have your car stolen in the first place.

In what way do my incentives with respect to the car now differ from what were your incentives with the respect to the car before I stole it?

I will have the same incentives to change the oil, etc, in order to maintain its value, as you did, no?

A car is an object. If a monarch own's his kingdom, he has slaves. Do you believe in slavery?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

A car is an object. If a monarch own's his kingdom, he has slaves. Do you believe in slavery?

You said: "A monarch does not "own" his kingdom the same way I own my home."

If you were making an ethical statement, it is of course true, but also beside the point.

The point is that a monarch has with respect to the country he rules the same incentives as a property owner.

...as a thief, secure in his prize, has the same incentives with respect thereto as its legitimate owner.

I'm talking about economics, not ethics.

 

[Madison320]

You said: "A monarch does not "own" his kingdom the same way I own my home."

If you were making an ethical statement, it is of course true, but also beside the point.

The point is that a monarch has with respect to the country he rules the same incentives as a property owner.

...as a thief, secure in his prize, has the same incentives with respect thereto as its legitimate owner.

I'm talking about economics, not ethics.

Yeah, but when you own people you have different incentives compared to owning a car. For one thing you have to keep them from revolting.

Anyway we ARE talking about ethics. You claim a monarchy is better than republic. A monarchy consists of a ruler and slaves. Are you ok with slavery?

Actually now that I think about it, the monarch/subject relationship is the same as the plantation slave owner/slave relationship. Just on a smaller scale. So according to your logic since the slave owner has the incentive to keep his slave healthy and productive, it's better than allowing the slave to be free. According to your logic.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, but when you own people you have different incentives compared to owning a car. For one thing you have to keep them from revolting.

Does or does not a property owner have a better incentive to increase the value of his property than the member of a commune has to increase the value of the communal property? You wont burst into flames for acknowledging the obvious, for not rejecting the basic principles of economics, and saying yes, the property owner has the better incentives. I assure you.

Anyway we ARE talking about ethics. You claim a monarchy is better than republic. A monarchy consists of a ruler and slaves. Are you ok with slavery?

The best state is the one which governs in the most libertarian fashion.

A monarchical state is more likely to govern in a libertarian fashion that a democratic one, due to the aforementioned better incentives.

Therefore, a monarchical state is better: simple as that.

The "slave" is the citizen of the democratic state paying higher taxes, for more welfare, and subject to more regulations, due to the inherently socialistic tendencies of the form of his government; in "compensation" for his slavery, he gets the "right" to write a name on a piece of paper very couple years, which will never have the remotest chance of affecting anything, ever. Whereas, the subject of the monarchy pays lower taxes, for no welfare, and is subject to few regulations: at the "cost" of forfeiting his "right" to dick around with names on paper every couple years. Tell me, who's more the slave?

 

[AZJoe]

A monarchical state is more likely to govern in a libertarian fashion that a democratic one, due to the aforementioned better incentives.

Therefore, a monarchical state is better: simple as that.

R3 back with his repeat idiocy. Deserves same response.

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.

 

[Madison320]

Does or does not a property owner have a better incentive to increase the value of his property than the member of a commune has to increase the value of the communal property? You wont burst into flames for acknowledging the obvious, for not rejecting the basic principles of economics, and saying yes, the property owner has the better incentives. I assure you.

Do you think the plantation slave was more free (than on his own) because his master had economic incentive to keep the slave healthy and productive?

Also would we be better off if we suspended elections and let the Trump family become the official Monarchy?

 

[Danke]

How would you fix South Africa?

.

send the Nigerian and Injun.

 

[Krugminator2]

Yes but I'll bet the black south africans that pay taxes and receive no benefits are part of that 15% that believe in freedom. I believe it has little to do with race and everything to do with parasites vs producers.

I'm disappointed that very few agree with me. It seems most here think it's either the white's fault or the black's fault. No one has a practical solution.

Only allow the productive to vote, it has nothing to do with race. It's basic logic.

That might be true. But whites are only 10% of the population there. And the average household income income for whites in 2011 South Africa is around $50,000. The average household income for blacks is $9000. If you base voting on income, you are going to have a voting system that looks similar to what it did during Apartheid. The people wouldn't go for that.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ica-changed-and-didnt-over-mandelas-lifetime/

 

[Madison320]

That might be true. But whites are only 10% of the population there. And the average household income income for whites in 2011 South Africa is around $50,000. The average household income for blacks is $9000. If you base voting on income, you are going to have a voting system that looks similar to what it did during Apartheid. The people wouldn't go for that.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ica-changed-and-didnt-over-mandelas-lifetime/

Yup. There wouldn't be hardly any blacks voting, and they'd never go for it. But I think it would work. And over time there'd be more blacks working, paying taxes and voting.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you think the plantation slave was more free (than on his own) because his master had economic incentive to keep the slave healthy and productive?

That the plantation slave is less free than if he were on his own (i.e. not a slave) is just a tautology.

You need to ask how, under what conditions of governance, a person is more/less likely to be made a slave at all.

Anyway, my point is simply that the slave would likely be more free if the plantation owner were one guy, rather than a commune.

Or, a person is less likely to be enslaved (or oppressed in some fashion short of slavery) by a monarchy than by a democracy.

Also would we be better off if we suspended elections and let the Trump family become the official Monarchy?

No. For monarchy to stick, to become stable (which it must for the monarch to have the good incentives we're discussing), the first couple generations of monarchs have to be much more competent than Trump. Now, in an a well-established monarchy, the occasional Trump-grade monarch could be borne without serious problems, as he would have to be, from time to time. Augustus couldn't have been Trump, otherwise there would have been no empire at all; but a Caligula/Trump can be borne from time to time without wrecking the system.

 

[Madison320]

More free than what?

The slave would likely be more free if the plantation owner were one guy, rather than a commune.

More free than the slave on his own.

Your argument is basically that an actual slave is more free than the average person living under the average government.

No. For monarchy to stick, to become stable (which it must for the monarch to have the good incentives we're discussing), the first couple generations of monarchs have to be much more competent than Trump. Now, in an a well-established monarchy, the occasional Trump-grade monarch could be borne without serious problems, as he would have to be, from time to time.

You don't get to pick your Monarchy. That's the problem.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

More free than the slave on his own.

Your argument is basically that an actual slave is more free than the average person living under the average government.

See my last comment again, I added to it since you responded.

You don't get to pick your Monarchy. That's the problem.

Who picked Trump?

 

[Madison320]

See my last comment again, I added to it since you responded.



Who picked Trump?

OK, I surrender.

Would you at least agree that between allowing everyone to vote, and only allowing net taxpayers to vote, that the latter is a better system?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

A general point:

I've said that a monarch is to a private property owner as a democratic state is to a commune. Don't take this to mean (as it seems some people have) that only a monarch effectively owns his subjects; all states effectively own their subjects (that is what sovereignty means - the ultimate decision-making power). If you like to think of subjects as slaves, alright, but then understand that the citizens of democratic states are also slaves. The question here is not whether it is better to ruled or to not be ruled, the question is, given that one is going to be ruled, whose rule is likely to be more mild, the king's or the parliament's?

 

[Madison320]

A general point:

I've said that a monarch is to a private property owner as a democratic state is to a commune. Don't take this to mean (as it seems some people have) that only a monarch effectively owns his subjects; all states effectively own their subjects (that is what sovereignty means - the ultimate decision-making power). If you like to think of subjects as slaves, alright, but then understand that the citizens of democratic states are also slaves. The question here is not whether it is better to ruled or to not be ruled, the question is, given that one is going to be ruled, whose rule is likely to be more mild, the king's or the parliament's?

Like I said, I surrender.

Would you at least agree that between allowing everyone to vote, and only allowing net taxpayers to vote, that the latter is a better system?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Would you at least agree that between allowing everyone to vote, and only allowing net taxpayers to vote, that the latter is a better system?

Yes, but only marginally, and only for a short time. You have at least two problems.

1. Taxation isn't the only source of boodle, and not all boodle comes in the form of direct payments from the state in cash or kind. Voters/net-taxpayers could still redistribute wealth to themselves from non-voters/non-net-tax-payers via regulations (e.g. granting themselves competitive advantages in the market). This can also be done within the group of voters/net-tax-payers: e.g. 51% of them could implement a regulation that gives them an advantage against the 49%. Now, you might object that these benefits should be counted for purposes of determining net taxpayer status but, apart from practical, econometric problems with doing that, there's a more fundamental problem...

2. Q. Who interprets or can amend the constitution which defines who can vote? A. The majority of voters at any given moment. In practice, there's nothing to prevent any party, dominant at the moment, from amending or dishonestly "reinterpreting" the constitution so as to justify whatever boodle-seeking enterprise they want to pursue. I appreciate the logic of your proposed solution, but it only gets you halfway to where you need to go. You recognize that constitutions alone cannot restrict the rulers of a state, since the rulers themselves interpret the constitution; and so the solution is to make sure that the rulers have good incentives for liberal behavior. The problem with your method of ensuring that the rulers have good incentives is that those incentives only exist if the constitution is honored (by them!). Ultimately, you're still reliant on a constitution as a deus ex machina, just as in any ordinary democracy.