How would you fix South Africa?

[Madison320]

Yes, while this is true, with what has it to do?

That would be a good test of South Africa during aparthied. I'm guessing a lot of blacks moved there since the population increased by so much.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

That would be a good test of South Africa during aparthied. I'm guessing a lot of blacks moved there since the population increased by so much.

From the Premortal Realm they did,
They moved in, yes, but also: kids!

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What incentive do monarchies have to create a small, libertarian government?

The same incentive that a private property owner has to maximize the value of his property.

A monarch is effectively the landlord of the country he rules, with tax revenues being his personal income, akin to a landlord's rental income. The value of those rents is directly related to the prosperity of the country; the more prosperous, the more the rents. Hence he has an incentive to make the country as prosperous as possible. As we know, the only method of maximizing the prosperity of a country is laissez faire; hence his incentive to pursue laissez faire. A monarch who, alternately, attempted to centrally plan the country's economy would soon find himself collecting less in rent.

TL;DR -- Would you rather own Canada or Congo?

So this does not depend on the personality of the monarch, except insofar as the monarch must (a) prefer more money to less money [who doesn't?], and (b) have a decent understanding of economics [some may not, but someone raised from childhood for the job of governing, whose self-interest impels him to such knowledge, is more likely to have it than an elected politician]. Obviously, not every monarch will fit the bill; you will have the occasional idiot or lunatic, but the longrun norm would be dramatically more libertarian government than we presently enjoy - as, indeed, it was in the past.

It's self correcting. When I said "taxpayers" I really meant "net taxpayers". Those 51% would lose the right to vote since they'd be getting more benefits than they pay in taxes. The remaining 49% would vote for smaller government and a flatter tax so that they wouldn't be the only ones paying.

Whenever there is a constitution (such as would define who is eligable to vote), there must be some body (e.g. a court) to interpret and apply it.

Who would control that body?

And if amendments are allowed, who can make them?

 

[Ender]

How? I suggested limiting the voter pool to taxpayers only to strengthen individual rights. You suggested the West leave. I'd say you're the one with a group fixation.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

The history of S Africa is a takeover by the west. Surely it has NOTHING to do with current problems.

We do not have the right to "fix" another country's problems- look how well we've done in the ME.

 

[Madison320]

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

The history of S Africa is a takeover by the west. Surely it has NOTHING to do with current problems.

We do not have the right to "fix" another country's problems- look how well we've done in the ME.

I'm not saying "we" as in the US. It's just a philosophical question.

 

[Madison320]

The same incentive that a private property owner has to maximize the value of his property.

A monarch is effectively the landlord of the country he rules, with tax revenues being his personal income, akin to a landlord's rental income. The value of those rents is directly related to the prosperity of the country; the more prosperous, the more the rents. Hence he has an incentive to make the country as prosperous as possible. As we know, the only method of maximizing the prosperity of a country is laissez faire; hence his incentive to pursue laissez faire. A monarch who, alternately, attempted to centrally plan the country's economy would soon find himself collecting less in rent.

TL;DR -- Would you rather own Canada or Congo?

So this does not depend on the personality of the monarch, except insofar as the monarch must (a) prefer more money to less money [who doesn't?], and (b) have a decent understanding of economics [some may not, but someone raised from childhood for the job of governing, whose self-interest impels him to such knowledge, is more likely to have it than an elected politician]. Obviously, not every monarch will fit the bill; you will have the occasional idiot or lunatic, but the longrun norm would be dramatically more libertarian government than we presently enjoy - as, indeed, it was in the past.

I think you're reaching. It's also possible that monarchs are mainly interested in holding power and will violate all sorts of rights to keep it. North Korea for example. If you compare non-elected governments vs elected I'm guessing the elected ones come out much better. And you'd have to put monarchs in the category of non-elected governments. You can't cherry pick the ones you like.

Whenever there is a constitution (such as would define who is eligable to vote), there must be some body (e.g. a court) to interpret and apply it.

Who would control that body?

And if amendments are allowed, who can make them?

That's my point. Earlier you said any democratically elected politician can undo any written laws and I totally agree. But I think a democratically elected politician from a pool of net taxpayers will be more likely to honor the constitution or risk not getting re-elected.

 

[TheCount]

TL;DR -- Would you rather own Canada or Congo?

The owner of Congo would derive more personal wealth from it than the owner of Canada.

So this does not depend on the personality of the monarch, except insofar as the monarch must (a) prefer more money to less money [who doesn't?], and (b) have a decent understanding of economics

The sorts of libertarian freedoms which propel economic growth also cause the revenues from said economic growth to benefit people other than the monarch.

Also, personal wealth experiences diminishing utility beyond a certain point, past which the monarch might be will to trade off additional income for greater personal power and other non-monetary benefits.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

We do not have the right to "fix" another country's problems

I disagree, since the converse implies that peoples have a collective right to self-determination, which they don't. Only individuals have rights (something you agree with I'm sure), and if one state interfering in another helps defend the rights of individuals there (perhaps against a majoritarian tyranny of their fellow citizens), that's entirely justifiable. Now, obviously, many such interventions would be counterproductive, wouldn't actually achieve their goal, but that's another matter. Even if all interventions in practice are unjustifiable because they won't work (which isn't true), they're still justifiable in principle.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I think you're reaching.

Surely you're not doubting that laissez faire maximizes prosperity?

And surely it's not a reach to say that a prosperous nation yields more taxes than a poor one?

So, what specifically is your objection?

It's also possible that monarchs are mainly interested in holding power and will violate all sorts of rights to keep it.

It's possible that every monarch will do nothing but play ping pong all day every day, and pay no attention to governing at all. The question is, what's likely? Based on history, I say it's likely that virtually all monarchs will desire to maximize their incomes. Money isn't just for luxurious consumption spending, remember, it's the necessary means for anything else a monarch might want to do. Want to build giant pyramids in honor of yourself? Mo money, mo pyramids. The Caligula types who are truly deranged are extreme outliers (that's why everyone knows their names, while the countless rational monarchs aren't remembered for their insane acts - because they committed none).

North Korea for example. If you compare non-elected governments vs elected I'm guessing the elected ones come out much better. And you'd have to put monarchs in the category of non-elected governments. You can't cherry pick the ones you like.

In my original post I recommended "military coup --> dictatorship --> hereditary monarchy." What's the difference between dictatorship (like in N. Korea or Stalin's Russia) and hereditary monarchy (like in Bourbon France or Habsburg Austria)? Both are one man rule, right? The dictator is insecure in his rule, usually because his rule is quite young and hasn't yet gained the legitimacy which time provides. He rightly fears losing power. Like a private property owner who is insecure in property (say, white farmers on S. Africa), he has very high time preference, doesn't make investments for the future, take short cuts, manages his property poorly. In contrast, an hereditary monarch is secure in his rule (as the very name of Louis XVI implies), like a private property owner secure in his property, with low time preference, who feels comfortable making long term investment, etc. Why did Stalin go on giant purges of his pwn party, or Kim Jong Whatever blow his uncle up with an anti-aircraft gun? They feared being overthrown by rivals. Why didn't Louis XVI or Joseph II of Austria not do the same? Because they didn't.

That's my point. Earlier you said any democratically elected politician can undo any written laws and I totally agree. But I think a democratically elected politician from a pool of net taxpayers will be more likely to honor the constitution or risk not getting re-elected.

"Let's change/ignore the Constitution and give ourselves freeshit at the expense of those suckers in the minority."

Isn't that platform a winner for the same reason it is now?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

The owner of Congo would derive more personal wealth from it than the owner of Canada.

Canada's GDP is 44 times Congo's.

The sorts of libertarian freedoms which propel economic growth also cause the revenues from said economic growth to benefit people other than the monarch.

How so?

Also, personal wealth experiences diminishing utility beyond a certain point, past which the monarch might be will to trade off additional income for greater personal power and other non-monetary benefits.

For personal consumption expenditures, yes (you can only use so much silk toilet paper), but there are infinite other uses for wealth.

See: pyramids

I suspect space exploration/colonization would be a major outlet for that wealth in our age: endless possibilities there.

 

[Madison320]

Surely you're not doubting that laissez faire maximizes prosperity?

And surely it's not a reach to say that a prosperous nation yields more taxes than a poor one?

So, what specifically is your objection?

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?

 

[Swordsmyth]

For personal consumption expenditures, yes (you can only use so much silk toilet paper), but there are infinite other uses for wealth.

See: pyramids

I suspect space exploration/colonization would be a major outlet for that wealth in our age: endless possibilities there.

Such wonderful ways to squander the money they extort from their subjects, how could anybody object?

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?

Kings have a tendency to steal wealth and give it to those powerful enough to help keep them in power.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

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.

First, I'm talking about monarchs, not dictators, based on the distinction I explained. Second, as to monarchs being far sighted enough to understand that laissez faire makes for a richer country, and more income for them, why is that "a helluva jump"? Is it "a helleva jump" to assume that someone who inherits a business (much like someone who inherits a throne) would be interested in how to make it more profitable? Of course there are sometimes prodigal sons, who may screw things up by incompetence or laziness, but rarely do they torch the factory for funsies, or whatever else would be analogous to abberant behavior by a monarch.

What are the best current monarchs?

There are hardly any monarchies in the world, only six (6) by my count (with GDP/capita PPP)

1. Brunei, $80,000
2. Bahrain, $52,000
3. Oman, $46,000
4. Saudi Arabia, $55,000
5. The United Arab Emirates (a federation of monarchs, actually, rather than a single monarch), $68,000
6. Vatican City (unique and not representative of other monarchies, but nonetheless), can't find data, but must be very high

For the US, GDP/capita is $53,000. The world average is $15,000.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Such wonderful ways to squander the money they extort from their subjects, how could anybody object?

How indeed, considering that the total extorted and squandered is so much less.

Kings have a tendency to steal wealth and give it to those powerful enough to help keep them in power.

Politics can't be abolished, only minimized.

P.S. This goes to the distinction between dictatorship and monarchy.

The less secure the ruler, the more boodle has to handed out to the generals, the mob, the business magnates, etc.

 

[Swordsmyth]

How indeed, considering that the total extorted and squandered is so much less.

LOL

Politics can't be abolished, only minimized.

Without a means to hold the ruler responsible that won't happen.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

LOL

You prefer higher taxes to lower?

Without a means to hold the ruler responsible that won't happen.

To whom? And what is their incentive to pursue laissez faire?

 

[Swordsmyth]

You prefer higher taxes to lower?

No I do not believe they would be lower.

To whom? And what is their incentive to pursue laissez faire?

The only way to maximize the chances that two parties deal fairly with eachother is to grant them roughly equal power, NO system can guarantee that they do not try to cheat but it will happen more proportional to any power imbalance in a system.

 

[Swordsmyth]

First, I'm talking about monarchs, not dictators, based on the distinction I explained. Second, as to monarchs being far sighted enough to understand that laissez faire makes for a richer country, and more income for them, why is that "a helluva jump"? Is it "a helleva jump" to assume that someone who inherits a business (much like someone who inherits a throne) would be interested in how to make it more profitable? Of course there are sometimes prodigal sons, who may screw things up by incompetence or laziness, but rarely do they torch the factory for funsies, or whatever else would be analogous to abberant behavior by a monarch.



There are hardly any monarchies in the world, only six (6) by my count (with GDP/capita PPP)

1. Brunei, $80,000
2. Bahrain, $52,000
3. Oman, $46,000
4. Saudi Arabia, $55,000
5. The United Arab Emirates (a federation of monarchs, actually, rather than a single monarch), $68,000
6. Vatican City (unique and not representative of other monarchies, but nonetheless), can't find data, but must be very high

For the US, GDP/capita is $53,000. The world average is $15,000.

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.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No I do not believe they would be lower.

Why?

The only way to maximize the chances that two parties deal fairly with eachother is to grant them roughly equal power, NO system can guarantee that they do not try to cheat but it will happen more proportional to any power imbalance in a system.

What does that look like in terms of political organization?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Why?

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

What does that look like in terms of political organization?

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.