Were All Men Really Created Equal?

[Democles]

I recently received an email introducing a blog titled “Is Democracy the Nemesis Also of the Americans” at https://americanemesis.wordpress.com. From my reading of the website so far I have found it to contain excellent analysis about the nature of democracy and how it is leading to America’s collapse internally and externally. I have not come across such writing so far and have made it an important mission to bring it to attention on the proper forums. I am planning to post essays from the blog on this forum for further discussion.

It is commendable that these ideas are coming from a foreigner who is fighting fanatics to be able to continue writing. Would love to know thoughts of the forum members on the blog.

Below I am including salient features of the writing as conveyed in the email.

1. Since prior to the Greeks nobody has so far studied democracy to the extent necessary and presented in his writing. Civilization has never transcended democracy, but has got always destroyed because of it. It is the most important key to saving America today.
2. The essays present formidable challenges to President Obama and individualist Americans at large about their hypocrisy of eulogizing the Founding Fathers and their philosophy / Constitution, while having totally destroyed both as evidenced by the domestic and foreign policies and actions of the United States over the last century.
3. The essays also challenge Americans regarding their cherished beliefs like “All men were created equal”, their political system being far superior to European aristocracies, etc.
4. The essays introduce several new ideas including how a republic erodes into a democracy, how democracy is a fertile ground for moral degeneration and the inevitability of nurturing a vote block by distributing freebies (led by Democrats), followed by a vote block based on war-mongering (led by Republicans).
5. To counter today’s massive doles, an essay presents a never-before analysis of L B Johnson. It proves that if Americans do not threaten of a civil war to restore Founding Fathers’ America then collapse is inevitable.
6. The UN’s impotence, yet murder, loot, sleaze and also intrusion into America's internal affairs (violation of her sovereignty) is well-known. The UN is the elder brother of ISIS, Taliban and Al Qaeda, but not called so only because America’s military-industrial complex is using it as their East India Company. Shockingly, only America’s support is the major reason for even the existence of that evil, like Americans hitting the axe on their own feet!
7. The author has challenged Americans to disprove his contention -- once the greatest emancipator in mankind’s history, today America has become the perpetrator of the biggest crimes against humanity because of its support to the UN. On the other hand, he has thanked the British Raj for civilizing the undeveloped societies to the extent that they are. He has also shown that it is the same big government and big military that perpetrates injustices externally as well as internally, which is the root of ever-increasing dictatorial Executive Orders by successive presidents nowadays.

Read more at https://americanemesis.wordpress.com/.

 

[otherone]

umm....Hail Hydra?

 

[idiom]

The USA isn't even remotely close to eroding into a democracy.

Pure non-republican democracies can be found in places like Scandinavia and the Pacific. New Zealand doesn't have any sort of constitution to speak of, it has a very pure and direct democracy yet maintains levels of individual freedom far above that of the United States.

Most democracies and other forms of government do fail in the pursuit of freedom currently, but 95% of the time it is at the behest of the United States.

Take the War on Drugs for example. Many countries would have ended it if not for the Dominance of the United States on the issue.

Personal privacy in the age of the internet is also something that is destroyed by the economic force of the United States.


Any critique of Democracy or even constitutional republics cannot be taken seriously if it is based on the American experience. The United States is a straw-man example of government.




Also this post is spam.

"On the other hand, he has thanked the British Raj for civilizing the undeveloped societies to the extent that they are"

And bigoted spam at that.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"God created man. Sam Colt made them equal." IDR who said that.

 

[Democles]

idiom:
I wish you had read the blog before calling the reference to the British Raj as spam. People all over the world have a lot of misunderstandings about this topic - and I think it is useful to consider the perspective of an Indian who has identified himself as persecuted due to his lower caste and pro-Western writing.

I will continue posting relevant material from from Spencer’s website including the essays which present the evil of the United Nations which America is using for her empire building activities. Spencer's writing demonstrates how the UN is a dangerous threat to America (not because of its physical might which is nothing but rather because of America’s demoralization due to democracy). In those essays, the topic of how the British impacted their colonies including India is also discussed.

 

[willwash]

Universal suffrage is a terrible, terrible idea. Some unfortunate truths:

An 18 year old man does in fact possess the physical prowess necessary to serve as an effective soldier. He almost never, however, possesses the moral and intellectual prowess needed to serve as an informed voter.

Women vote with their hearts, not their heads. Yes there are exceptions. No that doesn't negate the argument.

People with no wealth, who pay no taxes, will only ever vote for more confiscation from those who do have wealth and do pay taxes.

Universal suffrage will always destroy society.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

OP, looks like an interesting blog, thanks for posting.

The USA isn't even remotely close to eroding into a democracy. Pure non-republican democracies can be found in places like Scandinavia and the Pacific. New Zealand doesn't have any sort of constitution to speak of, it has a very pure and direct democracy yet maintains levels of individual freedom far above that of the United States.

Whether there's a written constitution formally protecting minority rights is irrelevant in the long run, since it is always the majority, one way or another, which interprets the constitution: determines the constitutionality of legislation. If the majority wants to do something unconstitutional, it simply elects judges who will rule its wishes constitutional. At best, a written constitution provides some drag, making the majority jump through a few more hoops before violating the rights of the minority. But in the long run, any system based on mass enfranchisement will tend to move toward increasing economic interventionism.

Most democracies and other forms of government do fail in the pursuit of freedom currently, but 95% of the time it is at the behest of the United States

Really? So, Europe developed an elaborate welfare-state at the behest of the United States?

No, they did it in response to the inherent dynamics of democracy ("more free shit" is an extremely effective political platform).

Look at the development of the first modern welfare state in Germany. Why did Bismark do it? It was a very obvious act of realpolitik, to win a majority in the Reichstag.

 

[timosman]

OP, looks like an interesting blog, thanks for posting.



Whether there's a written constitution formally protecting minority rights is irrelevant in the long run, since it is always the majority, one way or another, which interprets the constitution: determines the constitutionality of legislation. If the majority wants to do something unconstitutional, it simply elects judges who will rule its wishes constitutional. At best, a written constitution provides some drag, making the majority jump through a few more hoops before violating the rights of the minority. But in the long run, any system based on mass enfranchisement will tend to move toward increasing economic interventionism.



Really? So, Europe developed an elaborate welfare-state at the behest of the United States?

No, they did it in response to the inherent dynamics of democracy ("more free shit" is an extremely effective political platform).

Look at the development of the first modern welfare state in Germany. Why did Bismark do it? It was a very obvious act of realpolitik, to win a majority in the Reichstag.

You might be overestimating the importance of voting.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You might be overestimating the importance of voting.

How so?

You don't think politicians implement freeshit schemes for the purpose of winning more votes for themselves?

 

[MelissaWV]

Universal suffrage is a terrible, terrible idea. Some unfortunate truths:

An 18 year old man does in fact possess the physical prowess necessary to serve as an effective soldier. He almost never, however, possesses the moral and intellectual prowess needed to serve as an informed voter.

Women vote with their hearts, not their heads. Yes there are exceptions. No that doesn't negate the argument.

People with no wealth, who pay no taxes, will only ever vote for more confiscation from those who do have wealth and do pay taxes.

Universal suffrage will always destroy society.

The problem with limiting voting is that someone decides which people should be excluded. You mention excluding emotional voters, but sometimes it should be a factor (unpopular wars might appeal to certain "logical" voters while enough emotionally invested parties who've lost family or friends might change matters). You mention excluding those who are 18 because they are too immature to be informed, but we've seen on the forums that this isn't necessarily the case. The implied exclusion of uninformed voters is an even bigger eye-opener: you're addressing it from the standpoint of someone knowing the truth, but to others "informed" would be knowing the latest pithy quote from Trump or the newest Hillary slogan. It's more likely that those sorts of people will be in charge. Most arguments for narrowing the people allowed to vote benefit the people already in charge.

If you are subject to the whims of those who are voted into power, then you should have a say in voting those people into power. I can agree about the "taxes in" requirement, though that's a little hard to calculate. Those that pay rent, for instance, have property tax markups built right in to that rent. If they get free/reduced rent, food, etc., though... they should not have a vote. You've essentially sold your vote for Government comfort at that point, and have to hope the people with skin in the game feel like blindly continuing to support the program you're living off of. On the flipside, if there's enough people on the dole, the voters have to consider how quickly to wean a large and unhappy population that only knows how to take.

Right now, there are literally millions who are subject to the laws of the land, who can be called upon to die for the US, and who have no say in who the President is. That is unsettling to me.

 

[willwash]

The problem with limiting voting is that someone decides which people should be excluded. You mention excluding emotional voters, but sometimes it should be a factor (unpopular wars might appeal to certain "logical" voters while enough emotionally invested parties who've lost family or friends might change matters). You mention excluding those who are 18 because they are too immature to be informed, but we've seen on the forums that this isn't necessarily the case. The implied exclusion of uninformed voters is an even bigger eye-opener: you're addressing it from the standpoint of someone knowing the truth, but to others "informed" would be knowing the latest pithy quote from Trump or the newest Hillary slogan. It's more likely that those sorts of people will be in charge. Most arguments for narrowing the people allowed to vote benefit the people already in charge.

If you are subject to the whims of those who are voted into power, then you should have a say in voting those people into power. I can agree about the "taxes in" requirement, though that's a little hard to calculate. Those that pay rent, for instance, have property tax markups built right in to that rent. If they get free/reduced rent, food, etc., though... they should not have a vote. You've essentially sold your vote for Government comfort at that point, and have to hope the people with skin in the game feel like blindly continuing to support the program you're living off of. On the flipside, if there's enough people on the dole, the voters have to consider how quickly to wean a large and unhappy population that only knows how to take.

Right now, there are literally millions who are subject to the laws of the land, who can be called upon to die for the US, and who have no say in who the President is. That is unsettling to me.

You're absolutely correct that it becomes very difficult where to draw that line...but you seem to agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I'd be happy with suffrage for anyone who meets any one or more of the following:

35 years old
Active duty military or honorably discharged veteran (This satisfies the spirit of the 26th amendment re: soldiers being able to fight but not vote, but it has to actually be the soldiers).
Net worth equal to the average cost of a single family home or more
Not receiving any direct government assistance.

And the like.

 

[MelissaWV]

You're absolutely correct that it becomes very difficult where to draw that line...but you seem to agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I'd be happy with suffrage for anyone who meets any one or more of the following:

35 years old
Active duty military or honorably discharged veteran (This satisfies the spirit of the 26th amendment re: soldiers being able to fight but not vote, but it has to actually be the soldiers).
Net worth equal to the average cost of a single family home or more
Not receiving any direct government assistance.

And the like.

I would only barely meet your standards this year, only for age.
I would likely not be drafted or ever in the military for health reasons, at the very least, and objections on multiple levels besides.
My net worth suffers from having to take care of others, which means I don't have assets that meet your criteria.
I am not receiving any direct government assistance, though my parents have Medicare, so I guess they would not vote? Or what kind of assistance is involved?

A line obviously needs to be drawn, otherwise you'd have toddlers voting, but just understand that your lines are just as arbitrary as most other folks' lines.

 

[PierzStyx]

So, what are their solutions?

 

[PierzStyx]

You're absolutely correct that it becomes very difficult where to draw that line...but you seem to agree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I'd be happy with suffrage for anyone who meets any one or more of the following:

35 years old
Active duty military or honorably discharged veteran (This satisfies the spirit of the 26th amendment re: soldiers being able to fight but not vote, but it has to actually be the soldiers).
Net worth equal to the average cost of a single family home or more
Not receiving any direct government assistance.

And the like.

Ah, so you prefer fascism! Nothing like all the people with the power to make decisions having all been subjected to the same dehumanizing brainwashing and giving total control of society to the militarists. Serious,Starship Troopers was not a blueprint, it was a caricature.

 

[PierzStyx]

umm....Hail Hydra?

 

[Democles]

Thanks to those who responded constructively, glad that the discussion took an intelligent turn.

The big drawback of democracy known right since classical Greek civilization (i.e. even prior to 400 BC) is that soon it develops a vote-block of doles-parasites, which today the Democrats have hijacked and GOP has no answer to it. They vote to support all the irrationalities of the party that offers them the max doles. But other rules (oligarchy, dictatorship of any of the umpteen varieties, etc.) are far direct murder, crushing under the boot of the ruling echelons. Democracy merely offers an interim relief which is ultimately destined to crash. The greatest solution to all this in mankind’s history was the Founding Fathers’ Republic – but they failed to lock it against erosion and slide into democracy. All this is handled very nicely by Michael Spencer in his blog, and the solutions he is introducing are refreshing.

I have posted a new OP titled Equality vs. Inequality for members’ discussion.

 

[idiom]

Really? So, Europe developed an elaborate welfare-state at the behest of the United States?

No, they did it in response to the inherent dynamics of democracy ("more free shit" is an extremely effective political platform).

Look at the development of the first modern welfare state in Germany. Why did Bismark do it? It was a very obvious act of realpolitik, to win a majority in the Reichstag.

Up until the 80's a lot of people thought communism would actually work.

Gears are shifting now, the goal is moving to a realistic and sustainable "saftey net" instead of a free for all. The countries that refuse to learn the easy way and change tack will learn the hard way as a lot of southern Europe is doing.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Thanks to those who responded constructively, glad that the discussion took an intelligent turn.

The big drawback of democracy known right since classical Greek civilization (i.e. even prior to 400 BC) is that soon it develops a vote-block of doles-parasites, which today the Democrats have hijacked and GOP has no answer to it. They vote to support all the irrationalities of the party that offers them the max doles. But other rules (oligarchy, dictatorship of any of the umpteen varieties, etc.) are far direct murder, crushing under the boot of the ruling echelons. Democracy merely offers an interim relief which is ultimately destined to crash. The greatest solution to all this in mankind’s history was the Founding Fathers’ Republic – but they failed to lock it against erosion and slide into democracy. All this is handled very nicely by Michael Spencer in his blog, and the solutions he is introducing are refreshing.

I have posted a new OP titled Equality vs. Inequality for members’ discussion.

That describes the unstable populist dictatorships of the 20th century, not historical monarchy.

If you time-traveled back to France c. 1750, you'd find no brutal police state.

 

[bandwidth]

R3v,
R3, I think he is using the word “dictatorship” as a general term for murderous dictatorship starting right from tribal chiefs to the modern ones like Communist Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, umpteen sundry uncivilized military generals like Af-Pak, Gaddafi etc. He is not talking about what you are referring to, viz. benevolent dictatorships that emerged in Western Europe after Renaissance (rebirth of reason) and from where America ultimately emerged as a climax! I visited Spencer’s site where he has given a better explanation of these differences in rules and called them as:

1. Rational Society (Roman Republic, but American Republic far more so at the time of their founding),
2. Semi-Rational Society (democracies, benevolent dictatorships like the English, French etc you are referring to), and
3. Thoroughly Irrational Society (murderous dictatorships that have far more ruled mankind than other systems including the 1000 years of Dark Ages especially mentioned because we have many Christian enthusiasts trying to takeover America).

I think we should read this blog so as to be more clear and correct about what direction America has chosen to commit suicide – somewhere Michael Spencer calls it as slow-poisoning of the welfare state / democracy which is not understood because of its slow-poison nature .

 

[r3volution 3.0]

R3, I think he is using the word “dictatorship” as a general term for murderous dictatorship starting right from tribal chiefs to the modern ones like Communist Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, umpteen sundry uncivilized military generals like Af-Pak, Gaddafi etc. He is not talking about what you are referring to, viz. benevolent dictatorships that emerged in Western Europe after Renaissance (rebirth of reason) and from where America ultimately emerged as a climax!

I don't think the difference between good and bad monarchies is primarily a result of ideas (such as those of the renaissance).

It's more about structural incentives.

First, a review of the general case for monarchy:

When power is divided (as in a democracy), the costs of bad policy can be externalized (e.g. if a politician votes for more welfare, he enjoys the benefit [being reelected] without suffering the cost [the country gets poorer]), while the benefits of good policy cannot be internalized (e.g. if a politician votes to abolish welfare, he suffers the cost [losing his reelection bid], without enjoying the benefit [the country gets richer]). Monarchy solves both problems. If the king introduces welfare, the country gets poorer, which means he gets poorer because his income is a share of the economic output of the country (taxes); thus the costs of bad policy are internalized. While if the king abolishes welfare, the country gets richer, which means the king get richer; thus the benefits of good policy are internalized. A democratic politician benefits from bad policy and suffers from good policy, so he tends to pursue bad policy. While a king benefits from good policy and suffers from bad policy, so he tends to pursue good policy. The democratic politicians have perverse incentives contrary to the best interests of society, while the king's incentives are aligned with the best interests of society (at least in the long run; the king can maximize his income today by viciously looting the country, for instance, but only at the expense of his future income). If the king happens to be a humanitarian, all the better, but all that's necessary for him to rule well is for him to be selfish (unlike the democratic politician, whose selfishness causes him to rule badly).

So, back to the original question, why do some monarchs rule badly?

Well, you have the occasional nutcase, the genuine sadist (e.g. Caligula), but these are rare. The explanation for most monarchical misrule goes back to incentives.

For the incentives to be aligned properly as described above, it's not enough for the king to have absolute power on paper. He must really have absolute power. He must feel free to pursue whatever policies he likes, without reference to the demands of any special interests. Louis XVI was such a king. Robert Mugabe is not. Mugabe's position is very insecure, so he has to buy political support through a variety of asinine, destructive policies (e.g. nationalizing white-owned farms), even if he knows they're asinine and destructive (better to rule a dungheap than not rule at all. he thinks). He is in effect in the same position as a democratic politician, trying to buy votes for the next election, and so he rules as badly.

So, the formula for good government is not just monarchy, it's stable monarchy.

Okay, but how do you get stable monarchy? If Mugabe hangs on, crushes the opposition, and manages to hand on his power to his chosen successor, and that person in turn maintains his power, and so forth for a couple generations, you'll see the nutty Mugabe dictatorship transformed into a civilized monarchy. It's as simple as that.

Which brings us back to Europe and the renaissance. It wasn't ideas which made the kings of Europe start acting more civilized. It was increasing stability and the advent of absolutism. Medieval monarchies weren't very stable and they were not absolute monarchies; there were nobles, chartered towns, ecclesiastics, etc all with independent political power. In other words, there was politics; to get things done, or just to stay on the throne, the king had to placate these special interests, as does Mugabe or any democratic politician. Over time, the king crushed the nobles et al and consolidated their power. It just so happens that the big leap forward toward absolutism occurred in the 17th century (sometimes called the century of crisis, as it witnessed many civil wars between king and nobles), immediately following which we see the emergence of enlightened absolutism of the sort I admire.

I visited Spencer’s site where he has given a better explanation of these differences in rules and called them as:

1. Rational Society (Roman Republic, but American Republic far more so at the time of their founding),
2. Semi-Rational Society (democracies, benevolent dictatorships like the English, French etc you are referring to), and
3. Thoroughly Irrational Society (murderous dictatorships that have far more ruled mankind than other systems including the 1000 years of Dark Ages especially mentioned because we have many Christian enthusiasts trying to takeover America).

I think we should read this blog so as to be more clear and correct about what direction America has chosen to commit suicide – somewhere Michael Spencer calls it as slow-poisoning of the welfare state / democracy which is not understood because of its slow-poison nature.

I haven't had a chance to read the blog yet. I'll post a comment when I do.