Which is Better, Democracy or Monarchy?

[vulturesrow]

Well Boro, you are certainly in good company. Both Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas felt that monarchy were theoretically the best form of government.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
This is much the same point as I was making in the AC thread although coming from a slightly different angle. the trouble with government is its extremely attractive (in a dynamical sense).

If I may continue my hijack. AC tends to spawn fifedoms which leads to kingdoms which leads to government (one path to government amongst many).

[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense, you might be partially right. There would be as many kingdoms as there are people. Your property is your kingdom.

Some kings would have subjects (tennants), but there wouldn't be any lieges. In a developed economy, the incentives for development of such arrangements are practically non-existent both for potential lord and potential vassal.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is much the same point as I was making in the AC thread although coming from a slightly different angle. the trouble with government is its extremely attractive (in a dynamical sense).

If I may continue my hijack. AC tends to spawn fifedoms which leads to kingdoms which leads to government (one path to government amongst many).

[/ QUOTE ]

In a sense, you might be partially right. There would be as many kingdoms as there are people. Your property is your kingdom.

Some kings would have subjects (tennants), but there wouldn't be any lieges. In a developed economy, the incentives for development of such arrangements are practically non-existent both for potential lord and potential vassal.

[/ QUOTE ]
It just sounds like an article of faith on your part that just because no one wants it, it wont happen.

Anyway, power and wealth accumulates, hangers on and machiavellian methods wil occur and the incentives for the development of the arrangement of a figurehead lay with the people who don't own the wealth but lay near the top of the power structure that controls the wealth.

chez

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't even go into the horrors of democratic-republican total war (beginning with the Napoleonic wars, through Lincoln's War, culminating in the ideological World Wars of the 20th century) versus the almost chess-like maneuverings of monarchic wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quick trivia question: what European or American war caused the greatest proportional loss of civilian life in the area where it was fought?

[timotheeeee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To do this they must employ the "poor." To do this they must offer some fraction of their savings or production in exchange, or else the poor man would not take the job. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get richer.

[/ QUOTE ]
What choice does the poor man have but to accept whatever wages the rich man offers?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If the job did not leave him demonstrably better off, he would not take it, would he?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really fair to make the claim that no matter what the starving laborer is given in return for his work, he is "getting richer." If you're starving you'll swim in batshit and swallow gallons of elephant semen if someone payed you enough to not starve. He won't get richer if he only receives enough to not starve. Since I've been done with school I've been living paycheck to paycheck and haven't been able to save any amount of money, and my time preferences have stagnated at "pretty f*cking high" for quite a while now. The only time they dip from "pretty f*cking high" down to "just above starving, but right below pretty f*cking high" is when I have the chance to play some poker and win enough to buy some decent groceries.

The real world differs drastically from theory. In theory, all work is 'voluntary' and by definition is makes you better off, but here in the trenches you get just enough to scrape by and a lot of people go nowhere.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Monarchy wins hands down. Unfortunately, monarchies are probably unstable. Because heirs do not have to be natural elites to inherit the throne, they do not have to possess superior qualities of far-sightedness and good decision making. It only takes one heir who does not see that he cannot overtax the population, pervert the definition of justice, and plunder his populace for a bloody and populist revolt to occur. Hence, monarchies may inevitably spawn democratic-republics.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Borodog.

This is much the same point as I was making in the AC thread although coming from a slightly different angle. the trouble with government is its extremely attractive (in a dynamical sense).

If I may continue my hijack. AC tends to spawn fifedoms which leads to kingdoms which leads to government (one path to government amongst many).


[/ QUOTE ]

As I addressed in the OP, the incentive to form "fiefdoms" does not exist in a modern, technologically advaced division-of-labor society. When any store owner to purchase shotguns, motion detectors, surveilence cameras, doorway RFID sensors, safes, coded cash registers, and on and on, each for a few days revenue at most, not to mention hire a dedicated security guard from a certified, bonded, and insured security company, there is simply no need to go to Bill Gates for access to Microsoft's security forces. In fact there's no need for Microsoft to develop their own security forces. Because of the division of labor it is far more efficient for them to simply contract out their security.

Also, as I mentioned, with modern communications and transport technologies, it is impossible to develop natural regional monopolies, the basis of the original "fiefdoms" and kingdoms. With a phone call I can shop among dozens, hundreds, or thousands of different providers of any conceivable factor of production or natural resource. The only monopolies we have left are the ones we've inherited, the government ones, like the roads, the courts, the police, the army.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To do this they must employ the "poor." To do this they must offer some fraction of their savings or production in exchange, or else the poor man would not take the job. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get richer.

[/ QUOTE ]
What choice does the poor man have but to accept whatever wages the rich man offers?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If the job did not leave him demonstrably better off, he would not take it, would he?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really fair to make the claim that no matter what the starving laborer is given in return for his work, he is "getting richer."

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's fair. Putting something in "quotes" does not change the fundamental meaning of the words. It is an inescapable, inarguable fact. That no voluntary transaction has ever taken place wherein both parties did not believe they were getting something of greater value than what they are giving up. If they did not believe this, they simply would not make the deal. All voluntary transactions are demonstrations of preference and personal valuation.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're starving you'll swim in batshit and swallow gallons of elephant semen if someone payed you enough to not starve. He won't get richer if he only has receives enough to not starve.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's in luck, there's probably a good amount of calories in the elephant semen. It's interesting that your example is absurd, and does not reflect the realities of the "poor" that you seek to champion.

Here is what you need to understand. For every person there are hundreds, if not thousands of potential jobs. If you doubt this, just think how much easier your life would be if you could afford a maid, or a cheuffer, or a butler, or a courtesan, or whatever labor-intensive luxury you would like but cannot afford. Why can't you? Because there are thousands of times as many potential jobs than there are people to fill them, meaning that employers must constantly compete for employees. These employers bid up the price of labor, i.e. wages to the employed, to it's maximum possible value. This value is always higher than that required for mere subsistence. The cheapest possible labor is unskilled labor, i.e. labor for tasks that require absolutely no skill at all. Unskilled laborers do not get paid very much, but luckily, unskilled laborer positions are entry level position, filled by young people who are entering the job market to learn a work ethic, acquire an employment history, and learn some skills so that their labor can be sold at a higher price.

[ QUOTE ]
Since I've been done with school I've been living paycheck to paycheck and haven't been able to save any amount of money, and my time preferences have stagnated at "pretty f*cking high" for quite a while now. The only time they dip from "pretty f*cking high" down to "just above starving, but right below pretty f*cking high" is when I have the chance to play some poker and win enough to buy some decent groceries.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you're telling me that have you enough money to gamble with, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for you? Please. A girl I dated in grad school lived on a $12,000 a year grad student stipend, and saved half of it each year. She lived in a one room studio apartment, biked to school, rarely went out to eat. She came from a very poor family, and during school loaned $10,000 of her savings to her sister for a downpayment on a house when she got married. And she was redheaded and hot, but that has little to do with the story. The point is that she lived a great life on the equivalent of $6 per hour. She finished her Ph.D. and now is a professor of computer science at a major university. She made sacrifices and good decisions. She had low time preference, scrimped and saved and made her long term goals her priority.

I spent about a decade getting my BS, MS, and PhD on never more than $14,400 per year. I was unemployed the last six months, by choice, while I was getting my real estate license, finding a good broker, and starting a new career. I had to cut way back on my lifestyle. I burned through most of my bankroll paying bills because I couldn't justify gambling with the money. And I'm not even particularly good at long term planning.

[ QUOTE ]
The real world differs drastically from theory. In theory,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. What is axiomatically true is axiomatically true.

[ QUOTE ]
all work is 'voluntary' and by definition is makes you better off, but here in the trenches you get just enough to scrape by and a lot of people go nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cry me a river.

[PartyRocks!]

If I was King, I wouldn't let you post what you posted. Does that answer your stupid question?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was King, I wouldn't let you post what you posted. Does that answer your stupid question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deeper thinkers than you answer this question by pointing out that any monarch that abused his power could and should be overthrown. While I dont always agree with Boro, your dismissal of his post is ridiculous.

[PartyRocks!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I was King, I wouldn't let you post what you posted. Does that answer your stupid question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deeper thinkers than you answer this question by pointing out that any monarch that abused his power could and should be overthrown. While I dont always agree with Boro, your dismissal of his post is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm narrow minded. You should move to Jordan, Kuwait, Thailand, etc, etc, and report back. Maybe you can lead the revolution for being denied certain rights.