Which is Better, Democracy or Monarchy?

[Bez]

A very good, thought-provoking post. In the real world, I'd much prefer Queen Elizabeth II to be in control of my country than the evil Blair.

The reason she never fails to give the royal ascent to any legislation (I think it's happened once since WWII actually but almost never) is because if she did, the Royal family would simply no longer exist. Maybe, to some extent, this backs up your point that a monarch must keep the people happy to remain in power?

[PartyRocks!]

Yeah, and taxes are really low there too.

[ QUOTE ]
The taxes levied by the monarch, purportedly to provide security and justice, will necessarily remain low. Since the monarch is a wealthy individual, outlandish tax levies will be rightly viewed by the population as unjust and unnecessary, increasing the likelihood of a bloody and costly revolt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to ignore one of the key powers of free markets which is to explore all the possibilities and find the ones that are localy fit, all things are tried including insourcing security.

The problem is to show how that no localy fit solution can lead to government. I don't see you showing this except to insist it wont happen because there's no incentive to do so. Trouble is as well as the incentive argument assuming competence (which is a huge asumption) there's also the problem that in any complex system things happen without any incentive.

chez

[vulturesrow]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am starting to see myself move into the AC camp sheerly out of frustration for idiocy like this. As I pointed out in an earlier post, both Aristotle and St Thomas Aquinas, two of history's greatest philosophers, posited that a monarchy, at least in theory, is a superior form of government. However they also recognized the practical implementation of monarchy as they envisioned it was not likely. Boro said as much in his post. So credit to you for pointing a possible flaw in monarchy. Too bad Boro already pointed out why a monarchy might fail in practice and too bad you chose to label the question as "stupid" instead of providing more in depth discussion.

[lehighguy]

"In general, individuals with higher time preference will tend to make poorer decisions in terms of long term consequences (which they are less likely to consider), while individuals with lower time preference will tend to make better decisions."

There is some bias in your analysis towards low time preference as being better in some absolute sense. The time preference theory itself points out that there is really no quality difference in the two, they are merely preferences.

Human beings are complex creatures, and thier time preference is complex. There perception of value changes over time. It can't be easily classified.

This isn't a harp on your theory so much as a nitpick.

__________________________________________________ _________
"The "disparity" may indeed increase, but who cares if both parties become wealthier, which is the case? As emplyers becomes more productive they can bid more for labor, driving up wages. This is, in fact, the only wage that real wages increase; through increased productivity."

It does when you consider that human beings are emotional creatures and not machines. A machine measures things absolutely, but humans measure thier wealth relatively. They use relative wealth to exercise control and influence over people in a social setting to achieve social goals.

Relative wealth matters to people. It gives them social power and it makes them feel important. The guys on my father's truck route may be wealthier then a medieval noblemen by absolute standards, but they curse thier lot in life everyday while the noblemen probably thought himself pretty well off.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"In general, individuals with higher time preference will tend to make poorer decisions in terms of long term consequences (which they are less likely to consider), while individuals with lower time preference will tend to make better decisions."

There is some bias in your analysis towards low time preference as being better in some absolute sense. The time preference theory itself points out that there is really no quality difference in the two, they are merely preferences.

Human beings are complex creatures, and thier time preference is complex. There perception of value changes over time. It can't be easily classified.

This isn't a harp on your theory so much as a nitpick.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I have arbitrarily decided to treat long term planning that results in healthier, wealthier, and more civilized society as "better" than the alternative. You are free to choose other definitions. In fact the choices people would make in what is "better" is probably highly correlated with their personal time preference.

[ QUOTE ]
"The "disparity" may indeed increase, but who cares if both parties become wealthier, which is the case? As emplyers becomes more productive they can bid more for labor, driving up wages. This is, in fact, the only wage that real wages increase; through increased productivity."

It does when you consider that human beings are emotional creatures and not machines. A machine measures things absolutely, but humans measure thier wealth relatively. They use relative wealth to exercise control and influence over people in a social setting to achieve social goals.

Relative wealth matters to people. It gives them social power and it makes them feel important. The guys on my father's truck route may be wealthier then a medieval noblemen by absolute standards, but they curse thier lot in life everyday while the noblemen probably thought himself pretty well off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. Envy provides a powerful incentive to better one's lot, even though that lot is demonstrably better than the vast majority of people who have ever lived. Wealth disparity thus drives society towards ever higher standards of living, health, wealth, life span, civilization, etc. All of which I choose to define as "better" than the alternative.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
And she was redheaded and hot

[/ QUOTE ]

Redundant.

[timotheeeee]

[ 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 ]

This sounds nice, and I honestly wish I could agree with you. But I'm worse off now than I was a year ago after working full time (and a large stretch where I worked more than full time). I'm not getting richer. I understand that the work I do is 'voluntary,' in a loose sense of the word, as I guess I could have chosen to go on welfare or starve instead of accepting the first jobs offered. Everything after that isn't an uphill coast to riches. A lot of people get stuck in nowhere jobs, and the majority of them wouldn't use the word 'voluntary' to describe how they got somewhere, and I'm one of them. Once you accept a crummy job you need to take, it's extraordinarily difficult dig yourself out of that occupational hell-hole. When you work 50 hours a week it's difficult to find time for interviews.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, okay it's absurd. But if you were starving you'd still take that job.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

Again, this sounds nice, but things aren't always so simple as "do the hard work and one day you'll be rich." My mother committed credit card fraud on me, and instead of immediately turning her in I gave her a chance to pay the card off, and Bank of America used that against me to deny my fraud claim, and now my credit is f*cked. I just found out my '89 Ford Escort won't start again, so who knows what the hell's going to happen with me. I want to get as many law school applications in as I can, but they're $50 a pop. My company just got bought out by a larger competitor and they're laying people off left and right, and I don't know what they plan on doing with me.

People face involuntary problems to upward mobility.


[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. No, Boro, I'm not using these personal anecdotes for sympathy. I just figured emtpy rhetoric about how we need to care for the poor wouldn't go too far. As for gambling, I'm not talking sitting down at the $20-$40 table with $2000 at the local casino. I'm talking depositing $20 dollars into my BOSPoker account. I guess you can still call me out and say "hey you're not really poor if you've got twenty extra dollars to waste on gambling." It's kind of an anti-depressant for me, doing something I love, especially considering I'm a good player and routinely make a little money. Last week I built $20 into $700 in a week (probably not much by your standards, but that's a fortune to me). I don't squander my extra money. I'm a smart guy (try to be)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I plan on living like a hermit if I get into law school. Prioritizing and long-term planning are good things. You won't find any disagreement there. But like I said there are involuntary occurences that will throw a stick into the spokes. My BA is in polisci, so when I got out of school I wanted some kind of government job. I don't know about every government job, but the ones I wanted required credit checks. As I said before, my credit is non-existant. That's a gigantic involuntary wall put up in front of me.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do lunatic mothers and neverending car troubles fit into the axiom?

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey man, I'm not trying to piss you off here. There's no need to be condescending and sardonic. I enjoy reading your posts and I respect and laud your encyclopedic knowledge on the topics you discuss, but unwarranted stabs like this will do nothing but make people lose respect for you.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to ignore one of the key powers of free markets which is to explore all the possibilities and find the ones that are localy fit, all things are tried including insourcing security.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not ignored it at all. Rather I have considered and dismissed it. It would be no more efficient or profitable in a modern division-of-labor technologically advanced society for Microsoft to insource their security than it would be for them to build their own buildings or manufacture their own desks and staplers.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is to show how that no localy fit solution can lead to government. I don't see you showing this except to insist it wont happen because there's no incentive to do so. Trouble is as well as the incentive argument assuming competence (which is a huge asumption) there's also the problem that in any complex system things happen without any incentive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Incentive arguments are extremely powerful. They do not assume competence in general, any more than evolutionary theory assumes an intention toward better design. Rather, all we need understand is that in a modern division-of-labor technologically advanced society firms that specialize their production will out-compete firms that do not, and that competent entrepreneurs will out-compete incompetent ones.

Complex social structures do not happen without incentives. Believing this will lead one to believe that culture and history cannot be understood, that there are no underlying laws. This is not true. There is a science of human action (praxeology), and while it cannot predict how individual humans will act specifically, it can both explain why they acted the way they did after the fact (history) and how humans will act in general in response to certain incentives. I cannot predict how an individual human will choose to save or consume, but I can predict with 100% accuracy that more goods will lead to increased savings, capital accumulation, and the production of still more goods in general.

[lehighguy]

"Yep. I have arbitrarily decided to treat long term planning that results in healthier, wealthier, and more civilized society as "better" than the alternative. You are free to choose other definitions. In fact the choices people would make in what is "better" is probably highly correlated with their personal time preference."
__________________________________________________ _________

This is not necessarrily true. I know many people that wasted thier lives constantly living for tommorrow while today was miserable, then realized that tommorrow was miserable too.

Often people don't know what they want, and long term plans are abstract and flawed. By ignoring thier short term instincts they often spend thier whole life chasing something that is ultimately unsatisfying.

Consider an accountant that works thier ass off to make a lot of money, but wakes up 20 years later to find himself without a family or friends. Realizes he hated everyday of the last 20 years and he can't buy the things he wants or his time back.

This of course doesn't even take into account all the people that burn out reaching for a goal and ignoring the short term. The Japanese salarimen who dies from overwork, the investment banker whose wife leaves him cause he never comes home and he starts hitting the bottle hard, etc.

Your definitions are very terse, your treatment of the subject very limited.

__________________________________________________ _______

As I stated, greater absolute levels of wealth do not necessarilly (though they may) bring greater overall happiness to society (which is the goal here right). On a smaller level more visible, there are many miserable rich people.