[turkishcandy]

We are all criticizing the west, the progessivism, the corruption, the corporations, feminism, immigration etc. I've been thinking about what it takes to create an ideal state with an ideal government so that there will be no major problems about the things that I've counted above. No culture war, no mass protests, no poverty, no oppression, the biggest political issue will be the ban of smoking in indoor areas or animal cruelty. I think criticizing is futile if we haven't decided what exactly we want for our countries to be. Therefore in order to change things for better, it's crucial that we have a complete solution in mind.

So my question is:
In a hypothetical scenario, in 2015 in a 1st world country (after a huge war or economic crisis or some devastating disaster) you alone somehow got all the legislative and executive power, and you had zero personal ambitions, what form of state would you create for everyone to live without major conflict and in the most virtuous and free way? What type of governing, what type of political system? Education, taxing, voting, the shaping of social classes, distribution of wealth, constitutional rights, welfare, military expenses, healtcare, seperation of powers, how would you establish them all so that you could find a long-term solution to all the problems that we complain about all day? How free should that society be in order for this new world order to work smoothly? Would you stick with democracy or leave it? Would you try to shape people's thinking in an ideology that you think is right or would you let them be? Where would that state be on a scale of communism to capitalism? On a scale of totalitarian to liberal? Monarchy to democracy?

Or do you think there can be no ideal government because human nature is flawed?

Also keep in mind the effect this system will have on the dating culture and consider your interests as a heterosexual male.

In short, explain in details the world order that you want to live in as a citizen and how that system could possibly work out.

[BortimusPrime]

Human skull pyramid.

[DChambers]

Of course there is no ideal form of human government due to the flawed nature of humanity, as you said. However if there were ever an ideal form of government ever brought forth into this world it was the government of the United States between 1859-1913.

The reason I pick 1859 is because following the Civil War the power of the States to stand toe to toe with the Federal Government was shattered. However there wasn't too great of a concentration of power in the hands of the Federal Government until after the Great Depression and World War Two.

So the political system of governance that was present int he U.S at this time is what I would aim for. In other words, a Federal Republic with the Bill of Rights intact. With myself in the position as President for Life of course. (After me such a position would be declared illegal and there would be term limits for the president). The only other things I would consider is passing amendments that provide for a STRICT interpretation of the Constitution, I would add this from Clause 20. Sec. 9 of the Confederate Constitution "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." This would keep Congress from passing some far reaching bill that bears some strange title like the "Patriot Act."

The main problem today is the monetary system. I would reform the banking system and eliminate the practice of fractional reserve banking, the monetizing of government debt, and a private central bank. The nation's central bank would be operated by the Government rather than operate as a for profit business.

Education would be publicly funded by their local communities, with very basic standards that each school district must meet. Aside from those standards the parents and teachers would have free reign over what subjects would be taught and how those subjects would be taught.

Militarily the country would operate with a smaller and highly trained standing army, with an organized reserve to be called upon in an emergency. There would be mandatory conscription for every male and he would serve for four years from 18-22.

It would be a free market. The government's only jobs are to protects their citizen's property rights, provide a stable currency, and ensure free trade across the States. Regulatory practices could be set up by the individual States.

I cannot legislate morality or traditional values. However I think that when people are made accountable for their actions, must work for a living, and have their liberty, they naturally develop towards a more traditional and conservative ideology.

Eh, I might outlaw liberalism too, haven't decided yet.

As far as game goes, people were having plenty of sex in the 1800's and early 1900's, so I don't think you would be handicapped too much.

[turkishcandy]

So small government, nationalize education and banking, I all agree. Except for military service between 18-22. I doubt you wanna live as citizen in a country where you have to serve the best 4 years of your life. Why is that? You wanna conquer the world and spread this new system everywhere?

[The Reactionary Tree]

A neoreactionary form of government would be best. To live in a non-democratic city-state like Hong Kong or Singapore. There is no democracy and laissez-faire capitalism.

[bojangles]

There was a huge thread on this last year - I said aristocracy

[turkishcandy]

(11-28-2014 07:17 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

There was a huge thread on this last year - I said aristocracy

I missed it. You can quote yourself. I'm interested in details too. If you say aristocracy, you should explain how you will prevent it from turning into oligarchy, who will decide who gets to be aristocrat etc. The problem with aristocracy is fighting the greedy human nature. The problem with democracy is fighting the stupid human nature. I thought about making an exam to earn your right to vote. I can't figure out how it can objectively determine who is virtuous enough. I will write my conclusions if enough people offer theirs.

[Sp5]

Good idea for a thread. As I said elsewhere, put your ideas on the table.

There is no perfect form of government, as long as humans are involved there will be excesses which need to be corrected.

I believe in liberal constitutional democracy, decentralized, with separation of powers, for the reason summed up in this, by an Egyptian:

Quote:

@salamamoussa
What sets US apart from other nations is not the absence of errors, but the redeeming possibility of change.

As long as you have a constitutional framework which requires some government transparency, free speech and elections, things can change. The system will swing from side to side, but within limits defined by the constitution.

I would adjust the economic system more towards what the Federal Republic of Germany has, with more protection for workers and the environment, better financial regulation, and health care benefits for all. Health care is a costly fiasco in the USA, and Big Finance is running wild.

(11-27-2014 09:59 PM)DChambers Wrote:  

Militarily the country would operate with a smaller and highly trained standing army, with an organized reserve to be called upon in an emergency. There would be mandatory conscription for every male and he would serve for four years from 18-22.

There are about ten million males in the USA between 18 - 22. http://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2012comp.html

Even assuming half of them would be disqualified or exempted for some reason, that is still a huge cohort of junior military personnel to train and supervise, so you are looking at an armed forces of seven million or more. How does that conform to "smaller?"

(11-28-2014 06:44 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

A neoreactionary form of government would be best. To live in a non-democratic city-state like Hong Kong or Singapore. There is no democracy and laissez-faire capitalism.

All of the reactionaries, authoritarians, fascists, communists and monarchists imagine themselves in charge.

They never think of themselves being the guy getting arrested and tortured by the police for some arbitrary reason.

They think all of the decrees and laws will be to their liking, and will never be written and enforced to benefit cronies and groups they're not a part of and to enslave them.

Anyways, Singapore is a democracy, with some authoritarian features, which is ethnically dominated by a homogeneous Chinese population. Hong Kong, let's see where that goes. Seems like lots of people there want elections rather than dictatorship.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Diffused power protects the individual from abuse and corruption.

[DChambers]

(11-28-2014 05:50 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

So small government, nationalize education and banking, I all agree. Except for military service between 18-22. I doubt you wanna live as citizen in a country where you have to serve the best 4 years of your life. Why is that? You wanna conquer the world and spread this new system everywhere?

A system of national conscription would instill in our youths a sense of duty, patriotism, skills, and a shared experience that would help bind the nation and its people together.

This also ensures that if called into service as the result of some conflict they will already have some basic training. People would also have to remain in the reserves for quite a few years after the age of 22, so once a year for a few weeks they would mobilized and retrained somewhat.

I might be inclined to conquer the world too. Eh, what can you do.

[Glaucon]

Ideal to who? You can not please everyone...

[The Reactionary Tree]

Diffused power doesnt protect shit. Look at every Western democracy in the world to see that it doesnt. Europe and the USA are going to Hell in a hand basket. Liberties are dwindling away and totalitarianism is rising. This is the nature of democracy - to eat itself. Democracy is the worst form of government.

I'd rather have a benevolent dictatorship like Hong Kong, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, or Singapore or actual monarchy like Monaco or Lichtenstein than to live under a demotist government which will slowly but surely destroy itself. As to people wanting elections in HK or Singapore, people often want things. They want more than can be afforded. That's why democracies bankrupt themselves. Look at the USSR, EU and the USA. All are governments for "the people." All are tyrannical to certain degrees and all are (or already have) gone bankrupt. They have higher time preferences. The people want the gimmedats. The people are like children. Look at your average voter - they're fucking retarded. I don't care what the people want because they often want stupid shit. Would you let a child make the decisions in a family? No. Then why would you let a bunch of uneducated people attempt to govern themselves?

And no, not every neoreactionary imagines themselves as king. Some of us just want to live in places that are economically free and Marxist free.

Look at the standards of living of those places I listed - they're high. Those are nice places. A true dictatorship would never allow for that level of economic freedom - see North Korea. In Singapore, I may not be able to chew gum, vote, or sodomize faggots, but at least my taxes will be low and there will be economic opportunities available to me to provide for myself and my family.

That is the purpose of government - to provide law & order to foster the growth of civilization and liberty (freedom to be economically independent, not to be degenerates).

[bojangles]

(11-28-2014 07:29 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 07:17 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

There was a huge thread on this last year - I said aristocracy

I missed it. You can quote yourself. I'm interested in details too. If you say aristocracy, you should explain how you will prevent it from turning into oligarchy, who will decide who gets to be aristocrat etc. The problem with aristocracy is fighting the greedy human nature. The problem with democracy is fighting the stupid human nature. I thought about making an exam to earn your right to vote. I can't figure out how it can objectively determine who is virtuous enough. I will write my conclusions if enough people offer theirs.

The greatest advances in civilisation came within aristocratic governments. Whether it was the roman republic, the italian republics or the British Empire. You've asked me to quote myself, I truly can't be arsed looking through 3000 of my posts. I'm sure there's a search tool on this board that could have been used and I found the below:

Quote:

I'd say Britain's system of government between the end of the English Civil War post Oliver Cromwell (Return of the monarchy) and the start of World War 1 was the best system in place. Even though power was held in the hands of few family dynasties and those landowners, a common man could still make his money and make his way to the top. However the actual qualities that were passed down in families were great as they all aspired to certain roles that their families had achieved before. It's a bit difficult for me to explain right now as I've just come off a long course but I'll expand further on another day and explain how the Empire expanded so fast because of this form of government and how this form of government enabled it to keep a hold of the majority of it's conquests.

Quote:

The empire's wealth was derived from mercantilism, even though Adam Smith debunked quite a bit of it (a lot of his debunking was criticism of things that did not actually exist). The empire ensured that London became the financial centre of the world by using mercantilism. Other large nations were not seen as states to trade with but as competitors, the government worked side by side with merchants to ensure that gold and silver flowed into the kingdom from colonies, whilst subsidising domestic industries and of course the primary function financing the powerful Navy and Armies. Each colony would finance it's own army which would be under the command of the centralised government in London.

Couple of things which ensured the political structure in the country to get to it's powerful aristocratic stage was the English Restoration, William of Orange invading England (at the behest of Parliament) and the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland which had until that point been held under a personal union of the monarch. In comparison, the powerful French and the huge Spanish empires at the time were run under absolute monarchies with administration handled by hand picked ministers and armies headed by generals who were from the royal family.
The Restoration got rid of hated military rule and brought all three kingdoms back under a monarchy. William of Orange invading led to the Glorious Revolution which brought Parliament powers and sent the three kingdoms on their way to a more constitutional monarchy. Another effect of this was that it removed the incumbent Roman Catholic ruler who was easily influenced by Rome and France and brought a Protestant back onto the throne. The Bill of Rights was made effective in 1689, which meant a monarch could never hold absolute power. A standing army under the control of Parliament was created (however the Crown has executive power within the army, it's weird), the monarch had to take a Coronation Oath to ensure that laws created by Parliament were adhered to. The Act of Settlement created the 3 elements of parliament, the crown, Lords and Commons. Finally the Union of 2 of the 3 kingdoms created the start of the political structure that exists today in UK. One single parliament in London was created, the Lords was the more powerful house with the Commons making legislation the Lords acted as check on government laws. Of course the King/Crown was involved in this procedure by being able to put peers into the house of Lords. The King would chose a group of ministers and these ministers needed the support of the Commons and Lords to run the country, the prime minster eventually came from these group of ministers.

Of course the real dominance came because of the aristocracy I talked about before, the ministers were some of the most intelligent men in the land and governance of the country from Walpole to the two Pitt's were some of Britain's greatest. We'll find it difficult now to replicate the power of the army due to the generals who were in charge. These men were trained from birth to be admirals/generals and learned the ways of war throughout the ages before leading an army. The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) learned his trade in India, practically running over the whole subcontinent before his Napoleonic engagements. Admiral Nelson, Admiral Anson (who supplied armies worldwide during a period in 1760's when the British were involved in wars everywhere). Admiral Parker who captured Nanking and many others were all trained in the naval arts at the Royal Navy. The Duke of Marlborough was the premier general at his time ahead of contemporaries such as Prince Eugene, his knowledge and military strategies were passed on to others like Wellington and Robert Clive within the British Army.
The aristocracy fueled the army and navy with great leadership, this was a constant within both the military institutions which guaranteed supremacy around the world.

I'm a bit exhausted so will continue later on the common man and how his life improved under this government which was not really a democracy nor a monarchy.

[lskdfjldsf]

99.9% of political problems are a result of forcing people to live with people they don't want to live with.

It's not about the kind of government you have, it's about the kind of people you have living under that government. With that being said, I think the US system of having powerful, diverse states with a limited Federal government is ideal for me.

People are happiest, and have the highest trust in government institutions, when surrounded by people similar to them (religion, race, ideology, etc.) This should be encouraged. Let libertarian isolationists have a state for themselves, let blue pill communists have a state for themselves, where both are free to live under the laws and culture they see fit. If you're in a state and want to live under different rules, find the state that best fits your ideology or culture and move there.

A Federal government on top of that state system, but responsible for only infrastructure and defense, would provide some basic cohesion between the different entities.

[DChambers]

(11-28-2014 08:25 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 07:29 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 07:17 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

There was a huge thread on this last year - I said aristocracy

I missed it. You can quote yourself. I'm interested in details too. If you say aristocracy, you should explain how you will prevent it from turning into oligarchy, who will decide who gets to be aristocrat etc. The problem with aristocracy is fighting the greedy human nature. The problem with democracy is fighting the stupid human nature. I thought about making an exam to earn your right to vote. I can't figure out how it can objectively determine who is virtuous enough. I will write my conclusions if enough people offer theirs.

The greatest advances in civilisation came within aristocratic governments. Whether it was the roman republic, the italian republics or the British Empire. You've asked me to quote myself, I truly can't be arsed looking through 3000 of my posts. I'm sure there's a search tool on this board that could have been used and I found the below:

Quote:

I'd say Britain's system of government between the end of the English Civil War post Oliver Cromwell (Return of the monarchy) and the start of World War 1 was the best system in place. Even though power was held in the hands of few family dynasties and those landowners, a common man could still make his money and make his way to the top. However the actual qualities that were passed down in families were great as they all aspired to certain roles that their families had achieved before. It's a bit difficult for me to explain right now as I've just come off a long course but I'll expand further on another day and explain how the Empire expanded so fast because of this form of government and how this form of government enabled it to keep a hold of the majority of it's conquests.

Quote:

The empire's wealth was derived from mercantilism, even though Adam Smith debunked quite a bit of it (a lot of his debunking was criticism of things that did not actually exist). The empire ensured that London became the financial centre of the world by using mercantilism. Other large nations were not seen as states to trade with but as competitors, the government worked side by side with merchants to ensure that gold and silver flowed into the kingdom from colonies, whilst subsidising domestic industries and of course the primary function financing the powerful Navy and Armies. Each colony would finance it's own army which would be under the command of the centralised government in London.

Couple of things which ensured the political structure in the country to get to it's powerful aristocratic stage was the English Restoration, William of Orange invading England (at the behest of Parliament) and the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland which had until that point been held under a personal union of the monarch. In comparison, the powerful French and the huge Spanish empires at the time were run under absolute monarchies with administration handled by hand picked ministers and armies headed by generals who were from the royal family.
The Restoration got rid of hated military rule and brought all three kingdoms back under a monarchy. William of Orange invading led to the Glorious Revolution which brought Parliament powers and sent the three kingdoms on their way to a more constitutional monarchy. Another effect of this was that it removed the incumbent Roman Catholic ruler who was easily influenced by Rome and France and brought a Protestant back onto the throne. The Bill of Rights was made effective in 1689, which meant a monarch could never hold absolute power. A standing army under the control of Parliament was created (however the Crown has executive power within the army, it's weird), the monarch had to take a Coronation Oath to ensure that laws created by Parliament were adhered to. The Act of Settlement created the 3 elements of parliament, the crown, Lords and Commons. Finally the Union of 2 of the 3 kingdoms created the start of the political structure that exists today in UK. One single parliament in London was created, the Lords was the more powerful house with the Commons making legislation the Lords acted as check on government laws. Of course the King/Crown was involved in this procedure by being able to put peers into the house of Lords. The King would chose a group of ministers and these ministers needed the support of the Commons and Lords to run the country, the prime minster eventually came from these group of ministers.

Of course the real dominance came because of the aristocracy I talked about before, the ministers were some of the most intelligent men in the land and governance of the country from Walpole to the two Pitt's were some of Britain's greatest. We'll find it difficult now to replicate the power of the army due to the generals who were in charge. These men were trained from birth to be admirals/generals and learned the ways of war throughout the ages before leading an army. The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) learned his trade in India, practically running over the whole subcontinent before his Napoleonic engagements. Admiral Nelson, Admiral Anson (who supplied armies worldwide during a period in 1760's when the British were involved in wars everywhere). Admiral Parker who captured Nanking and many others were all trained in the naval arts at the Royal Navy. The Duke of Marlborough was the premier general at his time ahead of contemporaries such as Prince Eugene, his knowledge and military strategies were passed on to others like Wellington and Robert Clive within the British Army.
The aristocracy fueled the army and navy with great leadership, this was a constant within both the military institutions which guaranteed supremacy around the world.

I'm a bit exhausted so will continue later on the common man and how his life improved under this government which was not really a democracy nor a monarchy.

A few points.

1. You seem to make the argument that Britain's rise was due to its government. I disagree, its rise was due to its position as a dominant maritime power and colonial power which allowed it to prosper. Compared to Europe it was a haven for freedom, but compared to the U.S. it was highly restrictive. You could not advance all that far in Britain without a distinguished family name, lacking that there was only so far you could rise in government.

2. British generals as a rule never reached the levels of greatness as their European and American counterparts, particularly the French. Wellington and Robert Moore are the only British Generals of the 1800's to be well known for their service and who faced professional armies rather than native rabbles. Indeed, part of the reason is that things like military competence is not necessarily something that can be taught, history is riddled with examples of generals who were raised as soldiers from birth who choked when faced with an enemy. The Austrians, the Germans, the British, and the Russians all had generals who were drawn mainly from the aristocracy. France meanwhile following the Revolution was able to dominate the continent thanks to the unrivaled genius of Napoleon, who rose to power based off of merit. Indeed, many of Napoleon's greatest Marshals were drawn from the Lower classes and proved through natural abilities coupled with experience to dominate their aristocratic counterparts. The American generals of the Civil War have a far better record than their British counterparts. Of the American generals only the greatest, Robert E. Lee, could be considered coming from an aristocratic background.

3. Without removing the influence of a private central bank, you leave an aristocratic government like Britain open to the same slow decay as it faced historically. British dominance was based off of the Bank of England manipulating the currency and loaning money to various countries and companies. Although this gave them massive influence, it also was the major factor in their decline when debt increased and the Bank of England tightened the money supply.

[Sp5]

(11-28-2014 08:16 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

Diffused power doesnt protect shit. Look at every Western democracy in the world to see that it doesnt. Europe and the USA are going to Hell in a hand basket. Liberties are dwindling away and totalitarianism is rising. This is the nature of democracy - to eat itself. Democracy is the worst form of government.

I'd rather have a benevolent dictatorship like Hong Kong, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, or Singapore or actual monarchy like Monaco or Lichtenstein than to live under a demotist government which will slowly but surely destroy itself. As to people wanting elections in HK or Singapore, people often want things. They want more than can be afforded. That's why democracies bankrupt themselves. Look at the USSR, EU and the USA. All are governments for "the people." All are tyrannical to certain degrees and all are (or already have) gone bankrupt. They have higher time preferences. The people want the gimmedats. The people are like children. Look at your average voter - they're fucking retarded. I don't care what the people want because they often want stupid shit. Would you let a child make the decisions in a family? No. Then why would you let a bunch of uneducated people attempt to govern themselves?

And no, not every neoreactionary imagines themselves as king. Some of us just want to live in places that are economically free and Marxist free.

Look at the standards of living of those places I listed - they're high. Those are nice places. A true dictatorship would never allow for that level of economic freedom - see North Korea. In Singapore, I may not be able to chew gum, vote, or sodomize faggots, but at least my taxes will be low and there will be economic opportunities available to me to provide for myself and my family.

That is the purpose of government - to provide law & order to foster the growth of civilization and liberty (freedom to be economically independent, not to be degenerates).

So we have to destroy freedom in order to save freedom? Totalitarian Dubai is better because you say it's becoming totalitarian in America?

C'mon, be serious. Your examples are all tiny states or petro-sheikhdoms and not even what you say they are. Let's try a system that is practical for a large state with a population of millions.

Singapore does have elections, it's just that the 75% Chinese majority wants the same party all the time and less freedom than people in the West would want. They could change the system if they wanted.

Monaco and Lichtenstein are constitutional monarchies with elected legislatures. Lichtenstein is MORE democratic than other places, they have the right to pass laws by referendum and towns can even secede by vote. So not a good example.

All of your examples are subsidized by their neighbors in some way (no militaries, transportation infrastructure) or have oil. It's easy to be a tax haven if you don't have a military or have oil and gas. Even so, Dubai did go bankrupt, it was bailed out by Abu Dhabi. I predict Dubai will be an apocalyptic ruin in 50 years or less.

Unless you're the King or the dictator, liberal democracies are better for men. Why? You retain the right to say the King, President or Prime Minister sucks. You can tell the police to fuck off on your doorstep unless they have a warrant. You can get organized and run for office yourself, or you can make it so your officials have to listen to you.

There's something inherently feminine and submissive about being a subject of an absolute monarchy or dictatorship. That's why females are more authoritarian than males, they like to submit.

[Oz.]

In before someone says communism

[Old Fritz]

A government with autocratic and libertarianism elements.

[The Reactionary Tree]

(11-28-2014 10:23 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(11-28-2014 08:16 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

Diffused power doesnt protect shit. Look at every Western democracy in the world to see that it doesnt. Europe and the USA are going to Hell in a hand basket. Liberties are dwindling away and totalitarianism is rising. This is the nature of democracy - to eat itself. Democracy is the worst form of government.

I'd rather have a benevolent dictatorship like Hong Kong, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, or Singapore or actual monarchy like Monaco or Lichtenstein than to live under a demotist government which will slowly but surely destroy itself. As to people wanting elections in HK or Singapore, people often want things. They want more than can be afforded. That's why democracies bankrupt themselves. Look at the USSR, EU and the USA. All are governments for "the people." All are tyrannical to certain degrees and all are (or already have) gone bankrupt. They have higher time preferences. The people want the gimmedats. The people are like children. Look at your average voter - they're fucking retarded. I don't care what the people want because they often want stupid shit. Would you let a child make the decisions in a family? No. Then why would you let a bunch of uneducated people attempt to govern themselves?

And no, not every neoreactionary imagines themselves as king. Some of us just want to live in places that are economically free and Marxist free.

Look at the standards of living of those places I listed - they're high. Those are nice places. A true dictatorship would never allow for that level of economic freedom - see North Korea. In Singapore, I may not be able to chew gum, vote, or sodomize faggots, but at least my taxes will be low and there will be economic opportunities available to me to provide for myself and my family.

That is the purpose of government - to provide law & order to foster the growth of civilization and liberty (freedom to be economically independent, not to be degenerates).

So we have to destroy freedom in order to save freedom? Totalitarian Dubai is better because you say it's becoming totalitarian in America?

C'mon, be serious. Your examples are all tiny states or petro-sheikhdoms and not even what you say they are. Let's try a system that is practical for a large state with a population of millions.

Singapore does have elections, it's just that the 75% Chinese majority wants the same party all the time and less freedom than people in the West would want. They could change the system if they wanted.

Monaco and Lichtenstein are constitutional monarchies with elected legislatures. Lichtenstein is MORE democratic than other places, they have the right to pass laws by referendum and towns can even secede by vote. So not a good example.

All of your examples are subsidized by their neighbors in some way (no militaries, transportation infrastructure) or have oil. It's easy to be a tax haven if you don't have a military or have oil and gas. Even so, Dubai did go bankrupt, it was bailed out by Abu Dhabi. I predict Dubai will be an apocalyptic ruin in 50 years or less.

Unless you're the King or the dictator, liberal democracies are better for men. Why? You retain the right to say the King, President or Prime Minister sucks. You can tell the police to fuck off on your doorstep unless they have a warrant. You can get organized and run for office yourself, or you can make it so your officials have to listen to you.

There's something inherently feminine and submissive about being a subject of an absolute monarchy or dictatorship. That's why females are more authoritarian than males, they like to submit.

Actually the opposite is true. Democracy is inherently feminine. Radical Traditionalist Julius Evola asserted this. A king is a patriarch to his people much like a father is head of the household. To grant suffrage to everyone is the equivalence of letting women & children run a household.

"both democracy and socialism ratify the shift from the masculine to the feminine and from the spiritual to the material and the promiscuous..." - Julius Evola

As for freedom, what is freedom? Democracy is not freedom. It is Communism Lite. Where 51% of the people vote to plunder the resources and strip the rights away of the other 49%. Socialism and democracy go together like PB&J. Voting does not equate to freedom, especially not since it is ultimately voting to surrender your rights or sovereignty to a bureaucrat thousands of miles away.

The tax rate in Singapore is 15%. In the US, with local, state & federal, its over 50% depending on the area you live in & your level of income. This is freedom? Guns being confiscated is freedom? States rights being nulled by the SCOTUS is freedom? Sure you have freedom of speech, just as long as it doesnt offend Homeland Security, the NSA or your employer. What good is freedom of speech if exercising it means you are fired from your job and exiled from society? or treated as an enemy of the state?

As for the size of the city-states, my belief is that all giant countries should be dissolved into thousands of city-states. We should be more particular with whom we associate with. Local governance is best. We should not become more universalist and have giant unions of nations like the EU where the sovereignty of each nation is violated by a bureaucracy. We most certainly must not have one world government either.

Monarchies were not these totalitarian states that you seem to think they are. Do you honestly believe that the Renaissance or Enlightenment periods would have happened under totalitarian dictatorship?

Also, more people have been killed under demotist governments than under any king. Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Democratic Socialism, etc. Governments for the people and by the people sure love to kill a shit ton of people. Guillotines, gallows, gas chambers, Gitmo, and gulags... oh how I love a government for the people.

I believe in exit over voice. You should not have the right to vote and if you dont like it, then you can leave.

[Sp5]

(11-28-2014 10:42 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

Actually the opposite is true. Democracy is inherently feminine. Radical Traditionalist Julius Evola asserted this. A king is a patriarch to his people much like a father is head of the household. To grant suffrage to everyone is the equivalence of letting women & children run a household.

"both democracy and socialism ratify the shift from the masculine to the feminine and from the spiritual to the material and the promiscuous..." - Julius Evola

As for freedom, what is freedom? Democracy is not freedom. It is Communism Lite. Where 51% of the people vote to plunder the resources and strip the rights away of the other 49%. Socialism and democracy go together like PB&J. Voting does not equate to freedom, especially not since it is ultimately voting to surrender your rights or sovereignty to a bureaucrat thousands of miles away.

The tax rate in Singapore is 15%. In the US, with local, state & federal, its over 50% depending on the area you live in & your level of income. This is freedom? Guns being confiscated is freedom? States rights being nulled by the SCOTUS is freedom? Sure you have freedom of speech, just as long as it doesnt offend Homeland Security, the NSA or your employer. What good is freedom of speech if exercising it means you are fired from your job and exiled from society? or treated as an enemy of the state?

As for the size of the city-states, my belief is that all giant countries should be dissolved into thousands of city-states. We should be more particular with whom we associate with. Local governance is best. We should not become more universalist and have giant unions of nations like the EU where the sovereignty of each nation is violated by a bureaucracy. We most certainly must not have one world government either.

Monarchies were not these totalitarian states that you seem to think they are. Do you honestly believe that the Renaissance or Enlightenment periods would have happened under totalitarian dictatorship?

Also, more people have been killed under demotist governments than under any king. Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Democratic Socialism, etc. Governments for the people and by the people sure love to kill a shit ton of people. Guillotines, gallows, gas chambers, Gitmo, and gulags... oh how I love a government for the people.

I believe in exit over voice. You should not have the right to vote and if you dont like it, then you can leave.

It's funny that you bitch about things in the West that are much worse in your ideal societies. For example, you say "Guns being confiscated is freedom?"

First, there are practically NO gun possession rights in any of your ideal countries. Singapore has one of the toughest gun laws in the world. Again, you want less freedom because it's more freedom.

Also, where in the USA are guns being "confiscated" except from felons? Gun rights have been expanding in recent years, see DC v. Heller.

Second, you don't even understand your own examples. Singapore has a huge 7% VAT in addition to income tax of up to 20% There's also a huge tax on vehicles, something like 100%. And a big property tax: http://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/page04.aspx?id=2094 So get your facts in order.

The average tax burden in the USA is 31%, not more than 50%, according to the Tax Foundation http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-work...13-percent

Third, I don't give a shit what "Julius Evola" says, that proves nothing. If some king is ordering me around and I have no say-so, I'm his bitch. I'd rather be a man than the "patriarchal" king's child.

I can call up my town councillor and he has to listen to me politely. I have more masculine respect in a democracy than where the king can come in and fuck my wife if he wants (droit du seigneur)

Fourth, it's all well and good until the king turns out to be a madman or a retard, see Caligula, George III, Ivan the Terrible, Emperor Bokassa, and many other examples.

Fifth, comparing things in the 15th century with the 20th or 21st century fails to take into account technology. Kings killed a lot of people, see Ghengis Khan as an all-time champ. What if he had machine guns and bombers? How about the Hapsburgs and Bourbons in the Americas? Millions killed. The only thing that saved monarchy from killing more in the 20th century was that it became obsolete. The Czar had secret police, as did other monarchs. They just did not have the technology to impose total control.

[turkishcandy]

How about the distribution of wealth? Crippling the elite prevents economic growth, however if you have total liberal economy corporations eventually take over and prepare economic&cultural collapse. How would you manage welfare? Do you think a Scandinavian type of society is ideal? Considering its negative effect on women and dating culture, I can't decide how a society can be prosperous and yet embrace traditional gender roles and not become a feminist shithole.

[The Reactionary Tree]

Under the European monarchies, the people had the right to bear arms. Even looking at the history of the US, where did the people get the guns? They always were allowed to possess them.

Also, I didnt say what the average tax rate was in the US, I was pointing out that in some jurisdictions, you can end up paying over 50% in tax. And still, using 31% that is still high than 20%. We are overtaxed in the West. Far more so than the monarchies of old or these city-states like Singapore or HK. According to Democracy The God that Failed by Hoppe, that average tax rate under the European monarchs was 8%.

As for droit du seigneur, according to La Wik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur) there is absolutely no evidence to show that this was actually a real thing or that is was ever practiced.

Kings were more adherent to the courts than our current leaders (both elected & unelected). As for "being the kings bitch," are you not the bitch when the police shows up? the IRS? the TSA? the NSA? the ATF? Literally any of the alphabet soup agencies that police some aspect of your life. They say and you do. I'd rather serve one man than thousands of bureaucrats. Not only are you subjected to the will of bureaucrats but also to the will of the mob every election cycle.

Occasionally, you do get a mad man under monarchy but does that mean all demotist leaders are sane? Let's look at the great leaders of demotism: Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro. Such lovely guys they all were. Caligula, George VI and Ivan aren't even in the same league as those gents.

Are reactionary governments always innocent? No. But they sure as Hell are better than any government that claims to represent the will of the people. At least under the old European monarchs, we didnt have mass genocide, taxation rates equivalent to theft, or Cultural Marxism.

[DChambers]

(11-28-2014 11:18 AM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

How about the distribution of wealth? Crippling the elite prevents economic growth, however if you have total liberal economy corporations eventually take over and prepare economic&cultural collapse. How would you manage welfare? Do you think a Scandinavian type of society is ideal? Considering its negative effect on women and dating culture, I can't decide how a society can be prosperous and yet embrace traditional gender roles and not become a feminist shithole.

Once again look to the U.S. in its original form. Corporations used to receive a limited charter for only a certain period of time and only to achieve a certain task, the building of a bridge for example, after which time or the task was completed the corporation would e dissolved. Thus no corporation would ever grow large enough to manipulate the power of the government, or if it did, it would be dissolved after all the original founders died, and its assets would be dissolved among its shareholders and its competition.

By limiting corporate rights to the very basics, protection for shareholders etc... and holding corporations responsible for any property damages they cause, pollution and GMO cross breeding with farmers' crops falls under this, you severely limit their influence in government.

As for welfare, a very limited safety net. The government would not directly provide services, but it would contribute real goods to charities and the like.

Scandinavia is no place I would want to live, there is a reason why those countries have a brain drain going on. All of the most ambitious members of their society are fleeing because there is so little of a chance to gain wealth in those nations.

[Sp5]

(11-28-2014 11:36 AM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

Under the European monarchies, the people had the right to bear arms. Even looking at the history of the US, where did the people get the guns? They always were allowed to possess them.

Also, I didnt say what the average tax rate was in the US, I was pointing out that in some jurisdictions, you can end up paying over 50% in tax. And still, using 31% that is still high than 20%. We are overtaxed in the West. Far more so than the monarchies of old or these city-states like Singapore or HK. According to Democracy The God that Failed by Hoppe, that average tax rate under the European monarchs was 8%.

As for droit du seigneur, according to La Wik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur) there is absolutely no evidence to show that this was actually a real thing or that is was ever practiced.

Kings were more adherent to the courts than our current leaders (both elected & unelected). As for "being the kings bitch," are you not the bitch when the police shows up? the IRS? the TSA? the NSA? the ATF? Literally any of the alphabet soup agencies that police some aspect of your life. They say and you do. I'd rather serve one man than thousands of bureaucrats. Not only are you subjected to the will of bureaucrats but also to the will of the mob every election cycle.

Occasionally, you do get a mad man under monarchy but does that mean all demotist leaders are sane? Let's look at the great leaders of demotism: Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro. Such lovely guys they all were. Caligula, George III and Ivan aren't even in the same league as those gents.

Are reactionary governments always innocent? No. But they sure as Hell are better than any government that claims to represent the will of the people. At least under the old European monarchs, we didnt have mass genocide, taxation rates equivalent to theft, or Cultural Marxism.

What king is going to allow all the people to have guns? No monarchy allows gun possession like the USA does, and none ever will. We are not talking fantasy land here, we are talking about systems that might actually come into being and be sustained. If you had no electoral vote, would you give the people the gun "vote?"

You still don't get the tax numbers. Taxes in Singapore are not 20%, they are 20% income + 7% VAT + high property tax + very high vehicle and fuel taxes. For all we know, they are higher than the USA's taxes.

Kings don't have bureaucrats? Of course they do.

Under your system, the king can do whatever the fuck he wants, by definition he is going to piss a lot of people off. What can they do? I guess only storm the Bastille or the Winter Palace.

I don't give a shit what Pol Pot did, we are discussing the comparative merits of monarchy and electoral democracy, not communist dictatorship.

[bojangles]

(11-28-2014 10:13 AM)DChambers Wrote:  

A few points.

1. You seem to make the argument that Britain's rise was due to its government. I disagree, its rise was due to its position as a dominant maritime power and colonial power which allowed it to prosper. Compared to Europe it was a haven for freedom, but compared to the U.S. it was highly restrictive. You could not advance all that far in Britain without a distinguished family name, lacking that there was only so far you could rise in government.

2. British generals as a rule never reached the levels of greatness as their European and American counterparts, particularly the French. Wellington and Robert Moore are the only British Generals of the 1800's to be well known for their service and who faced professional armies rather than native rabbles. Indeed, part of the reason is that things like military competence is not necessarily something that can be taught, history is riddled with examples of generals who were raised as soldiers from birth who choked when faced with an enemy. The Austrians, the Germans, the British, and the Russians all had generals who were drawn mainly from the aristocracy. France meanwhile following the Revolution was able to dominate the continent thanks to the unrivaled genius of Napoleon, who rose to power based off of merit. Indeed, many of Napoleon's greatest Marshals were drawn from the Lower classes and proved through natural abilities coupled with experience to dominate their aristocratic counterparts. The American generals of the Civil War have a far better record than their British counterparts. Of the American generals only the greatest, Robert E. Lee, could be considered coming from an aristocratic background.

3. Without removing the influence of a private central bank, you leave an aristocratic government like Britain open to the same slow decay as it faced historically. British dominance was based off of the Bank of England manipulating the currency and loaning money to various countries and companies. Although this gave them massive influence, it also was the major factor in their decline when debt increased and the Bank of England tightened the money supply.

First point - who do you think built the navy and the army? It was the government. Why does advancing into power equal freedom? There was plenty of rich aristocrats and merchants who never aspired for power and just wanted to earn money, the opportunity was there for them.(see Duke of Marlborough, various PM's under Victoria).

Second point: Bolded part - whose rule is this? Of course history seems to dismantle your rule as the British conquered a quarter of the planet under these 'poor' generals.
American generals of the Civil War? You're comparing apples with oranges here. American generals of the Civil War fought against each other. British generals fought against various European armies from the Dutch and Prussians to the mighty Imperial French army.

Of course the Duke of Marlborough is regarded by most historians as equal to Alexander and Napoleon and he came from where? The son of a minor landowner who backed the losing Royalists in the Civil War (I mean this example is one that negates your first point about people not being able to rise to power within aristocratic Britain). Robert Clive, George Keppel, James Wolfe and Admirals, do they not count as Generals?

Point 3 - what's your solution?

[The Reactionary Tree]

Under democracy, the bureaucrats and President can do whatever they want. Look at Lois Lerner, look at the executive orders of the President, look at what Nixon did, look at the housing bubble created by the Fed. Literally there is no accountability. Kings were held accountable to the people (fear of being overthrown), by the aristocracy, by the church, by the military, and by the courts.

Kings do have bureaucrats but the size of government is so much smaller that it is nowhere near to the extent of democracies. Also, a king cannot get away with doing anything. There is a far greater level of class consciousness under monarchy than in democracy. When a king does something, the people are always skeptical & the fear of being overthrown is real. Under democracy, there is no such fear bc anything done is politicized so half the country supports it. "we voted for him so we endorsed this." Since technically, anyone can become president, there is no class consciousness like that found under a monarchy.

You may not give a shit about Pol Pot but you should give a shit about Hitler. He was democratically elected under the type of system you are supportive of - electoral democracy.

Democracy just brings about socialism. It is its nature. It is also the nature of democratic socialism to bankrupt and destroy itself financially. There are far more incentives under non-democratic forms of government to be more fiscally responsible. This is better than the mob voting to rob the treasury until the country bankrupts itself just to start over again. Of course we see less actual bankruptcies because countries operate on fiat currency now so can just inflate the debt away robbing the mob of its wealth.