How would you fix South Africa?

[r3volution 3.0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew Not currently holding office but recent.

Yup

...formally an elected official, but in effect something like a monarch.



RIP

[Swordsmyth]

That it's possible for them to stage a coup from time to time doesn't mean it creates the same pressure as elections.

A democracy has regularly scheduled coups, every 2 years.

The factions can stage a coup at any time, the reason it is so uncommon is that Kings tend to the interests of their cronies very well at the expense of everyone else.

And the seas might turn to lemonade.

That is Chemically impossible, what is also impossible is that the strong will ever see any reason to restrain themselves when their prey have no power.

That's simply not true. It doesn't make sense at a theoretical level (for reasons explained) and it's contradicted by history. To wit: The origins of the modern welfare state are in Imperial Germany in the 1880s. Why is it that the Hohenzollern monarchy, after the better part of a millennium of rule, suddenly implemented the world's first unemployment insurance scheme a few years after a popularly elected legislature was forced on them? Absolute monarchies did not have to buy off the masses in this way. Show me Loius XVIs Dept. of Public Welfare.

You have heard of the Roman Emperors' "Bread and Circuses" haven't you, and ancient history has many other examples.

Apart from the "he can't win" mentality not being the major problem (free$#@!-lust being the major problem), your system only partly overcomes that mentality, no? The candidates for electors must have to get some minimum number of votes to become electors at all. So, a voter doubting whether Paul can reach that threshold is still discouraged.

So you set that threshold at .5% or less, you still only end up with a theoretical maximum of 200 Electors and it is very unlikely that you would ever reach that, nobody could think that you couldn't get .5% and therefore nobody will fall for the wasted vote argument.

I think the major effect of your system would be to benefit radicals at the expense of moderates: not only libertarian radicals like Paul, but also Bernies, Steins, etc. It would look like the proportional representation system's in other parts of the world, with more numerous, differentiated, radicalized parties emerging from elections; but then, come time to govern, they have to form coalitions, so you end up with the moderate blobs we have in the US.

You can't avoid compromises, a King has to compromise with the crony factions that he balances to support his reign, but my system is better than the European one and than the Monarchy, it is better than the European parliament because you have a few politicians who are not dependent on a party for their seats and who can lose some or all of their power if they betray their supporters because there are no barriers to their supporters choosing someone else, and it is better than Monarchy because the interests of the powerful are balanced with those of the weak.

Even if Bahrain were essentially a "company town," so what?

The Rulers have already stolen everything and they do not allow competition, there is no laissez faire Utopia that your theory promises.

[Swordsmyth]

Yup

...formally an elected official, but in effect something like a monarch.



RIP

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

[Swordsmyth]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew Not currently holding office but recent.

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

[Krugminator2]

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him in prison and had no freedom of the press.

I basically agree with your first post for the US. I am for a republic where voting is restricted to only those who pay income tax and don't get a government check.

South Africa is a different case. As a practical matter, there is no chance the blacks in that country would give up there right to vote. Mandela is lionized. They love their democracy. The majority of people in the country have no appreciation for capitalism. They need someone to force it on them and then see the benefits and can ultimately transition to democracy. Otherwise people are going to continue to live short brutal lives there. The right dictator might be brutal but the cost will be worth it even for people living there now.

[Swordsmyth]

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him prison and had no freedom of the press.

I basically agree with your first post for the US. I am for a republic where voting is restricted to only those who pay income tax and don't get a government check.

South Africa is a different case. As a practical matter, there is no chance the blacks in that country would give up there right to vote. Mandela is lionized. They love there democracy. The majority of people in the country have no appreciation for capitalism. They need someone to force it on them and then see the benefits and can ultimately transition to democracy. Otherwise people are going to continue to live short brutal lives there. The right dictator might be brutal but the cost will be worth it even for people living there now.

Yes despite what G. Lucas would tell you, sometimes it takes a dark jedi to "bring order" to madness.
I am sure you will agree as well that it must come from inside their own culture however, perhaps from one of them who has learned from the west but it still must come from inside, The Boers should have given them their own Nation for real, fighting a war to throw them out if necessary, the only option now is to flee and leave them to kill eachother until they exhaust their blood lust and are ready for a new order-bringer.

[Swordsmyth]

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him in prison and had no freedom of the press.

Well in that case his legacy would not last if his successors did not liberalize the system, sooner or later after the death of the "Indispensable Man" corruption would creep in since there would be no responsibility to balance the power.

[r3volution 3.0]

Chosen in a democracy that does nothing for either of our sides except to prove that exceptions can happen and that the Parliamentary system and therefore my system even more so are better than what the U.S. has.

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him in prison and had no freedom of the press.

...

The factions can stage a coup at any time, the reason it is so uncommon is that Kings tend to the interests of their cronies very well at the expense of everyone else.

Anything *can* happen at any time, the question at hand is about probability. You seriously believe that the average king faced the same risk of losing power as the average member of the House up for reelection every two years? I posted a thread a while back in the history sub-forum on the frequency of coups in historical monarchies. I assure you it was much less than the frequency of elected officials losing their seats in elections. And no, that's not because they throw more money at their cronies than elected politicians do to theirs, exactly the opposite is true.

what is also impossible is that the strong will ever see any reason to restrain themselves when their prey have no power.

Why don't farmers eat their seedcorn?

Why don't ranchers eat their calves?

You have heard of the Roman Emperors' "Bread and Circuses" haven't you, and ancient history has many other examples.

The Roman Empire was a most of the time a dictatorship (very unstable - see the aforementioned history thread), which explains many of its problems. Even so, bread and circuses were peanuts compared to the democratic welfare state.

You can't avoid compromises, a King has to compromise with the crony factions that he balances to support his reign, but my system is better than the European one and than the Monarchy, it is better than the European parliament because you have a few politicians who are not dependent on a party for their seats and who can lose some or all of their power if they betray their supporters because there are no barriers to their supporters choosing someone else, and it is better than Monarchy because the interests of the powerful are balanced with those of the weak.

I don't see a meaningful difference between your system and the status quo, esp. outside the US in parliamentary systems.

The Rulers have already stolen everything

They obviously haven't, since (as we established a few posts back) the people still have things, lots of things, as much or more than people here.

and they do not allow competition

If you're claiming that the state owns all enterprise, that's false.

there is no laissez faire Utopia that your theory promises.

The promise is that monarchies tend to have better incentives for laissez faire, not that every/any monarchy would ever be a utopia. The average monarchy today is quite rich and quite free by global standards, certainly more so than the average democracy. The contrast between historical monarchies and modern democracies is much starker still.

[Swordsmyth]

The promise is that monarchies tend to have better incentives for laissez faire, not that every/any monarchy would ever be a utopia. The average monarchy today is quite rich and quite free by global standards, certainly more so than the average democracy. The contrast between historical monarchies and modern democracies is much starker still.

Your entire defense rests on a few low population Oil states, they are the only places where the Royals could satisfy their kleptomania and still leave enough crumbs to keep the people from overthrowing them, they are also extremely repressive and not shining beacons of freedom.

The big secret is that in the west the Noble factions created their perverse versions of democracy in order to better rob and pillage, since they secretly set up the "Republics" they made sure they would be dysfunctional. Therefore you can thank your precious Royalty for "Democracy" they did it to you and they would do it again unless they thought of a better way to plunder the people.

[r3volution 3.0]

Your entire defense rests on a few low population Oil states

It's not my fault that democratic revolutionaries such as yourself ruined my sample size, is it?

But anyway, that they rely largely on oil (by no means entirely, see Dubai as a prime example of diversification) doesn't make them useless as examples. Plentiful natural resources do not guarantee prosperity; it's quite possible to mismanage them (Venezuela comes to mind). Moreover, they have no natural resources but oil, unlike, say, the US or W. Europe, which have all kinds of other valuable minerals and some of the richest agricultural lands in the world - but that doesn't adequately explain their wealth, any more than the oil of Bahrain et al explains theirs.

they are the only places where the Royals could satisfy their kleptomania and still leave enough crumbs to keep the people from overthrowing them

As stated a couple times (you seem to be ignoring the data), those crumbs are larger than the incomes of most citizens of democracies. And, to be clear, for the purposes of your argument it makes no difference if the wealth comes from oil or not, the people shouldn't have it you say; yet they do.

they are also extremely repressive and not shining beacons of freedom.

They rank higher on the economic freedom index than the average democracy. As for political freedoms, obviously they rank lower if voting is included among those, but voting is not a fundamental right. The only fundamental right is property. Political rights are valuable only insofar as they serve the defend property rights, which certainly voting doesn't.

The big secret is that in the west the Noble factions created their perverse versions of democracy in order to better rob and pillage, since they secretly set up the "Republics" they made sure they would be dysfunctional. Therefore you can thank your precious Royalty for "Democracy" they did it to you and they would do it again unless they thought of a better way to plunder the people.

LOL

[Swordsmyth]

As stated a couple times (you seem to be ignoring the data), those crumbs are larger than the incomes of most citizens of democracies. And, to be clear, for the purposes of your argument it makes no difference if the wealth comes from oil or not, the people shouldn't have it you say; yet they do.

I have explained why they give them as much as they do, but as a share of the insane amounts of money that the oil brings in it is practically nothing.

They rank higher on the economic freedom index than the average democracy. As for political freedoms, obviously they rank lower if voting is included among those, but voting is not a fundamental right. The only fundamental right is property. Political rights are valuable only insofar as they serve the defend property rights, which certainly voting doesn't.

They repress every other aspect freedom, apparently you are one of those sad individuals to whom nothing is more important than money.

LOL

In EVERY Revolution in modern history the leaders have been related to the Nobility or to their bankers with whom they have intermarried for centuries.

[r3volution 3.0]

I have explained why they give them as much as they do

It's absurd to characterize their choice to tax the people lightly as equivalent to welfare.

By that logic, the American welfare state was larger in 1800 than it is now and a minarchist utopia would be the largest of all.

They repress every other aspect freedom, apparently you are one of those sad individuals to whom nothing is more important than money.

Economic liberty is by far the most important. Due process is second. Free speech a distant third. Voting has negative value.

In EVERY Revolution in modern history the leaders have been related to the Nobility or to their bankers with whom they have intermarried for centuries.

Yes, rich and important people tend to be leaders. This conspiracy theory doesn't follow.

And, anyway, doesn't it undermine everything you've been saying?

If it's true that democracy is a scheme to increase the looting and pillaging, that would be an argument against it, no?



P.S. The nobility and various other special interests were reacting against the liberalizing activities of absolute monarchs in the 17th and 18th centuries and did play a major role in the revolutions (after which they did indeed get back many of the privileges of which the kings had been stripping them, and then some). The problem with your theory is that you somehow blame this on the kings, and assume that the reason democracy doesn't work is that some of its important founders were nobles, bankers, etc, when actually it would work the same no matter how it came about.

[Swordsmyth]

It's absurd to characterize their choice to tax the people lightly as equivalent to welfare.

By that logic, the American welfare state was larger in 1800 than it is now and a minarchist utopia would be the largest of all.

That is not even close, what I am saying is that when you steal everything and decide how much to dribble out to the people it means you are a bigger thief than the thief who steals some part of what other people own.

Economic liberty is by far the most important.

Debatable. And it is useless when anything of value has already been taken from your ancestors before you were born.

Due process is second.

Monarchies are not well known for giving Due process.

Free speech a distant third.

You can't keep any other kind of liberty without it, and this is also not strong suit for Monarchies

Voting has negative value.

Since this is the question being debated I will not specifically respond.

Yes, rich and important people tend to be leaders. This conspiracy theory doesn't follow.

And, anyway, doesn't it undermine everything you've been saying?

If it's true that democracy is a scheme to increase the looting and pillaging, that would be an argument against it, no?

I am against the version they brought us, but it is a broken version, there have been plenty of broken Monarchies as well but that alone does not disprove your theory.

P.S. The nobility and various other special interests were reacting against the liberalizing activities of absolute monarchs in the 17th and 18th centuries and did play a major role in the revolutions (after which they did indeed get back many of the privileges of which the kings had been stripping them). The problem with your theory is that you somehow blame this on the kings.

If the Kings were separate from the nobility (some may have been, others were not) it does not matter, Monarchy created the Nobles, to some degree any system will create "Nobility" but Monarchy failed to keep them in check, a Republic formed along the lines I have laid out would have a much better chance.

[Swordsmyth]

It's absurd to characterize their choice to tax the people lightly as equivalent to welfare.

By that logic, the American welfare state was larger in 1800 than it is now and a minarchist utopia would be the largest of all.



Economic liberty is by far the most important. Due process is second. Free speech a distant third. Voting has negative value.



Yes, rich and important people tend to be leaders. This conspiracy theory doesn't follow.

And, anyway, doesn't it undermine everything you've been saying?

If it's true that democracy is a scheme to increase the looting and pillaging, that would be an argument against it, no?



P.S. The nobility and various other special interests were reacting against the liberalizing activities of absolute monarchs in the 17th and 18th centuries and did play a major role in the revolutions (after which they did indeed get back many of the privileges of which the kings had been stripping them, and then some). The problem with your theory is that you somehow blame this on the kings, and assume that the reason democracy doesn't work is that some of its important founders were nobles, bankers, etc, when actually it would work the same no matter how it came about.

I forgot I wanted to point out that you didn't even mention religious liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

Monarchies are not well known for giving Due process.

One was far more secure from arbitrary arrest in Bourbon France than modern America.

...bolshevik jacobin propaganda about the Bastille notwithstanding (of which you'll see plenty on tomorrow's mournful anniversary).

If the Kings were separate from the nobility (some may have been, others were not)

They were, dramatically so, to the point of open warfare (e.g. the Fronde). The consolidation of state power in the hands of the monarchs, the neutering of the nobles and restriction of their privileges, and subsequent liberalization by the kings was the big story of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe -the beautiful maturation of western civilization. The advent of democracy, on the other hand, retarded and then reversed this process (not that nobles as a class regained power, they didn't, but similarly problematic special interests emerged).

Monarchy created the Nobles, to some degree any system will create "Nobility" but Monarchy failed to keep them in check, a Republic formed along the lines I have laid out would have a much better chance.

You seem to have some special hatred for hereditary nobles, but they're simply an interest group, like banks, or unions, or Iowa corn farmers.

Monarchy means the suppression of their influence, due to the king having little need for their support.

Democracy means their maximum empowerment, due to politicians begging them for campaign contributions.

I forgot I wanted to point out that you didn't even mention religious liberty.

Again relatively unimportant, and also not more likely to be repressed in a monarchy than in a democracy, like free speech or due process. If anything, monarchy has less need to control the thoughts of the people than democracies, for reasons which should be self-evident. The sorts of things being published in France in the 18th century would have been censored in any democracy until very recently. About the only thing strictly banned was pro-regicide writing (sensible enough).

[Swordsmyth]

One was far more secure from arbitrary arrest in Bourbon France than modern America.

...bolshevik jacobin propaganda about the Bastille notwithstanding (of which you'll see plenty on tomorrow's mournful anniversary).

I doubt that and even if it was true that would not be typical of Monarchies. The Jacobins were much worse I agree but that does not prove anything about Republics in general.

They were, dramatically so, to the point of open warfare (e.g. the Fronde). The consolidation of state power in the hands of the monarchs, the neutering of the nobles and restriction of their privileges, and subsequent liberalization by the kings was the big story of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe -the beautiful maturation of western civilization.

Rather a broad brushstroke for such a large and diverse era, but never the less there were benefits to centralized power, which is why my plan gives it to the Steward.

The advent of democracy, on the other hand, retarded and then reversed this process (not that nobles as a class regained power, they didn't, but similarly problematic special interests emerged).

The Nobles overcame Monarchy because by it's very nature it created and fed them with nothing to check them, their ranks may have been thinned but that only strengthened those that remained. And they did survive along with their bankers and many of the Kings, they just hid their wealth and power since that was part and parcel of the "Democracy" con.

You seem to have some special hatred for hereditary nobles, but they're simply an interest group, like banks, or unions, or Iowa corn farmers.

Because they brought us the dystopia we live in and for the most part they are the ones who still run it.

Monarchy means the suppression of their influence, due to the king having little need for their support.

Hardly since they are the ones he must placate to stay in power, at most it changes who they are.

Democracy means their maximum empowerment, due to politicians begging them for campaign contributions.

They are not the only source of political power, and would be even less so in my system, since you would not need so many politicians and therefore would not need as much campaign money. And they must give greater regard to the rights of the people if they wish to run for office.

[Swordsmyth]

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
I forgot I wanted to point out that you didn't even mention religious liberty.

Again relatively unimportant

Religion is the single most important subject in the universe, even for atheists, what you believe about it affects everything else.

and also not more likely to be repressed in a monarchy than in a democracy, like free speech or due process. If anything, monarchy has less need to control the thoughts of the people than democracies, for reasons which should be self-evident.

Not really, Kings make their claim to the throne by "Divine Right", therefore those who worship any other god or follow any other set of priests are a threat to their legitimacy. Kings are far more likely to suppress "infidels and heretics."

The sorts of things being published in France in the 18th century would have been censored in any democracy until very recently. About the only thing strictly banned was pro-regicide writing (sensible enough).

Maybe they would have maybe they would not, just like some Kingdoms would have suppressed them and some would not, the culture is what would make the difference not the form of government.

[Madison320]

Your entire defense rests on a few low population Oil states, they are the only places where the Royals could satisfy their kleptomania and still leave enough crumbs to keep the people from overthrowing them, they are also extremely repressive and not shining beacons of freedom.

Yeah, that was pretty obvious.

Saudi Arabia is hardly an example of a free state.

[Madison320]

First, I'm talking about monarchs, not dictators, based on the distinction I explained.

You have to take the good with the bad. You can't filter out the ones that didn't work.

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

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

C'mon man ...


Top ten most free economically countries using heritage freedom index:

Hong Kong - Republic/Democracy
Singapore - Dictatorship/Monarchy
New Zealand- Republic/Democracy
Switzerland - Republic/Democracy
Australia- Republic/Democracy
Estonia- Republic/Democracy
Canada - Republic/Democracy
UAE - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Ireland - Republic/Democracy
Chile- Republic/Democracy


Bottom ten
Djibouti - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Algeria - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Timor-Leste- Republic/Democracy
Equatorial Guinea - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Zimbabwe - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Eritrea - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Republic of Congo- Dictatorship/Monarchy
Cuba- Dictatorship/Monarchy
Venezuela- Dictatorship/Monarchy
North Korea- Dictatorship/Monarchy

[Madison320]

Lee Kuan Yew was not really democratically elected. He won power then never relinquished. He put people who tried to stand up to him in prison and had no freedom of the press.

I basically agree with your first post for the US. I am for a republic where voting is restricted to only those who pay income tax and don't get a government check.

South Africa is a different case. As a practical matter, there is no chance the blacks in that country would give up there right to vote. Mandela is lionized. They love their democracy. The majority of people in the country have no appreciation for capitalism. They need someone to force it on them and then see the benefits and can ultimately transition to democracy. Otherwise people are going to continue to live short brutal lives there. The right dictator might be brutal but the cost will be worth it even for people living there now.

I agree although I'd add that the process of converting to a republic with restricted voting (to taxpayers) is not very likely anywhere. But I think it has a good chance of success if it was ever tried.

[opal]

I have only read a couple replies so this may have been said already

I don't live there. It's not my business. I do not feel a deep down social justice pang to fix everything that's wrong with the world, everywhere. How about we worry about our own back yards and let the rest of the world work it out on their own.

[Jamesiv1]

I would go in there and just kick everybody's ass.

[agitator]

You have to take the good with the bad. You can't filter out the ones that didn't work.




C'mon man ...


Top ten most free economically countries using heritage freedom index:

Hong Kong - Republic/Democracy
Singapore - Dictatorship/Monarchy
New Zealand- Republic/Democracy
Switzerland - Republic/Democracy
Australia- Republic/Democracy
Estonia- Republic/Democracy
Canada - Republic/Democracy
UAE - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Ireland - Republic/Democracy
Chile- Republic/Democracy


Bottom ten
Djibouti - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Algeria - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Timor-Leste- Republic/Democracy
Equatorial Guinea - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Zimbabwe - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Eritrea - Dictatorship/Monarchy
Republic of Congo- Dictatorship/Monarchy
Cuba- Dictatorship/Monarchy
Venezuela- Dictatorship/Monarchy
North Korea- Dictatorship/Monarchy

Venezuela has elections.

[r3volution 3.0]

I doubt that and even if it was true that would not be typical of Monarchies.

I suggest you review the history. The police state is a very modern development.

The Jacobins were much worse I agree but that does not prove anything about Republics in general.

The jacobin experience is quite typical of unstable democracies.

Rather a broad brushstroke for such a large and diverse era, but never the less there were benefits to centralized power, which is why my plan gives it to the Steward.

The executive in your system is not significantly different from an American President or an English PM; he is a political animal dependent on others, which defeats the whole purpose of centralization (1 guy is no better/different than 100 guys if the 1 guys is subservient to the 100 guys, he's merely their agent). He is not comparable to a monarch.

The Nobles overcame Monarchy because by it's very nature it created and fed them with nothing to check them

Again, I suggest you review the history, as the above is factually untrue.

Hardly since they are the ones he must placate to stay in power, at most it changes who they are.

To beat a dead horse...

A politician who faces election is less secure than a politician who doesn't. Both elected and unelected governments face the risk of coups and revolutions. On balance, an absolute monarch is has much greater job security, ceteris paribus, than an elected politician. Hence he has to pay out fewer favors. This is clear a priori, and supported by the historical record.

They are not the only source of political power, and would be even less so in my system, since you would not need so many politicians and therefore would not need as much campaign money.

Fewer politicians doesn't mean less money spent on campaigns. The fewer the politicians, the more important/valuable each is, the more costly his election. Note the cost of Senate races versus the cost of House races. And, regardless, even if the total spent were less for some reason, that doesn't change the situation; if politicians are selling out for smaller sums they're still selling out, the result in terms of policy would be the same.

And they must give greater regard to the rights of the people if they wish to run for office.

Because...?

Religion is the single most important subject in the universe, even for atheists, what you believe about it affects everything else.

I humbly contend that having food is more important than being able to attend your preferred church, but maybe I'm an oddball.

Not really, Kings make their claim to the throne by "Divine Right", therefore those who worship any other god or follow any other set of priests are a threat to their legitimacy. Kings are far more likely to suppress "infidels and heretics."

The record suggests otherwise. First, you have to understand that the rise of democracy coincided with a general decline in the importance of religion. If the Bourbons were still in power in France, it's likely that the the rate of church attendance in France would still be in the gutter. So, the seemingly more tolerant attitude of modern democracies is really a reflection of religion ceasing to be an issue of prime political importance. Second, democracies have an even greater need to manipulate public opinion than monarchies - democratic media must convince people to vote for a specific candidate, monarchic media (including the pulpit) need only convince the people not to revolt (something they're extremely unlikely to do in any case). That the content of such propaganda has become secularized isn't really important. Third, in light of first point above, the proper comparison is not between 18th century monarchies and modern democracies, but between 18th century monarchies and their democratic contemporaries. The Anglican church in democratic Britain was established until late in the 19th century. Until just before the French Revolution, Catholics in England could not own land. English Jews were not emancipated until the 1850s. I believe you're familiar with the theocratic character of the yankees in their democracy across the pond.

the culture is what would make the difference not the form of government.

Logic and facts suggest otherwise.

You have to take the good with the bad. You can't filter out the ones that didn't work.

I'm not merely calling bad one-man rule dictatorship, and good monarchy. I'm explaining why some are good and some are bad - the difference their stability. A person who is 30th in a line of hereditary kings is more secure than Joe Zilch who seized power yesterday in a coup. As for the list you posted, none of those among the bottom 10 are monarchies, they're the most unstable types of dictatorships (some may better characterize as failed democracies on the verge of dictatorship [e.g. Venezuela], and others which are clearly dictatorships weren't until very recently). These cases illustrate rather than refute my point. The best thing for those states would be for the dictators/proto-dictators to consolidate power to such an extent than there can be a peaceful transition to their sons or other chosen heirs. Do that for a couple generations and you have a monarchy.

P.S. As for the place of actual monarchies on the economic freedom index (Heritage), all are above the world average: 1 in the top ten (UAE), 3 ranking ahead of France, and the worst, Oman, just three spots behind Italy.

[Madison320]

I have only read a couple replies so this may have been said already

I don't live there. It's not my business. I do not feel a deep down social justice pang to fix everything that's wrong with the world, everywhere. How about we worry about our own back yards and let the rest of the world work it out on their own.

I meant from a theoretical standpoint of how South Africans could fix it themselves.

[Swordsmyth]

I suggest you review the history. The police state is a very modern development.

Sorry but Sparta (with her 2 Kings) had the Krypteia, secret police and jack-booted thugs are just as likely in any form of government.

The jacobin experience is quite typical of unstable democracies.

Not really.

The executive in your system is not significantly different from an American President or an English PM; he is a political animal dependent on others, which defeats the whole purpose of centralization (1 guy is no better/different than 100 guys if the 1 guys is subservient to the 100 guys, he's merely their agent). He is not comparable to a monarch.

I am not going to keep going around in this circle, I have already explained that your King is dependent on many others to keep him in power, neither of us is going to change our mind so I won't discuss this facet any further and I suggest you don't either.

To beat a dead horse...

A politician who faces election is less secure than a politician who doesn't. Both elected and unelected governments face the risk of coups and revolutions. On balance, an absolute monarch is has much greater job security, ceteris paribus, than an elected politician. Hence he has to pay out fewer favors. This is clear a priori, and supported by the historical record.

That is why my Steward does not stand for election directly, the electors may be less secure but if you make them or the executive more secure, they are relieved of any responsibility, Lord Acton was incorrect, it is not power that corrupts it is a lack of responsibility, our current system is nearly as bad as a monarchy in this way, there is always someone else to blame therefore people hate Congress but love their Congress Critter. And this brings up another point the Constitution has no penalties for breaking it, is it any wonder they violate it with impunity? mine would have penalties.

Fewer politicians doesn't mean less money spent on campaigns. The fewer the politicians, the more important/valuable each is, the more costly his election. Note the cost of Senate races versus the cost of House races. And, regardless, even if the total spent were less for some reason, that doesn't change the situation; if politicians are selling out for smaller sums they're still selling out, the result in terms of policy would be the same.

Yes it does, although you might not spend half the money on half the politicians you will spend less.



Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
And they must give greater regard to the rights of the people if they wish to run for office.

Because...?

Because the people are the ones who vote for them.

The record suggests otherwise. First, you have to understand that the rise of democracy coincided with a general decline in the importance of religion. If the Bourbons were still in power in France, it's likely that the the rate of church attendance in France would still be in the gutter. So, the seemingly more tolerant attitude of modern democracies is really a reflection of religion ceasing to be an issue of prime political importance. Second, democracies have an even greater need to manipulate public opinion than monarchies - democratic media must convince people to vote for a specific candidate, monarchic media (including the pulpit) need only convince the people not to revolt (something they're extremely unlikely to do in any case). That the content of such propaganda has become secularized isn't really important. Third, in light of first point above, the proper comparison is not between 18th century monarchies and modern democracies, but between 18th century monarchies and their democratic contemporaries. The Anglican church in democratic Britain was established until late in the 19th century. Until just before the French Revolution, Catholics in England could not own land. English Jews were not emancipated until the 1850s. I believe you're familiar with the theocratic character of the yankees in their democracy across the pond.

You are turning history on it's head, the kings bathed Europe in blood over religion, those democracies that were repressive were so because they still retained the culture from the kingdoms that preceded them. Many protestants became Republicans because Kings would not give their people religious liberty.

I'm not merely calling bad one-man rule dictatorship, and good monarchy. I'm explaining why some are good and some are bad - the difference their stability. A person who is 30th in a line of hereditary kings is more secure than Joe Zilch who seized power yesterday in a coup.

That is not true, unless your king is supported by a "Divine Right" argument, in which case you run into the religious freedom problem.
If the king holds his throne merely by inheritance then his security will be proportional to how well he balances the powerful factions that surround him, just like a dictator.
In a republic the "Will of the people" replaces "Divine Right" with out the religious liberty problems and stabilizes the administrations claim to power at least from one election to the next. And a successful Steward should remain popular enough to stay in office indefinitely.

As for the list you posted, none of those among the bottom 10 are monarchies, they're the most unstable types of dictatorships (some may better characterize as failed democracies on the verge of dictatorship [e.g. Venezuela], and others which are clearly dictatorships weren't until very recently). These cases illustrate rather than refute my point. The best thing for those states would be for the dictators/proto-dictators to consolidate power to such an extent than there can be a peaceful transition to their sons or other chosen heirs. Do that for a couple generations and you have a monarchy.

P.S. As for the place of actual monarchies on the economic freedom index (Heritage), all are above the world average: 1 in the top ten (UAE), 3 ranking ahead of France, and the worst, Oman, just three spots behind Italy.

Again they only do as well as they do, because you are only looking at economic freedom, most people care about the rest of the spectrum of liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

Sorry but Sparta (with her 2 Kings) had the Krypteia, secret police and jack-booted thugs are just as likely in any form of government.

The Spartan state was extremely unusual, in a variety of ways, hence it's fame.

Not really.

Venezuela

neither of us is going to change our mind so I won't discuss this facet any further and I suggest you don't either

Agreed

That is why my Steward does not stand for election directly, the electors may be less secure but if you make them or the executive more secure, they are relieved of any responsibility, Lord Acton was incorrect, it is not power that corrupts it is a lack of responsibility, our current system is nearly as bad as a monarchy in this way, there is always someone else to blame therefore people hate Congress but love their Congress Critter.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ...as I asked earlier. You are merely assuming that the people to whom the electors are responsible have better motives than would the electors if they were responsible to no one, even though the people to whom the electors are responsible are themselves responsible to no one.

And this brings up another point the Constitution has no penalties for breaking it, is it any wonder they violate it with impunity? mine would have penalties.

In the same vein as above, to be enforced by whom? Sovereignty is conserved, as Moldbug aptly put it. Someone always decides. There is no force external to the individuals who constitute the government to check their behavior. Limited government, if it exists, is a choice made by people who have the power to implement unlimited government - not something imposed by a constitution or other mystical force.

Because the people are the ones who vote for them.

That means they'll do the people's bidding, not that they'll respect people's rights. As above, you are simply assuming that the people want their (i.e. no only their own, but everyone's) rights protected. They don't. They want Obamaphones and Social Security and subsidies for muh jerbs and (after suitable coaching from the lobbies who control the media they consume) corporate welfare and war against the scary brown people.

those democracies that were repressive were so because they still retained the culture from the kingdoms that preceded them

So, the fact that Jewish emancipation didn't happen in England till 1858 is the fault of Charles I, murdered in 1649?

A person who is 30th in a line of hereditary kings is more secure than Joe Zilch who seized power yesterday in a coup.

That is not true

It's too obviously true to warrant debate.

[Swordsmyth]

The Spartan state was extremely unusual, in a variety of ways, hence it's fame.

It was a repressive Hell-Hole

Venezuela

Not as bad as the Jacobins and also not typical.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ...as I asked earlier. You are merely assuming that the people to whom the electors are responsible have better motives than would the electors if they were responsible to no one, even though the people to whom the electors are responsible are themselves responsible to no one.

The people being weak are more subject to any bad consequences, the strong are better able to deflect consequences onto the weak and it is therefore harder to convince them to care.
If any class is capable of guarding liberty it is the people, provided they are not left entirely unchecked.

In the same vein as above, to be enforced by whom? Sovereignty is conserved, as Moldbug aptly put it. Someone always decides. There is no force external to the individuals who constitute the government to check their behavior. Limited government, if it exists, is a choice made by people who have the power to implement unlimited government - not something imposed by a constitution or other mystical force.

True to a degree, but if the rules are laid out with penalties for everyone to see there is public pressure to enforce them, when there are no penalties for breaking the rules then they are violated so frequently that they soon become meaningless, which is where we almost are today.

That means they'll do the people's bidding, not that they'll respect people's rights. As above, you are simply assuming that the people want their (i.e. no only their own, but everyone's) rights protected. They don't. They want Obamaphones and Social Security and subsidies for muh jerbs and (after suitable coaching from the lobbies who control the media they consume) corporate welfare and war against the scary brown people.

And yet even in our current advanced state of decay the people still cling to some rights, a King would have no personal motivation to secure them any.

So, the fact that Jewish emancipation didn't happen in England till 1858 is the fault of Charles I, murdered in 1649?

It is the fault of a culture that goes all the way back to Constantine.

It's too obviously true to warrant debate.

Yeah just ignore the argument I laid out.

[Seraphim]

3.5 years old - things have gotten worse in SA.

[r3volution 3.0]

@Swordsmyth

I think we're going in circles, and I don't have much to add to what I've already said.

I'll just say that your view of the voters, as expressed in the quotes below, is the crux of the problem with your position.

It contradicts both the economic/public choice analysis and the historical facts, as I've attempted to explain.

If any class is capable of guarding liberty it is the people, provided they are not left entirely unchecked.

...

but if the rules are laid out with penalties for everyone to see there is public pressure to enforce them

This idea that the people won't vote against their own interests is based on treating "the people" as a single entity with coherent interests, when actually "the people" are a variety of groups of varying interests, each working (and voting) against the other, like any other class (business, politicians, whatever). The idea was a fallacy when it became popular in the Enlightenment and it's a fallacy now (as really ought to be obvious based on how democratic politics has unfolded over the last two centuries).