How would you fix South Africa?

[Madison320]

Yes, while this is true, with what has it to do?

That would be a good test of South Africa during aparthied. I'm guessing a lot of blacks moved there since the population increased by so much.

[helmuth_hubener]

That would be a good test of South Africa during aparthied. I'm guessing a lot of blacks moved there since the population increased by so much.

From the Premortal Realm they did,
They moved in, yes, but also: kids!

[r3volution 3.0]

What incentive do monarchies have to create a small, libertarian government?

The same incentive that a private property owner has to maximize the value of his property.

A monarch is effectively the landlord of the country he rules, with tax revenues being his personal income, akin to a landlord's rental income. The value of those rents is directly related to the prosperity of the country; the more prosperous, the more the rents. Hence he has an incentive to make the country as prosperous as possible. As we know, the only method of maximizing the prosperity of a country is laissez faire; hence his incentive to pursue laissez faire. A monarch who, alternately, attempted to centrally plan the country's economy would soon find himself collecting less in rent.

TL;DR -- Would you rather own Canada or Congo?

So this does not depend on the personality of the monarch, except insofar as the monarch must (a) prefer more money to less money [who doesn't?], and (b) have a decent understanding of economics [some may not, but someone raised from childhood for the job of governing, whose self-interest impels him to such knowledge, is more likely to have it than an elected politician]. Obviously, not every monarch will fit the bill; you will have the occasional idiot or lunatic, but the longrun norm would be dramatically more libertarian government than we presently enjoy - as, indeed, it was in the past.

It's self correcting. When I said "taxpayers" I really meant "net taxpayers". Those 51% would lose the right to vote since they'd be getting more benefits than they pay in taxes. The remaining 49% would vote for smaller government and a flatter tax so that they wouldn't be the only ones paying.

Whenever there is a constitution (such as would define who is eligable to vote), there must be some body (e.g. a court) to interpret and apply it.

Who would control that body?

And if amendments are allowed, who can make them?

[Ender]

How? I suggested limiting the voter pool to taxpayers only to strengthen individual rights. You suggested the West leave. I'd say you're the one with a group fixation.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

The history of S Africa is a takeover by the west. Surely it has NOTHING to do with current problems.

We do not have the right to "fix" another country's problems- look how well we've done in the ME.

[Madison320]

Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

The history of S Africa is a takeover by the west. Surely it has NOTHING to do with current problems.

We do not have the right to "fix" another country's problems- look how well we've done in the ME.

I'm not saying "we" as in the US. It's just a philosophical question.

[Madison320]

The same incentive that a private property owner has to maximize the value of his property.

A monarch is effectively the landlord of the country he rules, with tax revenues being his personal income, akin to a landlord's rental income. The value of those rents is directly related to the prosperity of the country; the more prosperous, the more the rents. Hence he has an incentive to make the country as prosperous as possible. As we know, the only method of maximizing the prosperity of a country is laissez faire; hence his incentive to pursue laissez faire. A monarch who, alternately, attempted to centrally plan the country's economy would soon find himself collecting less in rent.

TL;DR -- Would you rather own Canada or Congo?

So this does not depend on the personality of the monarch, except insofar as the monarch must (a) prefer more money to less money [who doesn't?], and (b) have a decent understanding of economics [some may not, but someone raised from childhood for the job of governing, whose self-interest impels him to such knowledge, is more likely to have it than an elected politician]. Obviously, not every monarch will fit the bill; you will have the occasional idiot or lunatic, but the longrun norm would be dramatically more libertarian government than we presently enjoy - as, indeed, it was in the past.

I think you're reaching. It's also possible that monarchs are mainly interested in holding power and will violate all sorts of rights to keep it. North Korea for example. If you compare non-elected governments vs elected I'm guessing the elected ones come out much better. And you'd have to put monarchs in the category of non-elected governments. You can't cherry pick the ones you like.

Whenever there is a constitution (such as would define who is eligable to vote), there must be some body (e.g. a court) to interpret and apply it.

Who would control that body?

And if amendments are allowed, who can make them?

That's my point. Earlier you said any democratically elected politician can undo any written laws and I totally agree. But I think a democratically elected politician from a pool of net taxpayers will be more likely to honor the constitution or risk not getting re-elected.

[TheCount]

TL;DR -- Would you rather own Canada or Congo?

The owner of Congo would derive more personal wealth from it than the owner of Canada.

So this does not depend on the personality of the monarch, except insofar as the monarch must (a) prefer more money to less money [who doesn't?], and (b) have a decent understanding of economics

The sorts of libertarian freedoms which propel economic growth also cause the revenues from said economic growth to benefit people other than the monarch.

Also, personal wealth experiences diminishing utility beyond a certain point, past which the monarch might be will to trade off additional income for greater personal power and other non-monetary benefits.

[r3volution 3.0]

We do not have the right to "fix" another country's problems

I disagree, since the converse implies that peoples have a collective right to self-determination, which they don't. Only individuals have rights (something you agree with I'm sure), and if one state interfering in another helps defend the rights of individuals there (perhaps against a majoritarian tyranny of their fellow citizens), that's entirely justifiable. Now, obviously, many such interventions would be counterproductive, wouldn't actually achieve their goal, but that's another matter. Even if all interventions in practice are unjustifiable because they won't work (which isn't true), they're still justifiable in principle.

[r3volution 3.0]

I think you're reaching.

Surely you're not doubting that laissez faire maximizes prosperity?

And surely it's not a reach to say that a prosperous nation yields more taxes than a poor one?

So, what specifically is your objection?

It's also possible that monarchs are mainly interested in holding power and will violate all sorts of rights to keep it.

It's possible that every monarch will do nothing but play ping pong all day every day, and pay no attention to governing at all. The question is, what's likely? Based on history, I say it's likely that virtually all monarchs will desire to maximize their incomes. Money isn't just for luxurious consumption spending, remember, it's the necessary means for anything else a monarch might want to do. Want to build giant pyramids in honor of yourself? Mo money, mo pyramids. The Caligula types who are truly deranged are extreme outliers (that's why everyone knows their names, while the countless rational monarchs aren't remembered for their insane acts - because they committed none).

North Korea for example. If you compare non-elected governments vs elected I'm guessing the elected ones come out much better. And you'd have to put monarchs in the category of non-elected governments. You can't cherry pick the ones you like.

In my original post I recommended "military coup --> dictatorship --> hereditary monarchy." What's the difference between dictatorship (like in N. Korea or Stalin's Russia) and hereditary monarchy (like in Bourbon France or Habsburg Austria)? Both are one man rule, right? The dictator is insecure in his rule, usually because his rule is quite young and hasn't yet gained the legitimacy which time provides. He rightly fears losing power. Like a private property owner who is insecure in property (say, white farmers on S. Africa), he has very high time preference, doesn't make investments for the future, take short cuts, manages his property poorly. In contrast, an hereditary monarch is secure in his rule (as the very name of Louis XVI implies), like a private property owner secure in his property, with low time preference, who feels comfortable making long term investment, etc. Why did Stalin go on giant purges of his pwn party, or Kim Jong Whatever blow his uncle up with an anti-aircraft gun? They feared being overthrown by rivals. Why didn't Louis XVI or Joseph II of Austria not do the same? Because they didn't.

That's my point. Earlier you said any democratically elected politician can undo any written laws and I totally agree. But I think a democratically elected politician from a pool of net taxpayers will be more likely to honor the constitution or risk not getting re-elected.

"Let's change/ignore the Constitution and give ourselves free$#@! at the expense of those suckers in the minority."

Isn't that platform a winner for the same reason it is now?

[r3volution 3.0]

The owner of Congo would derive more personal wealth from it than the owner of Canada.

Canada's GDP is 44 times Congo's.

The sorts of libertarian freedoms which propel economic growth also cause the revenues from said economic growth to benefit people other than the monarch.

How so?

Also, personal wealth experiences diminishing utility beyond a certain point, past which the monarch might be will to trade off additional income for greater personal power and other non-monetary benefits.

For personal consumption expenditures, yes (you can only use so much silk toilet paper), but there are infinite other uses for wealth.

See: pyramids

I suspect space exploration/colonization would be a major outlet for that wealth in our age: endless possibilities there.

[Madison320]

Surely you're not doubting that laissez faire maximizes prosperity?

And surely it's not a reach to say that a prosperous nation yields more taxes than a poor one?

So, what specifically is your objection?

It's a hellavu jump to assume a dictator is going to be so far-sighted that he's going to set up a capitalistic country to maximize returns. What's the
current "crappy dictator"/"free market monarch" ratio? 100 to 1 maybe? What are the best current monarchs?

[Swordsmyth]

For personal consumption expenditures, yes (you can only use so much silk toilet paper), but there are infinite other uses for wealth.

See: pyramids

I suspect space exploration/colonization would be a major outlet for that wealth in our age: endless possibilities there.

Such wonderful ways to squander the money they extort from their subjects, how could anybody object?

It's a hellavu jump to assume a dictator is going to be so far-sighted that he's going to set up a capitalistic country to maximize returns. What's the
current "crappy dictator"/"free market monarch" ratio? 100 to 1 maybe? What are the best current monarchs?

Kings have a tendency to steal wealth and give it to those powerful enough to help keep them in power.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's a hellavu jump to assume a dictator is going to be so far-sighted that he's going to set up a capitalistic country to maximize returns.

First, I'm talking about monarchs, not dictators, based on the distinction I explained. Second, as to monarchs being far sighted enough to understand that laissez faire makes for a richer country, and more income for them, why is that "a helluva jump"? Is it "a helleva jump" to assume that someone who inherits a business (much like someone who inherits a throne) would be interested in how to make it more profitable? Of course there are sometimes prodigal sons, who may screw things up by incompetence or laziness, but rarely do they torch the factory for funsies, or whatever else would be analogous to abberant behavior by a monarch.

What are the best current monarchs?

There are hardly any monarchies in the world, only six (6) by my count (with GDP/capita PPP)

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

Such wonderful ways to squander the money they extort from their subjects, how could anybody object?

How indeed, considering that the total extorted and squandered is so much less.

Kings have a tendency to steal wealth and give it to those powerful enough to help keep them in power.

Politics can't be abolished, only minimized.

P.S. This goes to the distinction between dictatorship and monarchy.

The less secure the ruler, the more boodle has to handed out to the generals, the mob, the business magnates, etc.

[Swordsmyth]

How indeed, considering that the total extorted and squandered is so much less.

LOL

Politics can't be abolished, only minimized.

Without a means to hold the ruler responsible that won't happen.

[r3volution 3.0]

LOL

You prefer higher taxes to lower?

Without a means to hold the ruler responsible that won't happen.

To whom? And what is their incentive to pursue laissez faire?

[Swordsmyth]

You prefer higher taxes to lower?

No I do not believe they would be lower.

To whom? And what is their incentive to pursue laissez faire?

The only way to maximize the chances that two parties deal fairly with eachother is to grant them roughly equal power, NO system can guarantee that they do not try to cheat but it will happen more proportional to any power imbalance in a system.

[Swordsmyth]

First, I'm talking about monarchs, not dictators, based on the distinction I explained. Second, as to monarchs being far sighted enough to understand that laissez faire makes for a richer country, and more income for them, why is that "a helluva jump"? Is it "a helleva jump" to assume that someone who inherits a business (much like someone who inherits a throne) would be interested in how to make it more profitable? Of course there are sometimes prodigal sons, who may screw things up by incompetence or laziness, but rarely do they torch the factory for funsies, or whatever else would be analogous to abberant behavior by a monarch.



There are hardly any monarchies in the world, only six (6) by my count (with GDP/capita PPP)

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.

GDP/capita does not take into account that the rulers have taken almost all of the assets and their profits for themselves and their cronies.

[r3volution 3.0]

No I do not believe they would be lower.

Why?

The only way to maximize the chances that two parties deal fairly with eachother is to grant them roughly equal power, NO system can guarantee that they do not try to cheat but it will happen more proportional to any power imbalance in a system.

What does that look like in terms of political organization?

[Swordsmyth]

Why?

Because the King and his cronies would seek the maximum amount they could extract for use in their power struggles.

What does that look like in terms of political organization?

A Council of electors who each hold a proportional number of votes to the amount of support they received in the most recent election, who chose or replace the Steward at their will. The Steward Holds all legislative and executive powers except for a few (such as the power to declare war or amend the Constitution) that are reserved to the council or the people or both, and restricted by a Bill of rights, and he may hold office indefinitely with no defined term or limit.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because the King and his cronies would seek the maximum amount they could extract for use in their power struggles.

You mean, like occurs in every state, of any form? As I said earlier, politics can't be abolished, only minimized. The more dependent the ruler is on others, the more boodle he must heap on them to maintain their support. And so the ideal arrangement is absolute monarchy, at least theoretically dependent on no one (and in reality less dependent on others than any other sort of ruler).

A Council of electors who each hold a proportional number of votes to the amount of support they received in the most recent election, who chose or replace the Steward at their will. The Steward Holds all legislative and executive powers except for a few (such as the power to declare war or amend the Constitution) that are reserved to the council or the people or both, and restricted by a Bill of rights, and he may hold office indefinitely with no defined term or limit.

Why would the electors, the voters/lobbies behind the electors, or the steward be more inclined to laissez faire than an absolute monarch?

Why wouldn't the electors offer free$#@! to the voters to win their support, in the same way our elected politicians do now?

GDP/capita does not take into account that the rulers have taken almost all of the assets and their profits for themselves and their cronies.

Any evidence to support that? Income distribution data, perhaps?

[Swordsmyth]

You mean, like occurs in every state, of any form? As I said earlier, politics can't be abolished, only minimized. The more dependent the ruler is on others, the more boodle he must heap on them to maintain their support. And so the ideal arrangement is absolute monarchy, at least theoretically dependent on no one (and in reality less dependent on others than any other sort of ruler).

Less cronies means less even distribution of the boodle, not less theft, the only way to minimize theft is to make the potential thieves vulnerable to the potential targets.

Why would the electors, the voters/lobbies behind the electors, or the steward be more inclined to laissez faire than an absolute monarch?

Because they are not secure in their positions in spite of anything they may do, they are responsible to their potential targets.

Why wouldn't the electors offer free$#@! to the voters to win their support, in the same way our elected politicians do now?

They might, and so might a king just look at Saudi Arabia.

Any evidence to support that? Income distribution data, perhaps?

1. Brunei, $80,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
2. Bahrain, $52,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
3. Oman, $46,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
4. Saudi Arabia, $55,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
5. The United Arab Emirates (a federation of monarchs, actually, rather than a single monarch), $68,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
6. Vatican City (unique and not representative of other monarchies, but nonetheless), can't find data, but must be very high Irrelevant Not a traditional Nation

[r3volution 3.0]

Less cronies means less even distribution of the boodle, not less theft

It's not their number that matters but how much influence they have. Politicians/rulers don't just throw money at people for fun. They throw money at people whose support they need, in proportion to how much they need it. A politician who faces election every 2 years needs other people's support vastly more than a monarch, who really only needs to pay the army well to remain in power (which costs a pittance relative the enormous sums spent on welfare in democracies). Why do you the welfare state arose simultaneous with democracy?

Because they are not secure in their positions in spite of anything they may do, they are responsible to their potential targets.

You're saying that the electors are responsible to the voters?

Indeed they are, but how does that differ from the status quo?

Why wouldn't your electors dole out free$#@! to their constituents just as our politicians do to theirs?

How does your proposal differ from proportional representation democracy, as already exists in most democratic states outside the US?

1. Brunei, $80,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
2. Bahrain, $52,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
3. Oman, $46,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
4. Saudi Arabia, $55,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
5. The United Arab Emirates (a federation of monarchs, actually, rather than a single monarch), $68,000 The royals own the oil wealth, there is nothing else of value there.
6. Vatican City (unique and not representative of other monarchies, but nonetheless), can't find data, but must be very high Irrelevant Not a traditional Nation

Who works the oil fields? How much are they paid? Why are there 740,000 automobiles in Bahrain? You think that's the King's personal fleet?

Your assumptions are very far from the truth.

P.S. By way of answering some of my own semi-rhetorical questions, I've found some data.

http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary...c=17&loctype=1
www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loctype=1

Average monthly salaries by profession in Bahrain (and in US):

House Cleaner, $1126 ($2058)
Call Center Employee, $1747 ($3427)
Teacher, $3162 ($4601)

So, by this metric, lower/middle class Bahrainis are less well off than their American counterparts, though by no means poor. However, Bahrain has virtually no taxes, a 6% flat income tax and some minimal excise taxes. On top of that, the salaries above are not price level adjusted. Accounting for that (by using nominal/PPP GDP as a reference), those figures should be approximately doubled, putting them well above their US equivalents. In any event, this vision of a slave withering under the whip of Al-Pharaoh is fiction.

[Swordsmyth]

It's not their number that matters but how much influence they have. Politicians/rulers don't just throw money at people for fun. They throw money at people whose support they need, in proportion to how much they need it. A politician who faces election every 2 years needs other people's support vastly more than a monarch, who really only needs to pay the army well to remain in power (which costs a pittance relative the enormous sums spent on welfare in democracies). Why do you the welfare state arose simultaneous with democracy?

They need the constant support of countless factions in the military, the police, the intelligence community, the media, the banks, industry etc. etc. etc.
And they still have to appease the people to stave off a revolt, how they choose to balance all those factors will depend on thousands of conditions and their own personality.

You're saying that the electors are responsible to the voters?

Indeed they are, but how does that differ from the status quo?

How does your proposal differ from proportional representation democracy, as already exists in most democratic states outside the US?

In our system or any Parliamentary system in existence they still give only one vote to each member, therefore the people have to find many representatives for any philosophy and most of those they find sell out to special interests and join in the robbery.
In my system one man like Dr. Paul Sr. or Rand could be given as many votes as people wanted, if they sold out then they could be replaced in whole or in part by someone else but if they did not there would be no need to find anyone else unless you wanted someone who more closely matched your philosophy.
And they are loaded down with separation of powers and checks and balances that allow them to point their fingers at others and always claim everything is some other person's fault.

Why wouldn't your electors dole out free$#@! to their constituents just as our politicians do to theirs?

They might, and so might a King, that is what the Saudis do.

Who works the oil fields? How much are they paid? Why are there 740,000 automobiles in Bahrain? You think that's the King's personal fleet?

Your assumptions are very far from the truth.
P.S. By way of answering some of my own semi-rhetorical questions, I've found some data.

http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary...c=17&loctype=1
www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loctype=1

Average monthly salaries by profession in Bahrain (and in US):

House Cleaner, $1126 ($2058)
Call Center Employee, $1747 ($3427)
Teacher, $3162 ($4601)

So, by this metric, lower/middle class Bahrainis are less well off than their American counterparts, though by no means poor. However, Bahrain has virtually no taxes, a 6% flat income tax and some minimal excise taxes. On top of that, the salaries above are not price level adjusted. Accounting for that (by using nominal/PPP GDP as a reference), those figures should be approximately doubled, putting them well above their US equivalents. In any event, this vision of a slave withering under the whip of Al-Pharaoh is fiction.

Drop that low a population onto that much wealth and any system would look good, but the people get a pittance compared to the rulers who have seized for their own the massive wealth of the natural resources.

[r3volution 3.0]

They need the constant support of countless factions in the military, the police, the intelligence community, the media, the banks, industry etc. etc. etc.

Supposing that's true (I think you overestimate the political importance of the media, banks, and industry in a non-democratic society - police and intelligence I had subsumed under the category "army"), isn't it true for all states? Why would this be a special problem for monarchy? If it's not a special problem for monarchy, then my point stands; a monarch is less prone to outside pressure than democratic politicians (both have the influences you listed, but the monarch doesn't face the giant, unwashed elephant in the room - the voter).

And they still have to appease the people to stave off a revolt

Hence the army. Popular revolts were never much of a threat, much less so now given the imbalance between civilian and military weapons.

In our system or any Parliamentary system in existence they still give only one vote to each member, therefore the people have to find many representatives for any philosophy and most of those they find sell out to special interests and join in the robbery. In my system one man like Dr. Paul Sr. or Rand could be given as many votes as people wanted, if they sold out then they could be replaced in whole or in part by someone else but if they did not there would be no need to find anyone else unless you wanted someone who more closely matched your philosophy.

It sounds like you think the problem in our system is a shortage of Paul-like candidates, but the real problem is a shortage of pro-Paul voters. Conserving on Pauls by letting one of them have multiple votes in Congress, once he received sufficient votes in his election, won't solve the problem. People don't vote for Pauls for the reason that people don't want their policies (and/or the media they consume tells them they don't want Pauls, because the lobbies the media represents doesn't want them), because those policies involve cutting off the free$#@!.

Drop that low a population onto that much wealth and any system would look good, but the people get a pittance compared to the rulers who have seized for their own the massive wealth of the natural resources.

Did you look at the figures? The pittance is more than comparable workers earn in the US. On another note, what's you reaction to taxes being so low? Why doesn't the king of Bahrain raise them to 100% and steal everything (or even to the extortionate levels we pay here in the land of democracy and freedom)?

[Swordsmyth]

Supposing that's true (I think you overestimate the political importance of the media, banks, and industry in a non-democratic society - police and intelligence I had subsumed under the category "army"), isn't it true for all states? Why would this be a special problem for monarchy? If it's not a special problem for monarchy, then my point stands; a monarch is less prone to outside pressure than democratic politicians (both have the influences you listed, but the monarch doesn't face the giant, unwashed elephant in the room - the voter).

Since the monarch does not have to worry about the voters, then he steals the same amount and divides it among the other factions.
The voters are the only faction that might see benefit from equal treatment under the law and minarchy.

Popular revolts were never much of a threat, much less so now given the imbalance between civilian and military weapons.

All it takes is a foreign sponsor to arm and aid them, or a domestic faction that wants to improve it's share of the take.

It sounds like you think the problem in our system is a shortage of Paul-like candidates, but the real problem is a shortage of pro-Paul voters. Conserving on Pauls by letting one of them have multiple votes in Congress, once he received sufficient votes in his election, won't solve the problem. People don't vote for Pauls for the reason that people don't want their policies (and/or the media they consume tells them they don't want Pauls, because the lobbies the media represents doesn't want them), because those policies involve cutting off the free$#@!.

The voters are the only faction that might see benefit from equal treatment under the law and minarchy.
There is no system that can guarantee liberty, but my type of Republic is the system that would give it the best chance.
Many voters have voted for smaller government for generations, but they have constantly been sold out by most of the politicians who profess to embody their values or been manipulated with the "lesser of two evils" game because they couldn't just give more power to the good politicians of the day.

Did you look at the figures? The pittance is more than comparable workers earn in the US. On another note, what's you reaction to taxes being so low? Why doesn't the king of Bahrain raise them to 100% and steal everything (or even to the extortionate levels we pay here in the land of democracy and freedom)?

Why tax what you deigned to give them in the first place? they have determined what they think will keep them from facing a popular revolt ripe for their enemies and rivals to use to overthrow them and given it out, they only have some taxes so the people will feel their collars and not their oats.
And if they were not drowning in oil wealth the pittance they hand out would be truly pitiful.

[r3volution 3.0]

Since the monarch does not have to worry about the voters, then he steals the same amount and divides it among the other factions.

No, because those other factions don't have the kind of influence over the king that voters have over elected politicians.

The voters are the only faction that might see benefit from equal treatment under the law and minarchy.

It's in every person's material self-interest to extract as much boodle as possible for the treasury (tragedy of the commons).

There's nothing magical about the common voter who makes him immune from human nature and economic law.

All it takes is a foreign sponsor to arm and aid them, or a domestic faction that wants to improve it's share of the take.

In any event, revolts happen in democratic states as well.

There is no system that can guarantee liberty, but my type of Republic is the system that would give it the best chance.
Many voters have voted for smaller government for generations, but they have constantly been sold out by most of the politicians who profess to embody their values or been manipulated with the "lesser of two evils" game because they couldn't just give more power to the good politicians of the day.

Say I'm a voter who wants to vote for liberty.

Scenario #1: The status quo, if I vote for Paul, and he wins, he gets one vote
Scenario #2: Your system, if a vote for Paul, and enough other people vote for him, he may get more than 1 vote

Why am I more likely to vote for Paul in #2 than in #1? Seems to me that I'd vote for him in both scenarios, and the people who wouldn't vote for him in #1 also wouldn't vote for him in #2. Alternately, say you have a Paul and a Trump running, same two scenarios. If I, someone wanting to vote for liberty, get conned into voting Trump in scenario #1, why wouldn't I likewise be conned in scenario #2?

Why tax what you deigned to give them in the first place?

I don't know what that means.

[Swordsmyth]

No, because those other factions don't have the kind of influence over the king that voters have over elected politicians.

Yes they do, they can replace or even kill him.

It's in every person's material self-interest to extract as much boodle as possible for the treasury (tragedy of the commons).

There's nothing magical about the common voter who makes him immune from human nature and economic law.

The strong have little impetus to see any reason they should be restrained, the weak are constantly aware of the desirability of restraining the strong, and they might therefore extend the principle to restraining themselves.

In any event, revolts happen in democratic states as well.

The point is that a King must buy off the masses as well and is therefore just as likely to take from some to give to others.

Say I'm a voter who wants to vote for liberty.

Scenario #1: The status quo, if I vote for Paul, and he wins, he gets one vote
Scenario #2: Your system, if a vote for Paul, and enough other people vote for him, he may get more than 1 vote

Why am I more likely to vote for Paul in #2 than in #1? Seems to me that I'd vote for him in both scenarios, and the people who wouldn't vote for him in #1 also wouldn't vote for him in #2. Alternately, say you have a Paul and a Trump running, same two scenarios. If I, someone wanting to vote for liberty, get conned into voting Trump in scenario #1, why wouldn't I likewise be conned in scenario #2?

When Dr. Paul was a member of the House of Reps. only those in his district were allowed to vote for him, when he ran for president it was a winner take all contest in the Republican primary only the winner came away with any power, therefore many voters were tricked into voting for someone who "could win".
In my system Dr. Paul would have received votes in the council of electors just from those of us who voted for him, not to mention the Democrat and Independent voters who would have voted for him, many more would have voted for him because they would know that a vote for him was not a "wasted vote".

Originally Posted by Swordsmyth

Why tax what you deigned to give them in the first place?

I don't know what that means.

Since the Royals own the oil and the oil companies and probably most or all of the other companies in those states, then anything the people get is what the Royals deigned to give them.
If you and I lived in a kingdom where I was king, and I gave you a stipend of $1,000 a month, why would I tax you $200 a month instead of only giving you $800 a month?

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes they do, they can replace or even kill him.

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 strong have little impetus to see any reason they should be restrained, the weak are constantly aware of the desirability of restraining the strong, and they might therefore extend the principle to restraining themselves.

And the seas might turn to lemonade.

The point is that a King must buy off the masses as well and is therefore just as likely to take from some to give to others.

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.

When Dr. Paul was a member of the House of Reps. only those in his district were allowed to vote for him, when he ran for president it was a winner take all contest in the Republican primary only the winner came away with any power, therefore many voters were tricked into voting for someone who "could win". In my system Dr. Paul would have received votes in the council of electors just from those of us who voted for him, not to mention the Democrat and Independent voters who would have voted for him, many more would have voted for him because they would know that a vote for him was not a "wasted vote".

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. 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.

Since the Royals own the oil and the oil companies and probably most or all of the other companies in those states, then anything the people get is what the Royals deigned to give them. If you and I lived in a kingdom where I was king, and I gave you a stipend of $1,000 a month, why would I tax you $200 a month instead of only giving you $800 a month?

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

[Krugminator2]

It's a hellavu jump to assume a dictator is going to be so far-sighted that he's going to set up a capitalistic country to maximize returns. What's the
current "crappy dictator"/"free market monarch" ratio? 100 to 1 maybe? What are the best current monarchs?

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