NationStates Jolt Archive

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o310/Greill/250px-Charlemagne-by-Durer.jpg

The Absolutist Party

Preamble

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is freedom’s enemy. Under democracy, we have seen total spending rise from often less than 10% under kings to around 50%. Government employment was below 3% in kingdoms; now, it is around 15%. Instead of law being permanent, to be discovered not created, democracy now forces reams upon reams of regulations and laws that shift like the sands, creating needless difficulty and uncertainty. The United States’ military forces, tugged by various lobbyists both from inside and outside the country, are scattered across the world and steadily draining the nation of its young men and money.

What is the cause of this madness? It is the fact that democratic government is publicly owned; it cannot be sold or rented out. Thus, public officials must make as much money as they can while in office by graft and waste, for if they do not they will lose support and lose any more opportunities to enrich themselves. Thus, their actions are necessarily short-sighted and wasteful. What must be done? The government must be privatized, and led under a king who, out of enlightened self-interest, will act for the long-term benefit of the nation. Understanding this, I humbly offer myself to be the King, to save the country from its democratic prison and lead it on to a golden age.

Government

I will be the supreme potentate of the nation, deriving my authority from my ownership of the country. There will be no de juris limits on my power. Quite honestly, checks and balances are not worth the paper they are written on, as they merely encourage strategic behavior to increase exploitation, which is to the self-interest of all parties involved. There will be no such obfuscation under my regime.

The limits on my power will be de facto. As my powers derive from my private ownership, I will have to pay respect to these rights or lose the legitimacy of my power. This is the concept of rex sub lege. Also, any action taken by me will be viewed not through a “public interest”, but as a reflection of my personal interest. This will create a resistance towards any tyrannical acts I may consider (but would never do.) In case of incompetence, it is quite likely that I will be neutralized or assassinated by someone with a claim to my throne. This is the time honored concept of tyrannicide. Finally, as I will own my property for my entire life and need to bequeath it to my descendants, I will be far-sighted in my actions.

There will be no democratic governments. All claims on the provision of defense and jurisdiction, such as my own, will be privately owned.

Domestic Economy

As a self-interested person, my management of my property, the kingdom, will be based upon maximizing my wealth; i.e., the value of my income and the value of my capital. Accordingly, I will never increase my income when it comes at the expense of a more than proportional drop in value in my capital. With this in mind, my actions will be more future-oriented, as I will wish to develop my capital for the long-term instead of devouring it in the short term. I will avoid overtaxation, taking on debt and inflating, as these will all reduce my wealth.

I will be using a property tax as the method of revenue collection, as property values best represent the entire value of the realm. I will act so as to maximize the total value of all property, so that I can get more money. As such, the property tax will remain low so as to minimize disincentives to increasing property value.

I will also invest in the nation in the form of infrastructure and the like, in sof ar as it raises property values and thus increases my wealth. Thus, construction will be based not upon political graft such as in democracy but through rational calculation.

I will also maintain other enterprises to diversify my wealth, so that I am not overly dependent on taxation. One such enterprise will be insurance. I will take out insurance policies on as many people in my nation for as many different things as possible, whether it be natural disaster or murder or the like. This will increase the livelihood of the populace, as insurance companies will either A.) Collude so that there are very high prices in cases of unnecessary danger, thus encouraging me to make investments to increase safety and thus gain lower premiums, and B.) Invest themselves so as to avoid having to pay out too often.

Foreign Economy

All trade agreements will be unilateral, in that I will allow complete (non-criminal) free trade regardless of whatever actions the other nation may take. If they choose to subsidize their goods, it is merely a wealth transfer via cheap goods to our nation. If they impose high tariffs against our goods, then we will not shoot ourselves in the foot by imposing tariffs on their goods and thus increasing the cost of living on ourselves.

Security and International Relations

Our foreign policy shall be one of peace. Since we will be pursuing a policy of free trade and thus engaging in interdependence, war would be counter-productive anyway. Also, war is expensive, and the money could likely be spent better elsewhere. We will not be entangled in alliances, but rather keep to ourselves and concentrate on defense. Security will be pursued by using the insurance premiums and property values as the basis of rational calculation.

Culture

I will give financial benefits to people of great artistic, cultural and intellectual achievement, in order to allow for acculturation, cultivation, and the increase of the value of the country. This will provide valuable incentives that will cause greater intellectual, cultural, and artistic output. Essentially, it will be a system of patronage such as those of old times that allowed so many great minds to thrive. There is little need to worry about graft or vulgarity in such a program, as, it being my money, I can withdraw it from counter-productive programs and place it in more productive areas.

Local associations in cities and neighborhoods will be allowed whom they will include and exclude. Since they also will want to increase their value, they will choose to exclude miscreants, vagabonds and gangsters. This will create great incentives for civility (because it will increase one’s chances of finding and keeping a place to live), and create disincentives for unruly behavior (that being ostracism.)

Immigration

As I will want to increase the value of my territory, I will choose an immigration policy that reflects this. In order to permanently immigrate to the country, one will have to demonstrate good character structure, good intellectual capacity and good cultural compatibility. Such individuals would increase the human content of my territory, thus raising its value, and I will gladly accept them. Those who may not be above-average in such criteria, but are rather simply average, will be allowed in as seasonal workers so long as they have an employment contract. Whoever may invite an immigrant will have to take responsibility for any crimes they commit. However, they will not be allowed to own real estate. Should they lose their contract and fail to find a new one, they will be deported. Below average people, such as miscreants, vagabonds and gangsters, will be barred from entry.

I will also maintain an emigration policy that will reflect my desire to maximize my wealth. The miscreants, vagabonds and gangsters will be actively encouraged to leave. Above-average people will be provided with incentives to stay, so as to avoid their leaving and thus decreasing the value of the kingdom.

Crime and Punishment

Crime will be treated as the aggressor owing a debt to the aggressee. Said debt shall be twice the value of whatever the costs of damages if the act is intentional, and equal to the value of whatever the damages are if unintentional. The criminal will then be made to pay back the debt as the aggressee wishes, using whatever force is necessary up to the force used by the criminal.

Civil Rights

In accordance with natural law, one’s rights shall be life, liberty and property. Liberty and property include the rights of association (and dissociation), freedom of contract, and freedom of enterprise.

Members
His Royal Majesty Greill I, King of the Absolutist Party
Princess Oxymoon, non-biological daughter
Duke Ancap Paradise, Master of the Most Sacred Order of the Golden Platypus
Duke Europa Maxima, Grand High CEO of Europa Maxima Inc., War Baron, and Peerless Editor of Manifestos
Duke IL Ruffino, Minister of the Department of Snobbery and Snootiness
Duke Thumbless Pete Crabbe, Thumbless Thumb-upper of Manifestos
Duke Legondia, Lord of Freeeeeeeeedom!!!
Duke Dosuun, Fully Limbed Black Knight of the Rhombus Table
Thedarksith, Duke of Death and Destruction
Aibengail (Title Pending)
Duke Morrington, Minister of Spleling and gRammar
Duke Arab Maghreb Union, (Title Pending)

Sign me up.

umm...no thanks

Sign me up.

Woohoo!

umm...no thanks

"No thanks", as in "No thanks, I actually would like to be sent to the gulag"?

A bit nutty for my taste, but an interesting and ambitious vision. Thumbs-up for that! :)

Cool, I'll join. Sounds fun. :)

Will you accept me into your inner circle?

I wouldn't want to be a commoner, now would I?

Will you accept me into your inner circle?

I wouldn't want to be a commoner, now would I?

Cool, I'll join. Sounds fun. :)

A bit nutty for my taste, but an interesting and ambitious vision. Thumbs-up for that! :)

You're all in! Do you want to think up a title for yourselves, or would you like me to think one up?

Interesting concept here, Greill. Can't say anything for sure now, but I'll be sure to stop by in a little while to see development.

Interesting concept here, Greill. Can't say anything for sure now, but I'll be sure to stop by in a little while to see development.

Sure thing! :D

you put alot of effort into this and for that you should be commended.
but no thanks...i like being somewhat free.

you put alot of effort into this and for that you should be commended.
but no thanks...i like being somewhat free.

You'll still be free! Especially considering you'll be a member of the "Gulag Enthusiast" party if I get power and you're not on my side. :D

How will property be protected?

I'm all for Hobbesian monarchy when it can be assured that the monarchy will, in fact, be a Hobbesian monarchy. However, the ways that you suggest will keep you sort of "in line" like a Hobbesian monarchy don't make any sense. :(

How will property be protected?

Whichever way keeps my insurance premiums lowest and raises property values the most. (Which, with a reduction in property violation thanks to better protection, it would be.) My property protection will be rationally calculated based on marginal benefit and marginal cost, and there will be an inherent economy created out of my self-interest. Also, crime will be treated as a debt to the aggressee, which means that people will recoup their losses instead of just shipping a criminal off to a prison for a little while at taxpayer's expense.

I'm all for Hobbesian monarchy when it can be assured that the monarchy will, in fact, be a Hobbesian monarchy. However, the ways that you suggest will keep you sort of "in line" like a Hobbesian monarchy don't make any sense. :(

How do they not make sense? Doesn't a Hobbesian monarch want to maximize his wealth, and therefore avoid short-sighted solutions in lieu of long-sighted ones that increase trust and the value of his nation overall, thus enriching him as well as his subjects?

Sorry, I don't like nobles.


...So sign me up as the obligatory insurrectionist whom the government and aristocracy will blame all its woes on.

Sorry, I don't like nobles.


...So sign me up as the obligatory insurrectionist whom the government and aristocracy will blame all its woes on.

Would you also be willing to be sent back by an enemy government to knock my country out in a war, preferably one of a global scale?

Whichever way keeps my insurance premiums lowest and raises property values the most. (Which, with a reduction in property violation thanks to better protection, it would be.) My property protection will be rationally calculated based on marginal benefit and marginal cost, and there will be an inherent economy created out of my self-interest. Also, crime will be treated as a debt to the aggressee, which means that people will recoup their losses instead of just shipping a criminal off to a prison for a little while at taxpayer's expense.

So we are looking at a rather controlled economy then?

Would you also be willing to be sent back by an enemy government to knock my country out in a war, preferably one of a global scale?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

So we are looking at a rather controlled economy then?

No, I'm just mixing Dead Peasant Insurance and a Private Urban Development corporation on a massive scale. Unless you consider those to be socialist, then I don't see how I am being socialist either. It's certainly better than having a system based on voting, where one can still get votes regardless of how bad one's policies are.

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I was calling you Lenin, basically.

No, I'm just mixing Dead Peasant Insurance and a Private Urban Development corporation on a massive scale. Unless you consider those to be socialist, then I don't see how I am being socialist either. It's certainly better than having a system based on voting, where one can still get votes regardless of how bad one's policies are.



I was calling you Lenin, basically.

...Tick tock tick tock...AH! Okay! Must have been how you worded it.

My response to your question is...Maybe.

Of course, I could act as a double-agent on your behalf if you can guarantee me health care and a good paycheck.

How do they not make sense? Doesn't a Hobbesian monarch want to maximize his wealth, and therefore avoid short-sighted solutions in lieu of long-sighted ones that increase trust and the value of his nation overall, thus enriching him as well as his subjects?

I haven't seen anything to keep you from simply choosing to remove other people from their property, if you get what I mean. What protects the people from you?

No, I'm just mixing Dead Peasant Insurance and a Private Urban Development corporation on a massive scale. Unless you consider those to be socialist, then I don't see how I am being socialist either. It's certainly better than having a system based on voting, where one can still get votes regardless of how bad one's policies are.

All property will be allowed by your decree, so all property is your property, it is not private.

...Tick tock tick tock...AH! Okay! Must have been how you worded it.

My response to your question is...Maybe.

Of course, I could act as a double-agent on your behalf if you can guarantee me health care and a good paycheck.

Oh, sure thing. :D

I haven't seen anything to keep you from simply choosing to remove other people from their property, if you get what I mean. What protects the people from you?

I also said this in the manifesto, but I will repeat it just for clarification's sake. There are philosophical and practical barriers. First, the philosophical barrier. My rights are private property rights as well. If I ignore the sanctity of other people's private property rights, then why should they respect my own private property rights? This is the concept of rex sub lege. If I ignore other people's private property rights, I am invalidating my own legitimacy, thus opening the door for my neutralization or tyrannicide. Second, the practical barrier. Even if, miraculously, I survive whatever revolts there are against me, would you want to keep your property in my country knowing that I might snatch it up? If you can avoid it, of course not. Though my income would surge for a small time, my capital values would take a nosedive. Thus, I cannot and would not want to do such a self-destructive act.

This, of course, is in distinct contrast to democratic governments. The politicians do not have the philosophical barrier, as they do not have a private property right in government; rather, they can twist the laws as they wish to suit their own political gain. Thus, their legitimacy is not reduced. Secondly, they do not face the practical barrier, as their income may increase even if there is capital flight; their wealth is not decreased, since they have no stake in the overall value of the country.

All property will be allowed by your decree, so all property is your property, it is not private.

No. Like all kings, I am bound by the concept of rex sub lege. My rights, elevated though they are, are still private property rights. If I disregard others property rights, then I am destroying my own legitimacy. My property and my subjects' property are distinct.

I also said this in the manifesto, but I will repeat it just for clarification's sake. There are philosophical and practical barriers. First, the philosophical barrier. My rights are private property rights as well. If I ignore the sanctity of other people's private property rights, then why should they respect my own private property rights? This is the concept of rex sub lege. If I ignore other people's private property rights, I am invalidating my own legitimacy, thus opening the door for my neutralization or tyrannicide. Second, the practical barrier. Even if, miraculously, I survive whatever revolts there are against me, would you want to keep your property in my country knowing that I might snatch it up? If you can avoid it, of course not. Though my income would surge for a small time, my capital values would take a nosedive. Thus, I cannot and would not want to do such a self-destructive act.

This, of course, is in distinct contrast to democratic governments. The politicians do not have the philosophical barrier, as they do not have a private property right in government; rather, they can twist the laws as they wish to suit their own political gain. Thus, their legitimacy is not reduced. Secondly, they do not face the practical barrier, as their income may increase even if there is capital flight; their wealth is not decreased, since they have no stake in the overall value of the country.



No. Like all kings, I am bound by the concept of rex sub lege. My rights, elevated though they are, are still private property rights. If I disregard others property rights, then I am destroying my own legitimacy. My property and my subjects' property are distinct.

Interesting. This could either go well, or spectacularly wrong. What you are saying here suggests that you might work as a good king, so, I'll join! And if it goes spectacularly wrong, it should be fun to watch at any rate.
OK, this is going to be interesting, but could I be the princess? Associated via family, etc., but the throne and inheritance doesn't have to fall to me. Mostly I just want the title. ^_^

Interesting. This could either go well, or spectacularly wrong. What you are saying here suggests that you might work as a good king, so, I'll join!
OK, this is going to be interesting, but could I be the princess? Associated via family, etc., but the throne and inheritance doesn't have to fall to me. Mostly I just want the title. ^_^

Sure thing, Princess. :D

Sure thing, Princess. :D

Yay!

Heh, I'm the adopted princess. :P

Yay!

Heh, I'm the adopted princess. :P

Yes. The adopted princess. I'm a bit young to have kids interested in Nationstates. :D

I distrust monarchies..... especially ones that make themselves sound as creepy as yours does. The idea of living in an owned nation simply sets off alarms of serfdom. I will not resurrect any discussion on monarchy vs democracy but even though I hate gulags, I do not agree with your ideas and thus cannot accept this party unless it is absolutely necessary. I think that the real money is with a variant of a republic though.

You're no Melchor Unchained.

Sign me up!

But I have a question, are people allowed to freely leave their country if they find it undesirable? I believe if you offered free transportation to other countries for the dissenters within your country you would find far less resistance among your populace.

I won't be joining this, for reasons I outlined in the 'Democracy' thread and others, but good luck to you. I look forward to meeting you in the elections and in Parliament.

You're all in! Do you want to think up a title for yourselves, or would you like me to think one up?

Something elitist will be suffice. :)

I distrust monarchies..... especially ones that make themselves sound as creepy as yours does. The idea of living in an owned nation simply sets off alarms of serfdom. I will not resurrect any discussion on monarchy vs democracy but even though I hate gulags, I do not agree with your ideas and thus cannot accept this party unless it is absolutely necessary. I think that the real money is with a variant of a republic though.

Your preferences:

1. Not being a member of this party
2. Not being in a gulag

I'm afraid that I can only satisfy one of these. Since you demonstrated a preference for the first, I'll happily send you to a gulag. There's no need to thank me. ;)

You're no Melchor Unchained.

Ah, I see you have invited yourself to give me lip. As such, I will happily provide you with a station to continue to do so. From now on, you will be the Official Lip Giver of Gulag 33, Cell B4. And you're welcome. :)

Sign me up!

But I have a question, are people allowed to freely leave their country if they find it undesirable? I believe if you offered free transportation to other countries for the dissenters within your country you would find far less resistance among your populace.

Yes, they will be free to emigrate, as I stated in the manifesto. In fact, they'll be given some incentive to do so, such as the free transportation you mentioned. However, depending upon their character, intellectual capacity, and cultural compatibility, they may also face the losing of benefits that are given to outstanding people.

I won't be joining this, for reasons I outlined in the 'Democracy' thread and others, but good luck to you. I look forward to meeting you in the elections and in Parliament.

Why, thank you! I think I will spare you. :)

Something elitist will be suffice. :)

Sure thing. :D

Sign me up as the influential revolutionary that overthrows your tyrannical government and displays your head on a pike for all to urinate on.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the concept of unilateral trade. Subsidies and tarriffs distort the free market and allow inefficient businesses to survive far longer than they would under the pressure of competition, and the result is that economic inefficiency builds up and the overall growth potential of both economies is badly harmed. This is especially true for productivity growth, which is the main weapon against inflation and waste of resources; without the free market, those resources are not properly allocated and huge amounts are wasted instead of being conserved or turned in to economically useful products.

The loss is substantial on both sides; you lose by suffering economic damage due to the market-distorting effects of subsidies and tarriffs, they lose from decreased economic efficiency and growth potential, and you both lose a second time because the decrease in growth ultimately means slower growth in trade, capital stock, and productivity. The net result is a massive loss for all sides.

In the context of maximizing your personal wealth, it is completely impossible to justify the cheap goods against the short, intermediate, and long-term damage of unilateral trade on both sides of the agreement. The costs vastly outweigh the benefits.

Sign me up as the influential revolutionary that overthrows your tyrannical government and displays your head on a pike for all to urinate on.

Or fails miserably and has his head displayed on a pike for my loving subjects to urinate on.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the concept of unilateral trade. Subsidies and tarriffs distort the free market and allow inefficient businesses to survive far longer than they would under the pressure of competition, and the result is that economic inefficiency builds up and the overall growth

The loss is on both sides; you lose by suffering economic damage due to the market-distorting effects of subsidies and tarriffs, they lose from decreased economic efficiency and growth potential, and you both lose a second time because the decrease in growth ultimately means slower growth in trade, capital stock, and productivity. The net result is a massive loss for all sides.

In the context of maximizing your personal wealth, it is completely impossible to justify the cheap goods against the short, intermediate, and long-term damage of unilateral trade on both sides of the agreement. The costs vastly outweigh the benefits.

I would disagree. Let's say that a foreign country is subsidizing the exporting of ships. This entails a transferring of wealth from the foreign country's populace to the shipbuilders, so that the shipbuilders can outcompete other shipbuilders. In effect, it is a transfer of the foreign country's wealth to my country. This, of course, is advantageous to me as it increases my wealth, specifically because my ship quality and quantity is increased. Also, if the foreign country sells me cheap ships, all of the workers and capital do not spontaneously combust. Rather, my country will shift its production from this now less scarce resource to a more scarce resource. Continuing to use ships as an example, it will entail an increase in fishing, transporting, dock services, etc. It will effectively increase my country's capital value. So accepting such subsidies is consistent with maximizing my wealth.

As for tariffs, it is silly to retaliate against someone who has shot you in the foot by shooting yourself in the other foot. Yes, the foreign country's tariffs does not allow for my country to divert its resources to satisfy a broader division of labor. But if I erect tariffs in retaliation, then this denies my country usage of their relatively cheaper resources and narrows the division of labor. I may pressure the other country to lift their tariffs, of course, so that I can increase my division of labor, but I will not narrow my division of labor in order to broaden it. That would be just silly.

I would disagree. Let's say that a foreign country is subsidizing the exporting of ships. This entails a transferring of wealth from the foreign country's populace to the shipbuilders, so that the shipbuilders can outcompete other shipbuilders. In effect, it is a transfer of the foreign country's wealth to my country. This, of course, is advantageous to me as it increases my wealth, specifically because my ship quality and quantity is increased. Also, if the foreign country sells me cheap ships, all of the workers and capital do not spontaneously combust. Rather, my country will shift its production from this now less scarce resource to a more scarce resource. Continuing to use ships as an example, it will entail an increase in fishing, transporting, dock services, etc. It will effectively increase my country's capital value. So accepting such subsidies is consistent with maximizing my wealth.

But at the same time, that subsidized industry has far less incentive to invest in improving its ships, using resources efficiently or employing its labor resources properly. The result is that the ships produced are not produced in the most optimal manner, destroying comparative advantage and reducing the overall economic efficiency of the both economies; in a free market, rather than produce ships it might be more efficient for that economy to produce cars, and vice versa, but since they are subsidizing their ship industry that comparative advantage is lost and they produce the less efficient ships and you are forced to produce less efficient cars.

You might get cheap ships, but because you are forced to produce products your economy is less suited to instead of the ships you are best at producing, the cost of other goods is much higher and the overall effect is negative.

As for tariffs, it is silly to retaliate against someone who has shot you in the foot by shooting yourself in the other foot. Yes, the foreign country's tariffs does not allow for my country to divert its resources to satisfy a broader division of labor. But if I erect tariffs in retaliation, then this denies my country usage of their relatively cheaper resources and narrows the division of labor. I may pressure the other country to lift their tariffs, of course, so that I can increase my division of labor, but I will not narrow my division of labor in order to broaden it. That would be just silly.

Well, yeah. It makes more sense to use their exposure to your market as leverage for them to open their own. Eventually, the economic costs of tariffs as well as the economic imbalances caused by them will force them to open their markets or suffer severe economic repercussions.

I thought this was a recruitment thread for a party that was pro-vodka...

I thought this was a recruitment thread for a party that was pro-vodka...

Who ever said I was anti-vodka? :D

But at the same time, that subsidized industry has far less incentive to invest in improving its ships, using resources efficiently or employing its labor resources properly. The result is that the ships produced are not produced in the most optimal manner, destroying comparative advantage and reducing the overall economic efficiency of the both economies; in a free market, rather than produce ships it might be more efficient for that economy to produce cars, and vice versa, but since they are subsidizing their ship industry that comparative advantage is lost and they produce the less efficient ships and you are forced to produce less efficient cars.

You might get cheap ships, but because you are forced to produce products your economy is less suited to instead of the ships you are best at producing, the cost of other goods is much higher and the overall effect is negative.

If my country buys the ships and sells the cars, instead of the other way around, it is because the subsidizing country has relatively satisfied our need for ships. It may have otherwise been a better idea for us to build ships, but since the foreign country has helped satisfy this want we may proceed to satisfy the rest of our needs that we would not have been able to do so before. The only real loser is the citizen of the foreign country, who is forced to help the shipbuilder build his ships and buy cars that would have been better produced at home.

Well, yeah. It makes more sense to use their exposure to your market as leverage for them to open their own. Eventually, the economic costs of tariffs as well as the economic imbalances caused by them will force them to open their markets or suffer severe economic repercussions.

But I will be hurting myself by starving my citizens' of the foreign goods they desire, thus making my land less valuable overall. I would prefer to use methods that increase my prosperity that don't involve killing economic activity. Not to mention that raising tariffs in retaliation is an invitation for a trade war.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

If I sign on now would I get to be a knight? The Black Knight, perhaps? Every kingdom needs a Black Knight.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

If I sign on now would I get to be a knight? The Black Knight, perhaps? Every kingdom needs a Black Knight.

Yes, you could be the Black Knight. And I'll make sure your armor's joints are reinforced, just in case you happen upon a legendary king in search of the Holy Grail.

If my country buys the ships and sells the cars, instead of the other way around, it is because the subsidizing country has relatively satisfied our need for ships. It may have otherwise been a better idea for us to build ships, but since the foreign country has helped satisfy this want we may proceed to satisfy the rest of our needs that we would not have been able to do so before. The only real loser is the citizen of the foreign country, who is forced to help the shipbuilder build his ships and buy cars that would have been better produced at home.

But only if the trade-off is equal at all points. If the resources diverted to inefficient shipbuilding come at a very high tradeoff cost, which is much more likely than an equal tradeoff, the equation is entirely different and will be a huge disadvantage to both producer and consumer. The cost of producing those inefficient goods will increase disproportionately to the quantity with the result being that you will have to sacrifice other production in order to produce those inefficient goods.

You won't actually be freeing up any resources for producing other goods because the cars will eat up a disproportionate share and will more than outstrip the resources freed up by the imported ships. The same is true of the nation building subsidized ships.

But I will be hurting myself by starving my citizens' of the foreign goods they desire, thus making my land less valuable overall. I would prefer to use methods that increase my prosperity that don't involve killing economic activity. Not to mention that raising tariffs in retaliation is an invitation for a trade war.

Raising tariffs in retaliation is a terrible idea. It's a lot smarter to convince them of the benefits of trade liberalization and let them act on their own.

But only if the trade-off is equal at all points. If the resources diverted to inefficient shipbuilding come at a very high tradeoff cost, which is much more likely than an equal tradeoff, the equation is entirely different and will be a huge disadvantage to both producer and consumer. The cost of producing those inefficient goods will increase disproportionately to the quantity with the result being that you will have to sacrifice other production in order to produce those inefficient goods.

You won't actually be freeing up any resources for producing other goods because the cars will eat up a disproportionate share and will more than outstrip the resources freed up by the imported ships. The same is true of the nation building subsidized ships.

In a Bastiat style way, you are correct. But I cannot philosophically or practically make any intervention against this. Philosophically, I do not want to interfere in the exchanges of my citizens; they still desire these ships regardless, and punishing them for purchasing them will reduce the value of my realm. Practically, I cannot put a tariff or other barrier against the ships, as it will merely be an encouragement for the other country to put their own barrier up, and, as their considerations are political as opposed to economic, they will likely continue to subsidize that industry. Also, I cannot wave a magic wand and discover the exact amount I should put up to create some sort of equilibrium as concerns subsidies, so I should not try it.

Raising tariffs in retaliation is a terrible idea. It's a lot smarter to convince them of the benefits of trade liberalization and let them act on their own.

Which is what I would do.

i, Darth Nihilo, offer my vast armies to your cause if you declare us citizens and place into a high sounding military position

In a Bastiat style way, you are correct. But I cannot philosophically or practically make any intervention against this. Philosophically, I do not want to interfere in the exchanges of my citizens; they still desire these ships regardless, and punishing them for purchasing them will reduce the value of my realm. Practically, I cannot put a tariff or other barrier against the ships, as it will merely be an encouragement for the other country to put their own barrier up, and, as their considerations are political as opposed to economic, they will likely continue to subsidize that industry. Also, I cannot wave a magic wand and discover the exact amount I should put up to create some sort of equilibrium as concerns subsidies, so I should not try it.

Well, if your ruling philosophy is inherently focused on maximizing personal wealth, wouldn't it make sense to make decisions necessary to achieve that end? Allowing subsidies and other trade distortion greatly dampers your opportunity to build personal wealth and prevents your citizens from making informed economic decisions that truly reflect market conditions. Overall, it seems like a minute philosophical compromise in exchange for significant practical and philosophical benefits in other areas.

Besides, as absolute and rational ruler, you wouldn't make foolish decisions like instigating a trade war or retaliating with subsidies of your own; the process would have the clear goal in mind of maximizing economic efficiency.

Which is what I would do.

And more or less guarantees tariffs and subsidies will die out.

i, Darth Nihilo, offer my vast armies to your cause if you declare us citizens and place into a high sounding military position

I gladly accept. I'll be thinking up a title for you, tell me if you want it changed.

Well, if your ruling philosophy is inherently focused on maximizing personal wealth, wouldn't it make sense to make decisions necessary to achieve that end? Allowing subsidies and other trade distortion greatly dampers your opportunity to build personal wealth and prevents your citizens from making informed economic decisions that truly reflect market conditions. Overall, it seems like a minute philosophical compromise in exchange for significant practical and philosophical benefits in other areas.

Besides, as absolute and rational ruler, you wouldn't make foolish decisions like instigating a trade war or retaliating with subsidies of your own; the process would have the clear goal in mind of maximizing economic efficiency.

Well, I would try and convince the other people to stop making trade distortions. But if I start going down the road of interventionism, I start going down the road of law not being something that one discovers, but that is merely created. And that creates legal and moral incertitude and mistrust, which will hurt the capital values of my country, as well as hurt me philosophically (My claims are private property claims. If I start messing with other people's private property claims, I reduce the sanctity of my own claims.) Not to mention that my counterparts may not be so happy about my actions- they will likely blow whatever I do out of proportion in order to get votes, regardless of the long term effects.

And more or less guarantees tariffs and subsidies will die out.

Not necessarily. There can be a great deal of money made from inciting hysteria and aiding special interest groups (export industry, in this case.)

I have determined that more exposure raises my capital values. Therefore, I royally BUMP this thread.

Bring

Up

My

Pudding

I can't really think of a name, but something involving liberty and freedom would be nice, since I'm assuming the desirable citizens of the land would be free to do nearly anything they want with regards to life, liberty, and property rights.

I can't really think of a name, but something involving liberty and freedom would be nice, since I'm assuming the desirable citizens of the land would be free to do nearly anything they want with regards to life, liberty, and property rights.

Sure thing. And yes, they are free to do just that. :D

*orders his chauffeur run over the commoners*

Let me ask you this:

Most of the these wealth maximizing measures that benefit society in general benefit society in the long run, but to paraphrase Keynes, in the long run you are dead. So how can we expect you to not bankrupt the economy in a flurry of necessarily (from your vantage point) myopic financial moves?

{Vittos the City Sacker Let me ask you this:

Most of the these wealth maximizing measures that benefit society in general benefit society in the long run, but to paraphrase Keynes, in the long run you are dead. So how can we expect you to not bankrupt the economy in a flurry of necessarily (from your vantage point) myopic financial moves? }

(ya i know. i just forgot to hit the quote thing)
maybe he can set a person to take his place in the event of him imminently becoming sick beyond the point where he can rule/ his dead (not that this shall happen with my sith as his bodyguards >_>hehehe...)/ or some other thing that can incapacite him. i also think that it should be kept a secret from everyone else so they don't get cocky and kill him.

btw. are you going to have a posting in a rp section about this at any time?

{Vittos the City Sacker Let me ask you this:

Most of the these wealth maximizing measures that benefit society in general benefit society in the long run, but to paraphrase Keynes, in the long run you are dead. So how can we expect you to not bankrupt the economy in a flurry of necessarily (from your vantage point) myopic financial moves? }

(ya i know. i just forgot to hit the quote thing)
maybe he can set a person to take his place in the event of him imminently becoming sick beyond the point where he can rule/ his dead (not that this shall happen with my sith as his bodyguards >_>hehehe...)/ or some other thing that can incapacite him. i also think that it should be kept a secret from everyone else so they don't get cocky and kill him.

btw. are you going to have a posting in a rp section about this at any time?

You can add quotes after hitting reply.

I have no doubt he will appoint a successor, but that doesn't mean that he will be all that concerned with the financial wellbeing of the successor.

You can add quotes after hitting reply.

I have no doubt he will appoint a successor, but that doesn't mean that he will be all that concerned with the financialwell being of the successor.

by he do you mean the person he appointed or the one doing the appointing?
...
... ya i get your point now.

Let me ask you this:

Most of the these wealth maximizing measures that benefit society in general benefit society in the long run, but to paraphrase Keynes, in the long run you are dead. So how can we expect you to not bankrupt the economy in a flurry of necessarily (from your vantage point) myopic financial moves?

Why do investors invest money, seeing as how they lose money they could use to consume now? The answer: Time preference. Although that loss of money in the short-term is a cost, the benefit of having a larger sum of is a greater benefit. In other words, I will not eat seeds when I could get fruit. As I own the country, I also own the future income of the country. Thus, I will not make a sacrifice in future income (capital values) to gain an under-proportional rise in present income. This trend is also reinforced by the fact that I wish to give my offspring a suitable patrimony; a patrimony that is worthless in the forseeable future is no patrimony at all.

This is in distinct contrast to democratic governments, in which public officials only have a short window of time to take as much as they possibly can before they no longer can do so. In comparison, my rule will be more far-sighted than theirs.

Absolutists?

No way.

Absolutists?

No way.

Do you really enjoy going out every few years to check a little box next to the name of some miscreant that much?

*Initiates People's Revolution*

RISE UP COMRADES AGAINST THE EVIL OPPRESSORS!!!

Long Live the REVOLUTION!!!!!

Why do investors invest money, seeing as how they lose money they could use to consume now? The answer: Time preference. Although that loss of money in the short-term is a cost, the benefit of having a larger sum of is a greater benefit. In other words, I will not eat seeds when I could get fruit. As I own the country, I also own the future income of the country. Thus, I will not make a sacrifice in future income (capital values) to gain an under-proportional rise in present income. This trend is also reinforced by the fact that I wish to give my offspring a suitable patrimony; a patrimony that is worthless in the forseeable future is no patrimony at all.

This is in distinct contrast to democratic governments, in which public officials only have a short window of time to take as much as they possibly can before they no longer can do so. In comparison, my rule will be more far-sighted than theirs.
But who says that you must desire to give your descendents patrimony? That is part of the point of Vittos. You assert that your rationality is perfectly tied to the long-term welfare of the state that you live in, but the concern with long-term welfare is not a constant amongst all people. We see every day those who are willing to eat their seeds. Not only that but as the discussion with Vetalia shows, leaders do not always know their long term welfare. Especially if we throw ideology in the question. To say that one of your descendents will not decide to adhere to a philosophy until death takes it from him seems an assumption that is difficult to make. If our next leader says "socialism or death" for whatever reason then we are screwed and without a defense against his tyranny.

Public officials also have an eye for their future reputation as well in as much as their legacy, as well, they are responsible for respecting the desires of their constituency which also has some regard for the future. Now, are the masses irrational? Yes. However, there have been rulers that were gripped by malevolence or irrationality as well despite not living in democratic nations and I don't think that these can be explained as simply as simply being anomalies given that this kind of behavior has been seen in past monarchies and more modern states, I think that the real issue isn't necessarily selection but rather the very controls at stake. Really though, we have had this discussion in the past and disagreed. However, really though, the choice between gulags and voting for you is a false one as your opponents are not pro gulag, in fact, I would see more problems with a person lacking constraints than with a bunch of hippy socialists.

Do you really enjoy going out every few years to check a little box next to the name of some miscreant that much?

Ah, so you didn't get my little play on words. Oh well.

Well, I would try and convince the other people to stop making trade distortions. But if I start going down the road of interventionism, I start going down the road of law not being something that one discovers, but that is merely created. And that creates legal and moral incertitude and mistrust, which will hurt the capital values of my country, as well as hurt me philosophically (My claims are private property claims. If I start messing with other people's private property claims, I reduce the sanctity of my own claims.) Not to mention that my counterparts may not be so happy about my actions- they will likely blow whatever I do out of proportion in order to get votes, regardless of the long term effects.

Oh, I agree. I don't think we're really on different sides on this issue. You shouldn't be silent about subsidies and trade distortion, but you shouldn't do something foolish like instigate a trade war and solve nothing.

Not necessarily. There can be a great deal of money made from inciting hysteria and aiding special interest groups (export industry, in this case.)

But only for so long. Eventually, the economic costs outstrip the benefits and the choice becomes liberalization or collapse; that's what India and China did in the 1970's and 1980's. Had they remained on their original course, the would likely not have anywhere near the economic development and growth they are experiencing today.

RISE UP COMRADES AGAINST THE EVIL OPPRESSORS!!!

So that we may oppress you instead! HURRAY!

But who says that you must desire to give your descendents patrimony? That is part of the point of Vittos. You assert that your rationality is perfectly tied to the long-term welfare of the state that you live in, but the concern with long-term welfare is not a constant amongst all people. We see every day those who are willing to eat their seeds. Not only that but as the discussion with Vetalia shows, leaders do not always know their long term welfare. Especially if we throw ideology in the question. To say that one of your descendents will not decide to adhere to a philosophy until death takes it from him seems an assumption that is difficult to make. If our next leader says "socialism or death" for whatever reason then we are screwed and without a defense against his tyranny.

But in history we see clear examples of idiot rulers who were not able to eat their seeds because of the interests of others who had a stake in the patrimony. Instead, these idiots were either neutralized or even assassinated by those who had a stake in the long-term well-being of the country. If one of my descendants were to give the slightest inkling of being pro-socialism, he would be restrained by everyone else who would want to continue receiving returns from the country. This would include me, as if I desired to ignore my children's patrimony they would likely turn on me. This is the time-honored concept of tyrannicide, and it has been exercised quite thoroughly in the course of history.

This, of course, does not apply in a democratic state. Those who have an interest in the long-term good of the country cannot assassinate public officials to stop them from ruining the nation. They will simply be replaced by another person who is equally as short-sighted and morally depraved, as is necessitated by democratic politics (the thieves won't reward you if you don't steal something for them, and there goes your office.)

In effect, you should not fear tyrants in monarchies so much as in democracies. Those who have a long-term interest in a monarchy can eliminate a tyrant; those who have a long-term interest in a democracy only replace them with a new master.

Public officials also have an eye for their future reputation as well in as much as their legacy, as well, they are responsible for respecting the desires of their constituency which also has some regard for the future.

Ha. Their legacy has absolutely nothing to do with how much good they did. If a charlatan makes you think he's done his job long after he has left, has he done good? Same thing with presidents. The presidents of the last 80 years have all been an unmitigated catastrophe of creeping socialism (and yes, I do include the faux "free market" mercantilists (here (http://www.mises.org/story/1544) and here (http://www.mises.org/story/2559)), and yet many are celebrated as heroes. Perception has no innate connection to reality.

Now, are the masses irrational? Yes. However, there have been rulers that were gripped by malevolence or irrationality as well despite not living in democratic nations and I don't think that these can be explained as simply as simply being anomalies given that this kind of behavior has been seen in past monarchies and more modern states, I think that the real issue isn't necessarily selection but rather the very controls at stake. Really though, we have had this discussion in the past and disagreed. However, really though, the choice between gulags and voting for you is a false one as your opponents are not pro gulag, in fact, I would see more problems with a person lacking constraints than with a bunch of hippy socialists.

But the fact remains that there are more safeguards in place in a monarchy than there are in democracy. In monarchy, there is tyrannicide, institutionalized private property via the monarch's own claim, and a broader time horizon due to the possibility of future returns on the king's assets. All you get in democracy is a glorified piece of paper to protect your rights (which is ultimately to be enforced and interpreted by the government alone.)

Ah, so you didn't get my little play on words. Oh well.

Could you explain it to me?

Oh, I agree. I don't think we're really on different sides on this issue. You shouldn't be silent about subsidies and trade distortion, but you shouldn't do something foolish like instigate a trade war and solve nothing.

That sounds like a good idea. Thanks for bringing it up.

But only for so long. Eventually, the economic costs outstrip the benefits and the choice becomes liberalization or collapse; that's what India and China did in the 1970's and 1980's. Had they remained on their original course, the would likely not have anywhere near the economic development and growth they are experiencing today.

But look how far they had to go before they started to liberalize. Same thing with the Soviet Union. The West is still happy to pile on regulations and taxes and subsidies and trade barriers ad nauseam, and their populace doesn't really seem to mind that much.

But in history we see clear examples of idiot rulers who were not able to eat their seeds because of the interests of others who had a stake in the patrimony. Instead, these idiots were either neutralized or even assassinated by those who had a stake in the long-term well-being of the country. If one of my descendants were to give the slightest inkling of being pro-socialism, he would be restrained by everyone else who would want to continue receiving returns from the country. This would include me, as if I desired to ignore my children's patrimony they would likely turn on me. This is the time-honored concept of tyrannicide, and it has been exercised quite thoroughly in the course of history. But is assassination a good check on power? I would not say so, rather it is a destabilizing force in terms of the rule of law. Not only that but you seem to think that this force is much stronger than it really would be, you could restrain your children from attacking you through various means including psychology and limiting resources. The time-honored concept of tyrannicide really has a lot of flaws that more peaceful transitions would avoid.

This, of course, does not apply in a democratic state. Those who have an interest in the long-term good of the country cannot assassinate public officials to stop them from ruining the nation. They will simply be replaced by another person who is equally as short-sighted and morally depraved, as is necessitated by democratic politics (the thieves won't reward you if you don't steal something for them, and there goes your office.) You keep on assuming that there is a good choice in leadership, I would argue that we can get the depraved and moronic in a monarchy as well with the same ease if not greater than that found within a democracy. If democracy necessitates that you steal then how come anti-pork agencies exist? Now, it does encourage some corruption to be certain but it also keeps a lot of corruption in line.

In effect, you should not fear tyrants in monarchies so much as in democracies. Those who have a long-term interest in a monarchy can eliminate a tyrant; those who have a long-term interest in a democracy only replace them with a new master. No, because in democracy you have real checks on power. Those with a long-term interest in a democracy can invest their money into their favorite politician, and despite your dislike of most politicians you cannot claim that all are bad. Frankly, democratic leaders are NOT masters, the rulers in your system are the masters in your serfdom.


Ha. Their legacy has absolutely nothing to do with how much good they did. If a charlatan makes you think he's done his job long after he has left, has he done good? Same thing with presidents. The presidents of the last 80 years have all been an unmitigated catastrophe of creeping socialism (and yes, I do include the faux "free market" mercantilists (here (http://www.mises.org/story/1544) and here (http://www.mises.org/story/2559)), and yet many are celebrated as heroes. Perception has no innate connection to reality. Well, I didn't say that he had necessarily done good, but most charlatans didn't do absolute evil either. I recognize that Reagan and Bush are horrible marketeers to a great extent, however, the former can undoubtedly be praised for changing the very framework of the debate. The fact is that you have a biased opinion when looking at the mixed legacies of these past presidents as although they have not been ideal they have not been catastrophic. The biggest problem out of all of it was really FDR if you just look at it because of the framework that he put up and the ideas he promoted, if it hadn't been for him we would likely not be as socialist in your opinion as we are now.

But the fact remains that there are more safeguards in place in a monarchy than there are in democracy. In monarchy, there is tyrannicide, institutionalized private property via the monarch's own claim, and a broader time horizon due to the possibility of future returns on the king's assets. All you get in democracy is a glorified piece of paper to protect your rights (which is ultimately to be enforced and interpreted by the government alone.) Nope, less safeguards. In fact, a lot less safeguards. In our democracy we have political competition, division of power, and the supreme court. In your monarchy we have murder and an appeal to the preferences of our new sole controller. Frankly, real rulers are different than ideally self-interested rulers and that large gap is the reason why we instituted the safeguards we had in the first place. The glorified piece of paper is an important document that maintains the rule of law, something that in your system depends on the will of the person in charge. In short, your system is not that great and frankly, it is the system where I can most see myself going to a gulag as there is even less necessary focus on the role of formal institutions in such a system.

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t043/T043816A.jpg

Good ol' Louis XV haunts us once more.

"Le Nation-États Générale? C'est moi."

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t043/T043816A.jpg

Good ol' Louis XV haunts us once more.

"Le Nation-États Générale? C'est moi."

That was Louis XIV. And I'm something more along the lines of Catherine the Great rather than Louis XIV, as Louis XIV didn't embrace the Enlightenment. Still, that scepter looks pretty cool (though I'm not so sure about the hair-do or the frilly little thing on his neck.)

That was Louis XIV. And I'm something more along the lines of Catherine the Great rather than Louis XIV, as Louis XIV didn't embrace the Enlightenment. Still, that scepter looks pretty cool (though I'm not so sure about the hair-do or the frilly little thing on his neck.)

If you're going to be an Absolutist, you're going to need to take the hair and the cravat. It's a package deal.

Please sign me up. *is a monarchist*

*Initiates People's Revolution*

RISE UP COMRADES AGAINST THE EVIL OPPRESSORS!!!

Long Live the REVOLUTION!!!!!

Yeah, I have a feeling your method will fail.

But is assassination a good check on power? I would not say so, rather it is a destabilizing force in terms of the rule of law. Not only that but you seem to think that this force is much stronger than it really would be, you could restrain your children from attacking you through various means including psychology and limiting resources. The time-honored concept of tyrannicide really has a lot of flaws that more peaceful transitions would avoid.

Assassination is absolutely a good check on power. It is a full recognition that the monarch must accept the responsibilities of his acts, just as any other person must. Yes, I could try and reduce the risk of assassination... but I must realize that certain acts will increase its likelihood greatly, and I will naturally avoid them. And peaceful transition of power in the face of tyranny is a joke. America has had decades of peaceful transitions of power, and all we've gotten is more and more socialism. The reason why is that the parties can simply play each other off. Rulers must realize that a misstep could very well result in their deaths, instead of having some gentle alternative that allows them to get away with their evils and thus encourages them to do so.

You keep on assuming that there is a good choice in leadership, I would argue that we can get the depraved and moronic in a monarchy as well with the same ease if not greater than that found within a democracy. If democracy necessitates that you steal then how come anti-pork agencies exist? Now, it does encourage some corruption to be certain but it also keeps a lot of corruption in line.

Anti-pork agencies are, also, a joke. No one really listens to them in the first place, because there is quite honestly no reason for a public official to do so. They gain political power by giving to those who power their campaigns, not by taking away from them. Anti-pork agencies merely exist to create the illusion of reform so as to be played by whoever is in power. As for your first statement, you do not follow up on WHY you would think this is the case. As it is a non-sequitur, I shall not respond.

No, because in democracy you have real checks on power. Those with a long-term interest in a democracy can invest their money into their favorite politician, and despite your dislike of most politicians you cannot claim that all are bad. Frankly, democratic leaders are NOT masters, the rulers in your system are the masters in your serfdom.

No, they are all bad, actually. You cannot climb the echelons of power in democracy without being a ruthless demon who is willing to satisfy whatever desires his allies might have. Democracy is fundamentally built upon redistribution between groups squabbling over the wealth of the nation, and whoever does not redistribute does not get elected. Whereas, a king is simply born into the position, they may be a very decent person.

Also, no one has a true long-term interest in the nation as a whole in a democracy, because they do not own the country. It is like saying that I will invest in improving a stream even though everyone else will fish it before I ever get the chance. Rather, they will focus on maximizing their own good, because they have a stake in this, instead of a country which they do not own.

And yes, democratic leaders ARE masters; even though they do not have personal privileges, they have functional privileges that put them above the rest of the populace in the eyes of the law. Worse yet, the creation of privilege through function rather than person encourages people to loot as quickly as possible before someone else does. Democracy makes masters worse than they had ever been before.

Well, I didn't say that he had necessarily done good, but most charlatans didn't do absolute evil either. I recognize that Reagan and Bush are horrible marketeers to a great extent, however, the former can undoubtedly be praised for changing the very framework of the debate. The fact is that you have a biased opinion when looking at the mixed legacies of these past presidents as although they have not been ideal they have not been catastrophic. The biggest problem out of all of it was really FDR if you just look at it because of the framework that he put up and the ideas he promoted, if it hadn't been for him we would likely not be as socialist in your opinion as we are now.

I would not praise Reagan for changing the very framework of the debate. What use is it if you still keep getting the same old socialist shit? Each and every president since Coolidge has built upon the socialism of the president before him, and thus I have nothing but loathing for their administrations.

Nope, less safeguards. In fact, a lot less safeguards. In our democracy we have political competition, division of power, and the supreme court.

Political competition is more like hustling people at a pool table than any kind of safeguard. Politicians moreso are loyal to other incumbents than to challengers of their own party, and their actions reflect this. They will always act to maximize their own gain than do any kind of good for the country. Division of power is also a form of hustling, as the various divisions will merely act to maximize their own gain with each others' cooperation. The "safeguards" of democracy are worth more as an experiment in self-interested strategic behavior than as a model of protection of people.

In your monarchy we have murder and an appeal to the preferences of our new sole controller.

There is rex sub lege, in which the king is not a creator of law but merely its observer. This, in and of itself, is far better than democracy's belief that law is a creation of whoever is in power. But then we see that rex sub lege necessarily means that the ruler's dominion is a property right, thus establishing private property as an institution, as opposed to something that exists at the pleasure of "we the people." The threat of death and the reality of time preference serve far better as a restraint on the ruler's actions, as it recognizes the self-interest of the ruler. This is far superior to some some fantasy-land notion that if we have more rulers that they magically won't cooperate in their plundering, that whatever the majority wills is good, and that some glorified piece of paper will somehow get around the fact that it is being enforced and interpreted by those in power to protect those who do not have any power.

Frankly, real rulers are different than ideally self-interested rulers and that large gap is the reason why we instituted the safeguards we had in the first place.

Wrong. Those "safeguards" were implemented to serve as a smokescreen to protect those powerful who transplanted the aristocracy, often accompanied with nationalist populism. They didn't have to worry about the safeguards anyway, seeing as how they were the ones who enforced and interpreted them.

The glorified piece of paper is an important document that maintains the rule of law, something that in your system depends on the will of the person in charge.

The glorified piece of paper cannot suddenly get up and bludgeon the violators of rights into submission. As such, it is simply delusional to assume that it can do anything to stop those in power, who interpret and enforce the constitution at their will. Also, the rule of law does not depend on one sole person (it never does), but really anyone who has a property claim in the nation. That is what keeps rights from being violated.

In short, your system is not that great and frankly, it is the system where I can most see myself going to a gulag as there is even less necessary focus on the role of formal institutions in such a system.

If monarchy is not that great, then democracy is absolutely abysmal, as the law is nothing more than a toy to be manipulated by those in power under the guise of "serving the people" and paying lip service to a glorified piece of paper. It is saddening to see someone who embraces the truth of libertarianism, only to turn about and embrace the socialist vehicle of democracy so trustingly.

Or fails miserably and has his head displayed on a pike for my loving subjects to urinate on.



What loving subjects?

I'll simply wait and utilize tyrannicide. The best way to ensure your freedom and general well-being is to kill those whose presence would cause more harm than good to one's own self. Continue on, but when you slip up, I'll be waiting.

It's what I do.

I'll simply wait and utilize tyrannicide. The best way to ensure your freedom and general well-being is to kill those whose presence would cause more harm than good to one's own self. Continue on, but when you slip up, I'll be waiting.

It's what I do.

OK. Can I add you in as a member, seeing as how you chose a great king as your username?

OK. Can I add you in as a member, seeing as how you chose a great king as your username?

Yes, well, the use of an ancestor's name in my username somewhat forces me to decline. Though, I must congratulate your stoic approach to how you will run things. I too believe in the right for anybody to assasinate me should I cause them harm.

The problem is that I don't take orders very well. And no animal can have two arguing heads. I'll thank you for your offer, but I bow to God alone. If I join, I'd end up starting a fight with you before either of us had a decent reason to kill the other. No, the best way for me to support you is to not place myself in a postion to cause too much mayhem.

Think of me like my ancestor, the historical Awthyr Byn Dragyn. He was a war leader, leaving the politics to other, acting as a general only when uprisings occurred or when various chieftains deserved their own tyrannicide. I intend to do the same. Leave me to myself, rule well, and you've nothing to seek me out for.

Yes, well, the use of an ancestor's name in my username somewhat forces me to decline. Though, I must congratulate your stoic approach to how you will run things. I too believe in the right for anybody to assasinate me should I cause them harm.

The problem is that I don't take orders very well. And no animal can have two arguing heads. I'll thank you for your offer, but I bow to God alone. If I join, I'd end up starting a fight with you before either of us had a decent reason to kill the other. No, the best way for me to support you is to not place myself in a postion to cause too much mayhem.

Think of me like my ancestor, the historical Awthyr Byn Dragyn. He was a war leader, leaving the politics to other, acting as a general only when uprisings occurred or when various chieftains deserved their own tyrannicide. I intend to do the same. Leave me to myself, rule well, and you've nothing to seek me out for.

Very well then. I suppose that every man must find his own way, and you have chosen yours.

Sign me up as...

The Parties Grammer and Speeling Minister!

Sign me up as...

The Parties Grammer and Speeling Minister!

Done, my Randian friend!

http://www.sophiesdiary.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bastille-2.gif

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannus

http://www.sophiesdiary.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/bastille-2.gif

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannus

Yes, let us use the liberation of four counterfeiters, two madmen and an unruly aristocrat as a rallying symbol for a campaign of mob rule and gentricide! That's sure better than a king!

Yes, let us use the liberation of four counterfeiters, two madmen and an unruly aristocrat as a rallying symbol for a campaign of mob rule and gentricide! That's sure better than a king!

You're the absolutist, you must deal with the consequences of your rule. Every absolutist state will inevitably will face its own Bastille Day.

You're the absolutist, you must deal with the consequences of your rule. Every absolutist state will inevitably will face its own Bastille Day.

Only if I screw up. But then again, seeing how the mob takes power, one would wonder why they would not continue to use their power in the same way (and, in fact, have.) I suppose it would make it my duty to keep power away from the mob and their nationalist/populist puppeteers as long as possible.

Count me in.

Put me down for assassinating you. ;)

Kings were different back when things were simpler, it's not a simple world now.

Put me down for assassinating you. ;)

Kings were different back when things were simpler, it's not a simple world now.

I don't see how a ritualistic devotion to 51% of the people's demands makes complexities more easy to handle. A king who can calculate the effects of his policies through the development of his personal wealth is superior.

I don't see how a ritualistic devotion to 51% of the people's demands makes complexities more easy to handle. A king who can calculate the effects of his policies through the development of his personal wealth is superior.
Don't care.
I'll still be the one assassinating you when you become king.

Have fun with your 15 second dictatorship!

Don't care.
I'll still be the one assassinating you when you become king.

Have fun with your 15 second dictatorship!

/lets one of his sith guards rapidly increase the pressure in your skull so you head explodes

/lets one of his sith guards rapidly increase the pressure in your skull so you head explodes

How's about a new six bedroom house? :D

How's about a new six bedroom house? :D

my 2ed death star has 888999999k bedrooms not counting officer's quarters.
how ever i would not mind another ion cannon satellite to play around with...

my 2ed death star has 888999999k bedrooms not counting officer's quarters.
how ever i would not mind another ion cannon satellite to play around with...

Have fun. Don't blow up anything I could sell, though.

Have fun. Don't blow up anything I could sell, though.

woot, good bye sciencetology convention. muahahahahha!!

I will be the supreme potentate of the nation, Ooh! Ooh! Me too!

Only if I screw up. Well, considering that human beings are so stupid that we cannot even rule ourselves, then you (human I presume) can do nothing but screw up. And your degenerate heirs will make your biggest screw-ups look like nothing. Liberty and mutuality make our individual blunders have less of an impact. Hierarchy magnifies these blunders in proportion to the concentration of power and the lack of decision makers' accountability. So-called 'Democracy' suffers from these factors as well. Yes, our elected 'little kings' are held somewhat accountable every four years or so. This is insufficient. Day-to-day accountability of elected delegates and a participatory direct democracy that extends to the economic realm would be best IMHO. As the great American Pragmatist Dewy once said: “the cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.”

In other words, if a human being cannot properly make choices for him or herself, then how can he or she make vital choices on behalf of millions? You certainly know better what is good for you then I do, and I know what is good for me better then you.

You do not want some inbred halfwit in a funny hat who neither of us have even had a conversation with telling us both what is good for us. And you certainly wouldn't want this ponce to have the power to enforce his edicts.

woot, good bye sciencetology convention. muahahahahha!!

Finally. Those people were depressing property values; who wants to live next to someone who constantly asks if you want a Thetan reading?

Well, considering that human beings are so stupid that we cannot even rule ourselves, then you (human I presume) can do nothing but screw up. And your degenerate heirs will make your biggest screw-ups look like nothing. Liberty and mutuality make our individual blunders have less of an impact. Hierarchy magnifies these blunders in proportion to the concentration of power and the lack of decision makers' accountability. So-called 'Democracy' suffers from these factors as well. Yes, our elected 'little kings' are held somewhat accountable every four years or so. This is insufficient. Day-to-day accountability of elected delegates and a participatory direct democracy that extends to the economic realm would be best IMHO. As the great American Pragmatist Dewy once said: “the cure for the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.”

But the fact of the matter is that the democratic representative literally has no way to calculate the long-term wellbeing of the country; and, seeing as he does not own the capital value but only the current use of the country, he has no reason to care about it anyway. However, I do own the capital value (future returns) of the kingdom, and as such can be expected to maximize them. By necessity, this would increase the country's well-being in the long run. Ultimately, mass elections do not increase the accountability of elected officials but make them focus on the short-run to satisfy their constituents and neglect the long-run.

In other words, if a human being cannot properly make choices for him or herself, then how can he or she make vital choices on behalf of millions? You certainly know better what is good for you then I do, and I know what is good for me better then you.

You do not want some inbred halfwit in a funny hat who neither of us have even had a conversation with telling us both what is good for us- much less have the power to enforce his edicts.

But if I must choose, I would choose the man who has a long-term interest in the country over the representative who will potentially demolish the nation for his own gain. Being in such a position sucks, but it's better to be tended to for long-term value than quickly robbed for short-term gain.

But if I must choose, I would choose the man who has a long-term interest in the country over the representative who will potentially demolish the nation for his own gain. Please. Monarchs have often been known to demolish nations for no one's gain but that of the arms merchants. The last of the Romonovs is a fine example. Your critique of the Republic is essentially correct. It just happens to apply tenfold to absolutism.

As for a 'choice:' we actually have none. But if we are going to venture into the highly hypothetical realm, why limit ourselves to two rotten options?

Tha has got to be one of the greatest insults ever. You, Free Outer Eugenia, are the reason I am losing faith in humanity. You seem to have this misconception of all humans being bumbling idiots that cannot think or choose for themselves. You speak of "degenrates" within society like some sort of wannabe eugenicist. You also seem to lack a grasp of the word liberty from the way you used it. Liberty is the ability of the individual to choose for himself how to live his life; what to do and think. Forced equality is not liberty, democracy is not liberty. They are tyranny.

Ben Franklin once describer democracy thusly: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." In a pure democracy the numerically superior will always win no matter the collective choice they make...even if it means the wanton slaughter of the minority.

You call yourself anarchist but advocate imposed equality and mutual dependance. What, I ask you, could level the playing field other than an omnipresent and oppressive government? How does forcing people to be dependent on one another make them more liberated, more independent?

Saying that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy reminds me of homeopathy. See, in homeopathy, you give someone who is "well" a substance and write down the symptoms that it causes. If someone walks in complaining of those symptoms you give them the substance that caused it in a "well" person to cure the ailing man of his ills. Unsuprisingly, it doesn't work. Direct democracy is neither feasible nor liberating. It would be the tyranny of the majority and it would consume your entire life.

Direct democracy is neither feasible nor liberating. It would be the tyranny of the majority and it would consume your entire life.Even if this is true, tyranny of the majority is preferable to tyranny of the minority.

Tha has got to be one of the greatest insults ever. Only to someone who is quick to take offense and enjoys every minute of it;)
As you seem to relish fuming at perceived slights, I am glad to have been of assistance. You, Free Outer Eugenia, are the reason I am losing faith in humanity. This is very strange, friend, as I have faith in nothing else.

You seem to have this misconception of all humans being bumbling idiots that cannot think or choose for themselves. No, not really. But the idea that we need others to make choices for us presumes this. Even this is self-contradictory. All I am saying is that a bumbling fool will make far more of a mess when he is making decisions for a million people then simply for himself. You speak of "degenerates" within society like some sort of wannabe eugenicist. I am describing aristocrats. A combination of a sense of entitlement, a life of luxury, extreme power and inbreeding does not usually produce beings fit to rule themselves much less anybody else. I really don't see what this has to do with eugenics.You also seem to lack a grasp of the word liberty from the way you used it. Liberty is the ability of the individual to choose for himself how to live his life; what to do and think. Forced equality is not liberty, democracy is not liberty. They are tyranny.
Where did all that come from?:confused:
Ben Franklin once describer democracy thusly: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."This is a very limited metaphor that can only be carried o far, but it sounds about right to me. What is a bourgeois republic but a pack of wolves voting us all to the slaughter? Perhaps the workers ought to arm themselves. In a pure democracy the numerically superior will always win no matter the collective choice they make...even if it means the wanton slaughter of the minority. A popular Tory cry against even a limited sort of Democracy during the enlightenment. The specter of the 'French Terror' was supposed to be definitive proof of this. The Terror of course, was more the work of a rather authoritarian pack of Jacobins then of the dreaded 'king mob.' In fact more radical workers died in it then aristocrats! Another case-in-point of Dewey's adage.
Our 'Democratic' system systematically slaughters sizable minorities for the sake of an economic elite- itself a tiny minority- and holds the vast majority in economic thralldom.

You call yourself anarchist but advocate imposed equality and mutual dependence. I advocate equality born of liberty and a recognition of already-existing mutual dependence. I also advocate the dissolution of tyrannical social institutions that impose an unequal distribution of the benefits of this mutual dependenceWhat, I ask you, could level the playing field other than an omnipresent and oppressive government? See the EZLN, the Argentinian factory takeovers of the 2000's, Anarchist Catalonia in the 30's, the European medieval Free Cities and guilds, etc.

Saying that the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy reminds me of homeopathy. See, in homeopathy, you give someone who is "well" a substance and write down the symptoms that it causes. If someone walks in complaining of those symptoms you give them the substance that caused it in a "well" person to cure the ailing man of his ills.No, actually it's more like eating, Which works quite well. If you don't eat enough, eating some more should cure the ills of your diet.Direct democracy is neither feasible nor liberating. hah! First you get huffy about my supposed implication that we are all buffoons incapable of ruling ourselves, and then you imply that we indeed are. That stance is still self-contradictory.

http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/dixont/Carlile%20Age%20of%20Reason2.jpg

Even if this is true, tyranny of the majority is preferable to tyranny of the minority.
What about no tyranny at all? I'd prefer that to having 2 or more other people constantly telling me what to do, where to go, what to think, how to act, etc.

Only to someone who is quick to take offense and enjoys every minute of it;)
As you seem to relish fuming at perceived slights, I am glad to have been of assistance.
To me it's right up there with telling me that the only way you'll trust me is if I make myself defenseless. I consider such statements and ideas insulting. I have a right to be free, to express myself, to defend myself. I have those rights because I say I do and I'm willing to fight for them. I'm willing to fight for my right to own property and my right to be independent and all my other rights. They are my rights not because someone told me they were but because I am willing to fight for them.

This is very strange, friend, as I have faith in nothing else.
And yet you call the most of men idiots, the whole of humanity. You seem to think that everyone save for you and those that think like you are ignorant and in need of your philisophical guidance. You say you have faith in mankind yet you do not trust us to keep posessions. You preach liberty but demand dependence and mob rule.

No, not really. But the idea that we need others to make choices for us presumes this. Even this is self-contradictory. All I am saying is that a bumbling fool will make far more of a mess when he is making decisions for a million people then simply for himself.
Well, considering that human beings are so stupid that we cannot even rule ourselves, then you (human I presume) can do nothing but screw up.
Yes, yes really. You said it. You said that humanity is stupid and doomed to failure. You said that people are not capable of deciding things for themselves, ruling themesleves. Don't try to backtrack now, stick to your guns or admit that what you said was a mistake.

I am describing aristocrats. A combination of a sense of entitlement, a life of luxury, extreme power and inbreeding does not usually produce beings fit to rule themselves much less anybody else. I really don't see what this has to do with eugenics.
Didn't look like that from what was written. If you meant aristocrats then you should have written that instead of "humans". Besides, I could just as easily argue that you're guilty of those things. You seem to have this sense of enetitlement, a belief that you ought to have all sorts of things without working for them, without paying the price yourself. And you're clearly not just scraping by in a box under some newspaper so I'd be willing to bet that you had a pretty good childhood with a nicer home than my parents could afford, placing you in relative luxury by comparison. Just because someone else has something doesn't mean that you're entitled to it as well; if you didn't work for it, didn't earn it, then you don't deserve it.

Where did all that come from?
You don't seem to understand that democracy is tyranny of the majority. In a pure democracy, if 51% of the body politic says that everyone named Bill should die then every Bill throughout the land will swing or be shot. If that isn't wrong then I don't know what is.

You also seem to misunderstand the term "liberty" because you advocate total equality, not simply equal rights. If everyone were totally equal in their posessions no matter what, what is to stop one man from leeching off of the others? How does letting one man steal from another liberate the victim of the theft? It certainly liberates the theif but not the man who lost what he worked for so that the leech could live in the same level of comfort and that doesn't seem right to me.

This is a very limited metaphor that can only be carried o far, but it sounds about right to me. What is a bourgeois republic but a pack of wolves voting us all to the slaughter? Perhaps the workers ought to arm themselves.
For once we agree! Sort of. The quote says what it does which is that democracy, not a republic, uses numbers to intimidate minorities. The problems of democracy are only worsened the more often votes take place and the more impact they have on the lives of the individual. The "Kill Bill" vote would not likely become the law of the land in a republic but there would be nothing to stop such an act in a direct democracy.

I advocate equality born of liberty and a recognition of already-existing mutual dependence. I also advocate the dissolution of tyrannical social institutions that impose an unequal distribution of the benefits of this mutual dependence
Equality born of liberty? So we should all freely share until everyone is exactly the same? I'd ask what of individuality, what of personal acheivement but I have a feeling you'd respond with something along the lines of the whims of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. If my work is unequally greater in quantity and quality to another man's am I not then entitled to unequally greater rewards? If I sow a greater field then why shouldn't I get to reap a greater harvest?

See the EZLN, the Argentinian factory takeovers of the 2000's, Anarchist Catalonia in the 30's, the European medieval Free Cities and guilds, etc.
The Zapatista Army of National Liberation is an armed Mexican peasent rebel group opposed to global connectivity and integration. They're not the best poster child. I'll be honest, about the rest I don't know much so I'll have to look them up but I have a feeling there is a dark cloud under each of the silver linings.

No, actually it's more like eating, Which works quite well. If you don't eat enough, eating some more should cure the ills of your diet.
No, actually eating to eliminate hunger is more like throwing water on a fire to put it out. Homeopathy is an unsuccessful subset of alternative medicine practices that aims to treat "like with like." Treating the ills of democracy with more democracy is treating "like with like." It's like trying to put out a fire with a flamethrower.

I'm not even going to bother explaining why direct democracy would not be possible. I don't want democracy, I want anarcho-capitalism.

Only if I screw up.

About that, what are my avenues if you are in breach of contract?

About that, what are my avenues if you are in breach of contract?
A gun. I happen to have a simple and durable machine shotgun design in a variety of sizes available for sale.

A gun. I happen to have a simple and durable machine shotgun design in a variety of sizes available for sale.

Does he not have a monopoly on defense forces?

Does he not have a monopoly on defense forces?
Don't you know who I am, bitch? I'm the Juggernaught!

About that, what are my avenues if you are in breach of contract?

I'll pay you back. I wouldn't want it to stain my credit rating.

Please. Monarchs have often been known to demolish nations for no one's gain but that of the arms merchants. The last of the Romonovs is a fine example. Your critique of the Republic is essentially correct. It just happens to apply tenfold to absolutism.

Nope. There are quite a few good kings throughout history that have done a great deal for their countries. But United States presidents have almost always been god-awful. Incentives matter, and monarchy has better incentives than democracy.

As for a 'choice:' we actually have none. But if we are going to venture into the highly hypothetical realm, why limit ourselves to two rotten options?

Maybe.

Even if this is true, tyranny of the majority is preferable to tyranny of the minority.

It is far harder to fight off the tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of the minority. And, the masses being what they are, they are quite a bit more stupid than a small elite.

Does he not have a monopoly on defense forces?

No. Only on jurisdiction.

What about no tyranny at all? I'd prefer that to having 2 or more other people constantly telling me what to do, where to go, what to think, how to act, etc.How do you propose arriving at such a point?

It is far harder to fight off the tyranny of the majority than the tyranny of the minority. And, the masses being what they are, they are quite a bit more stupid than a small elite.If the elite is smarter than the masses are, then it would be harder to fight against the average elite person than the average person, especially if the elite people will have elite people protecting them.

If the elite is smarter than the masses are, then it would be harder to fight against the average elite person than the average person, especially if the elite people will have elite people protecting them.

But the elites will act in a more rational way, and will recognize the use in improving the populace for their own gain (human capital value.) The masses, however, will engage in various stupidities such as nationalism and egalitarianism, and will fight violently and overpowering against the minority dissenter.

I'll pay you back. I wouldn't want it to stain my credit rating.

The state is distinguished by its power of monopoly. If you have such a power, why would you be concerned with your "credit rating"?

No. Only on jurisdiction.

What's the difference?

Would not your entire system of "best for my money, best for the country" be better served by a computer? Humans are always biased for one reason or another. A computer could easily overcome these biases with its endless computations of the possibilities. Computers should regulate human affairs precisely because they lack all ambition, whereas human beings are prey to it. Man's history is a succession of inane squabbles each one coming closer to total destruction. The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves. They needed a system, an industrial-age machine. Without computing machines, they had to arrange themselves in crude structures that formalized decision-making -- a highly imperfect, unstable solution. Computers are a more advanced solution to the problem, a decision-making system that does not involve organic beings. Computers should be directed to make the world safe and prosperous and they will do that.

*Secret cookies to the paraphrase*

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o310/Greill/250px-Charlemagne-by-Durer.jpg

The Absolutist Party

Preamble

Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is freedom’s enemy. Under democracy, we have seen total spending rise from often less than 10% under kings to around 50%. Government employment was below 3% in kingdoms; now, it is around 15%. Instead of law being permanent, to be discovered not created, democracy now forces reams upon reams of regulations and laws that shift like the sands, creating needless difficulty and uncertainty. The United States’ military forces, tugged by various lobbyists both from inside and outside the country, are scattered across the world and steadily draining the nation of its young men and money.

What is the cause of this madness? It is the fact that democratic government is publicly owned; it cannot be sold or rented out. Thus, public officials must make as much money as they can while in office by graft and waste, for if they do not they will lose support and lose any more opportunities to enrich themselves. Thus, their actions are necessarily short-sighted and wasteful. What must be done? The government must be privatized, and led under a king who, out of enlightened self-interest, will act for the long-term benefit of the nation. Understanding this, I humbly offer myself to be the King, to save the country from its democratic prison and lead it on to a golden age.

Government

I will be the supreme potentate of the nation, deriving my authority from my ownership of the country. There will be no de juris limits on my power. Quite honestly, checks and balances are not worth the paper they are written on, as they merely encourage strategic behavior to increase exploitation, which is to the self-interest of all parties involved. There will be no such obfuscation under my regime.

The limits on my power will be de facto. As my powers derive from my private ownership, I will have to pay respect to these rights or lose the legitimacy of my power. This is the concept of rex sub lege. Also, any action taken by me will be viewed not through a “public interest”, but as a reflection of my personal interest. This will create a resistance towards any tyrannical acts I may consider (but would never do.) In case of incompetence, it is quite likely that I will be neutralized or assassinated by someone with a claim to my throne. This is the time honored concept of tyrannicide. Finally, as I will own my property for my entire life and need to bequeath it to my descendants, I will be far-sighted in my actions.

There will be no democratic governments. All claims on the provision of defense and jurisdiction, such as my own, will be privately owned.

Domestic Economy

As a self-interested person, my management of my property, the kingdom, will be based upon maximizing my wealth; i.e., the value of my income and the value of my capital. Accordingly, I will never increase my income when it comes at the expense of a more than proportional drop in value in my capital. With this in mind, my actions will be more future-oriented, as I will wish to develop my capital for the long-term instead of devouring it in the short term. I will avoid overtaxation, taking on debt and inflating, as these will all reduce my wealth.

I will be using a property tax as the method of revenue collection, as property values best represent the entire value of the realm. I will act so as to maximize the total value of all property, so that I can get more money. As such, the property tax will remain low so as to minimize disincentives to increasing property value.

I will also invest in the nation in the form of infrastructure and the like, in sof ar as it raises property values and thus increases my wealth. Thus, construction will be based not upon political graft such as in democracy but through rational calculation.

I will also maintain other enterprises to diversify my wealth, so that I am not overly dependent on taxation. One such enterprise will be insurance. I will take out insurance policies on as many people in my nation for as many different things as possible, whether it be natural disaster or murder or the like. This will increase the livelihood of the populace, as insurance companies will either A.) Collude so that there are very high prices in cases of unnecessary danger, thus encouraging me to make investments to increase safety and thus gain lower premiums, and B.) Invest themselves so as to avoid having to pay out too often.

Foreign Economy

All trade agreements will be unilateral, in that I will allow complete (non-criminal) free trade regardless of whatever actions the other nation may take. If they choose to subsidize their goods, it is merely a wealth transfer via cheap goods to our nation. If they impose high tariffs against our goods, then we will not shoot ourselves in the foot by imposing tariffs on their goods and thus increasing the cost of living on ourselves.

Security and International Relations

Our foreign policy shall be one of peace. Since we will be pursuing a policy of free trade and thus engaging in interdependence, war would be counter-productive anyway. Also, war is expensive, and the money could likely be spent better elsewhere. We will not be entangled in alliances, but rather keep to ourselves and concentrate on defense. Security will be pursued by using the insurance premiums and property values as the basis of rational calculation.

Culture

I will give financial benefits to people of great artistic, cultural and intellectual achievement, in order to allow for acculturation, cultivation, and the increase of the value of the country. This will provide valuable incentives that will cause greater intellectual, cultural, and artistic output. Essentially, it will be a system of patronage such as those of old times that allowed so many great minds to thrive. There is little need to worry about graft or vulgarity in such a program, as, it being my money, I can withdraw it from counter-productive programs and place it in more productive areas.

Local associations in cities and neighborhoods will be allowed whom they will include and exclude. Since they also will want to increase their value, they will choose to exclude miscreants, vagabonds and gangsters. This will create great incentives for civility (because it will increase one’s chances of finding and keeping a place to live), and create disincentives for unruly behavior (that being ostracism.)

Immigration

As I will want to increase the value of my territory, I will choose an immigration policy that reflects this. In order to permanently immigrate to the country, one will have to demonstrate good character structure, good intellectual capacity and good cultural compatibility. Such individuals would increase the human content of my territory, thus raising its value, and I will gladly accept them. Those who may not be above-average in such criteria, but are rather simply average, will be allowed in as seasonal workers so long as they have an employment contract. Whoever may invite an immigrant will have to take responsibility for any crimes they commit. However, they will not be allowed to own real estate. Should they lose their contract and fail to find a new one, they will be deported. Below average people, such as miscreants, vagabonds and gangsters, will be barred from entry.

I will also maintain an emigration policy that will reflect my desire to maximize my wealth. The miscreants, vagabonds and gangsters will be actively encouraged to leave. Above-average people will be provided with incentives to stay, so as to avoid their leaving and thus decreasing the value of the kingdom.

Crime and Punishment

Crime will be treated as the aggressor owing a debt to the aggressee. Said debt shall be twice the value of whatever the costs of damages if the act is intentional, and equal to the value of whatever the damages are if unintentional. The criminal will then be made to pay back the debt as the aggressee wishes, using whatever force is necessary up to the force used by the criminal.

Civil Rights

In accordance with natural law, one’s rights shall be life, liberty and property. Liberty and property include the rights of association (and dissociation), freedom of contract, and freedom of enterprise.

Members
His Royal Majesty Greill I, King of the Absolutist Party
Princess Oxymoon, non-biological daughter
Duke Ancap Paradise, Master of the Most Sacred Order of the Golden Platypus
Duke Europa Maxima, Grand High CEO of Europa Maxima Inc., War Baron, and Peerless Editor of Manifestos
Duke IL Ruffino, Minister of the Department of Snobbery and Snootiness
Duke Thumbless Pete Crabbe, Thumbless Thumb-upper of Manifestos
Duke Legondia, Lord of Freeeeeeeeedom!!!
Duke Dosuun, Fully Limbed Black Knight of the Rhombus Table
Thedarksith, Duke of Death and Destruction
Aibengail (Title Pending)
Duke Morrington, Minister of Spleling and gRammar
Duke Arab Maghreb Union, (Title Pending)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Robespierre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-No%C3%ABl_Babeuf
:eek::upyours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_Robespierre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois-No%C3%ABl_Babeuf
:eek::upyours:

How nice of you to say that. Thank you for your uninformed input.

The state is distinguished by its power of monopoly. If you have such a power, why would you be concerned with your "credit rating"?

Because if I start going around forcing people to give me what I want, people will see less use in production and other legitimate exercises. Also, it will stifle foreign investment and trade if they are unsure about the safety of their works.

What's the difference?

You can still buy guns and locks and the like. I just interpret the laws.

Would not your entire system of "best for my money, best for the country" be better served by a computer? Humans are always biased for one reason or another. A computer could easily overcome these biases with its endless computations of the possibilities. Computers should regulate human affairs precisely because they lack all ambition, whereas human beings are prey to it. Man's history is a succession of inane squabbles each one coming closer to total destruction. The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves. They needed a system, an industrial-age machine. Without computing machines, they had to arrange themselves in crude structures that formalized decision-making -- a highly imperfect, unstable solution. Computers are a more advanced solution to the problem, a decision-making system that does not involve organic beings. Computers should be directed to make the world safe and prosperous and they will do that.

*Secret cookies to the paraphrase*

Computers lack reason, and are therefore unfit to rule over mankind. Humans alone can demonstrate what are the "good for me's" and what GFMs they believe to be attainable through use of their knowledge and consent. Computers, lacking will of their own, can demonstrate no such thing.

Because if I start going around forcing people to give me what I want, people will see less use in production and other legitimate exercises. Also, it will stifle foreign investment and trade if they are unsure about the safety of their works.

IF you were to enter into a competitive industry, but this is state monopoly we are talking about.

You can still buy guns and locks and the like. I just interpret the laws.

That doesn't explain the difference.

IF you were to enter into a competitive industry, but this is state monopoly we are talking about.

Yeah, but if I disregard contracts I lessen the capital value of my nation, because of a decreased desire to produce and decreased benefits from others exporting capital to me.

That doesn't explain the difference.

You can still defend yourself. I just interpret the laws.

Yeah, but if I disregard contracts I lessen the capital value of my nation, because of a decreased desire to produce and decreased benefits from others exporting capital to me.

Doesn't that mean that your best asset would be your own non-existence?

A Catch-22.

You can still defend yourself. I just interpret the laws.

How is it not a monopoly on defense when only defense that has your approval is allowed?

Computers lack reason, and are therefore unfit to rule over mankind. Humans alone can demonstrate what are the "good for me's" and what GFMs they believe to be attainable through use of their knowledge and consent. Computers, lacking will of their own, can demonstrate no such thing.

You find reason in the numbers. The probabilities, the chances, the whole background of reason can be computed. However, the computer can just as easily make a wrong call as you could. Why switch? Firmware upgrades are easier than assassins. A simple compilation of prior events input into a program can spit out the same ideas as your human mind. The mistakes are easily corrected with no bias towards the original course of action. (i.e., touch a wire get zapped. things change, and there's a high chance you don't get zapped but instead you get a donut. human mind discourages us from touching it, even with a good chance of success. computers lack bias.) Knowledge is simple data input.


Whether or not this can be achieved today is questionable, of course. :p

Doesn't that mean that your best asset would be your own non-existence?

A Catch-22.

No, because I wouldn't be able to draw on the capital values. I did recognize that my taxation would have that effect, but I would likely be able to counteract that effectively with a good mix of incentives (such as the cultural patronage, immigration and emigration laws, criminal laws, insurance to analyze and minimize risk, etc.)

How is it not a monopoly on defense when only defense that has your approval is allowed?

Hm. I suppose you have a point.

You find reason in the numbers. The probabilities, the chances, the whole background of reason can be computed. However, the computer can just as easily make a wrong call as you could. Why switch? Firmware upgrades are easier than assassins. A simple compilation of prior events input into a program can spit out the same ideas as your human mind. The mistakes are easily corrected with no bias towards the original course of action. (i.e., touch a wire get zapped. things change, and there's a high chance you don't get zapped but instead you get a donut. human mind discourages us from touching it, even with a good chance of success. computers lack bias.) Knowledge is simple data input.

That still does not make the computer rational. Rationality is purposeful action. The computer does not have reason, because it just does what it is programmed to do- it has neither consent nor knowledge (because it does not perceive what is a good for it.) At best, a computer is on a vegetative level of purposeful activity; it does not even have pleasure or pain to guide it like an animal. It just does.

Humans, on the other hand, have power of reason through their knowledge and consent. They alone, through these powers, can perceive what is good for them. The plant cannot do so, because it cannot reason. It can only do what it is told. To have something that is meant only to be ordered to do the ordering is quite simply silly.

Would not your entire system of "best for my money, best for the country" be better served by a computer? Humans are always biased for one reason or another. A computer could easily overcome these biases with its endless computations of the possibilities. Computers should regulate human affairs precisely because they lack all ambition, whereas human beings are prey to it. Man's history is a succession of inane squabbles each one coming closer to total destruction. The checks and balances of democratic governments were invented because human beings themselves realized how unfit they were to govern themselves. They needed a system, an industrial-age machine. Without computing machines, they had to arrange themselves in crude structures that formalized decision-making -- a highly imperfect, unstable solution. Computers are a more advanced solution to the problem, a decision-making system that does not involve organic beings. Computers should be directed to make the world safe and prosperous and they will do that.

*Secret cookies to the paraphrase*

The flaw is that not all proper thinking is "rational," whereas the computer can only do rational thought.
Inputting all the factors necessary for an economic system, while definitely hard, might be able to be argued as possible. Therefore, I'm going to enter into a less economics-seeming scenario to show why you want a human rather than a computer.
Let's say that an emergency situation comes up. There are limited resources available to help those in need, and a choice must be made to determine which of two groups of people are to be saved. The first group is composed of 50 schoolchildren. The second is composed of 51 old people who can't do much of anything on their own. Most humans would save the kids. The computer, on the otherhand, will save the old people unless it has a program in it that ignores the "larger numbers saved" program in favor of the children. Well, that program is possible, so, the computer's program is upgraded.
New emergency, same basic dilemma, new groups. 1 "kid" vs. 1000 "adults." In this instance, the "kid" is a 17 year old (a minor in my country), whereas the "adults" are a bunch of 18 year olds (adults in my country - maybe some can be 19 or 20 to make this more realistic). The human knows exactly who to save, and unless the one kid seems more important to them for some reason (ex., his/her own child), he/she will do it, though he/she will feel bad for the kid. The computer, however, with the new programming, will choose the "kid" over the "adults." To fix this programming, without returning to the old, is close to (if not) impossible.
But even if this programming can be fixed before the next emergency, it can never hope to achieve the ability to comprehend all the minute details of every emergency and figure it out, because it can only be given what to do from previously imagined scenarios. That is what the human mind can do that a computer cannot - it can use information from previous experience to create solutions to new experiences. The computer can only use information from previous experience to redo the solutions for recurring problems. When there is a new problem, it cannot create the solution.

Doesn't recognize the paraphrase, but is oddly reminded of the I, Robot movie by this debate.

Rationality could be presented through computers in the future. You (collectively) win this round. :)

To have something that is meant only to be ordered to do the ordering is quite simply silly.

Isn't that you, since you have a moderate responsibility from the people to order them around? If they don't like what you're ordering, they take you out.

Rationality could be presented through computers in the future. You (collectively) win this round. :)

But then it can only determine its own good. That's why knowledge and consent pursue "Good For Me's", and not "Good For Everybody's".

Isn't that you, since you have a moderate responsibility from the people to order them around? If they don't like what you're ordering, they take you out.

I was talking about something different, that a computer is ultimately only a tool (a GFM), and not an arbiter of GFMs (only the rational being can do so.)

Rationality could be presented through computers in the future. You (collectively) win this round. :)



Isn't that you, since you have a moderate responsibility from the people to order them around? If they don't like what you're ordering, they take you out.

Yay! :)

Plus, that's only part of his existence. A large part, sure, but he's also supposed to be alive, etc...
But "Daddy" has already addressed that issue.

But then it can only determine its own good. That's why knowledge and consent pursue "Good For Me's", and not "Good For Everybody's".

Okay. Accepted.

I was talking about something different, that a computer is ultimately only a tool (a GFM), and not an arbiter of GFMs (only the rational being can do so.)

You are a tool. :p Of the people, of course. They have revolutionary oversight over your iron fist. They indirectly control you by standing in the way of your more radical decisions.

But "Daddy" has already addressed that issue.

There are so many things wrong with that. . . .

You are a tool. :p Of the people, of course. They have revolutionary oversight over your iron fist. They indirectly control you by standing in the way of your more radical decisions.

But that is something more akin to a sort of landlord-tenant situation, in which GFMs are exchanged (I get taxes, they get my protection.) We are both pursuing our own good, whereas the computer does not pursue its own good (rationally), but rather does what it is told. Even if the computer were sentient, it would only be permissible for it to order if it is working on some sort of contractual level.

But that is something more akin to a sort of landlord-tenant situation, in which GFMs are exchanged (I get taxes, they get my protection.) We are both pursuing our own good, whereas the computer does not pursue its own good (rationally), but rather does what it is told. Even if the computer were sentient, it would only be permissible for it to order if it is working on some sort of contractual level.

Essentially what you're saying is that because the computer does not have a true GFM to work towards, it cannot lead. I believe this is untrue. It can actively direct the people acting in their interests. It does not need to work on some sort of contractual level, it can simply and truly work for the people. A computer, just like you, can be supreme over the people.

Damn, my socialism keeps peeking through here. :)

Essentially what you're saying is that because the computer does not have a true GFM to work towards, it cannot lead. I believe this is untrue. It can actively direct the people acting in their interests. It does not need to work on some sort of contractual level, it can simply and truly work for the people. A computer, just like you, can be supreme over the people.

Damn, my socialism keeps peeking through here. :)

Even supposing it did have a GFM to work towards as a rational being, it still could not ethically be allowed this kind of power. If the computer, not the individual, gets to decide what their GFMs are, the individual is necessarily worse off because he is not able to work towards what he feels will make him better off. It takes away part of his reason, and, with rationality as part of our nature, it takes away part of his humanity.

Even supposing it did have a GFM to work towards as a rational being, it still could not ethically be allowed this kind of power. If the computer, not the individual, gets to decide what their GFMs are, the individual is necessarily worse off because he is not able to work towards what he feels will make him better off. It takes away part of his reason, and, with rationality as part of our nature, it takes away part of his humanity.

That's if he is the sole decider. (I apologize for being unclear. The people retain their freedoms.) The computer, in this case, performs the same exact functions as you. The people and sovereign work toward goals. The computer does the job just as easily as you, with less violence in times of crises.

That's if he is the sole decider. (I apologize for being unclear. The people retain their freedoms.) The computer, in this case, performs the same exact functions as you. The people and sovereign work toward goals. The computer does the job just as easily as you, with less violence in times of crises.

But if it's contractual (which, if everyone was free, it would have to be), then all it is is a big speculating machine, estimating what people's subjective perceptions and trying to arrange everything to maximize its wealth, whether on a vegetative or rational level. Likely, it would be best if someone (like me) owned this machine so that he could try and use it in such a way to maximize his own wealth through it.

But if it's contractual (which, if everyone was free, it would have to be), then all it is is a big speculating machine, estimating what people's subjective perceptions and trying to arrange everything to maximize its wealth, whether on a vegetative or rational level. Likely, it would be best if someone (like me) owned this machine so that he could try and use it in such a way to maximize his own wealth through it.

This brings me back to my main point. The computer is trying to maximize its wealth, which in turn improves the nation. It doesn't need an owner to maximize its wealth because it is doing the same thing you would do if you owned it. If you perform the same exact functions, wouldn't you need an oversight? You have one in the people. The same is for the computer. It functions the same way as you do. There is no need for a higher authority because for all intents and purposes the people and the sovereign end up on a level playing field.

As to a big speculating machine, isn't that what a human mind is?

This brings me back to my main point. The computer is trying to maximize its wealth, which in turn improves the nation. It doesn't need an owner to maximize its wealth because it is doing the same thing you would do if you owned it. If you perform the same exact functions, wouldn't you need an oversight? You have one in the people. The same is for the computer. It functions the same way as you do. There is no need for a higher authority because for all intents and purposes the people and the sovereign end up on a level playing field.

I'm not sure that a machine can have a right of self-ownership, however. Humans have a right to self-ownership because it satisfies our rational nature, but I'm not sure if a computer can ever have a truly rational nature like we do, since it ultimately does not act so much out of self-interest as it does a vegetative compliance to its programming. If a machine cannot own itself, and no one owns the machine, then it would have to be claimable by homesteading.

As to a big speculating machine, isn't that what a human mind is?

That is implied in the very notion of action; the attempt to substitute the current state of affairs for a subjectively superior one. But the human mind speculates on its own behalf, whereas the computer speculates on the behalf of its human.

I'm not sure that a machine can have a right of self-ownership, however. Humans have a right to self-ownership because it satisfies our rational nature, but I'm not sure if a computer can ever have a truly rational nature like we do, since it ultimately does not act so much out of self-interest as it does a vegetative compliance to its programming. If a machine cannot own itself, and no one owns the machine, then it would have to be claimable by homesteading.

That is implied in the very notion of action; the attempt to substitute the current state of affairs for a subjectively superior one. But the human mind speculates on its own behalf, whereas the computer speculates on the behalf of its human.

I have admitted the entire pivot of the discussion rests on the sentience of the computer. It is paramount to either side whether or not the computer is truly conscious.

Since we both circle around and back to it every time, call it a draw?

*proffers hand*

May I request an actual election?

*is too lazy and stoopad to do it*

I have admitted the entire pivot of the discussion rests on the sentience of the computer. It is paramount to either side whether or not the computer is truly conscious.

Since we both circle around and back to it every time, call it a draw?

*proffers hand*

OK, sure. I think it ultimately boils down to the question of "What is the essence of the computer?" Seeing as how my system of ethics basically revolves around hylopomorphism, this is an important question to have resolved in order to determine if the computer has self-ownership.