4 ms·

> I'm a big believer that a business must have an owner. Surely you are also a big believer that a country must have a king. If not, why not? > Words of my fa

> I'm a big believer that a business must have an owner. Surely you are also a big believer that a country must have a king. If not, why not? > Words of my father: "a collective ownership of business is like life in family where a woman has 10 husbands, all trying to make love to her at the same time." Quotations aren't even arguments if they come from famous people.

baybal2 8y ago
>> I'm a big believer that a business must have an owner. >Surely you are also a big believer that a country must have a king. If not, why not? No, I believe that monarchies are weak, and risky. There might be modern day monarchs doing best for their realms, but the chance that after 3-4-5 good successions will come a man "who wrecks it all" is just too high. This is what history has demonstrated. In case of business, the risks are not human lives. In case of a failing business, an employee is free to vote with his feet at any moment, moreover if he is valuable specialist in a competitive market. In such circumstances, business owners are compelled to do well do deter desertions. This is in big contrast to command economies dominated by state businesses. Speaking about command economies, that not necessarily assumes communists countries - just how much of F500 a decade ago were de-facto state co's? GE - with net negative tax rate, GM - needs no explanations, defence companies - being de-facto one with their states in every country, agri businesses with roots in banana republics, dozens of megabanks kept alive by financial life support from taxpayers.
- genericid 8y ago
  Democracies elect idiots "who wreck it all" all the time. That is not the problem with monarchies. The problem with monarchies is that a monarch will promote the interests of the monarch, the nobility will promote the interests of the nobility. Only a democracy will promote the interests of everybody. That is true whether we talk about a state or a company. > In case of a failing business, an employee is free to vote with his feet at any moment, moreover if he is valuable specialist in a competitive market. A non-democratic economy works for certain people under certain circumstances. That is simply not enough. Equating democratic elections, the act of freely chosing how you run your society, to what amounts to fleeing a sinking ship is beyond ridiculous. So is calling the US a command economy.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Democracies elect idiots "who wreck it all" all the time. That is not the problem with monarchies. It actually is a recurring problem with monarchies (and often that's how democratic republics get established); heredity is no guarantee of competency.
    - genericid 8y ago
      Nothing is a guarantee of competency. It's not a problem with monarchies, it's a problem with anything involving humans.
      - baybal2 8y ago
        True, and democracy here is a big red "emergency brake" button. In a monarchy or de-facto monarchy (all states that saw multiple presidents-for-life from the same family are in that bunch as well) you have none. Only alternatives given to people in them is to start a civil war.
        null000 8y ago
        There's always assassination. Look a the Roman Empire - most of the truly catastrophic emperors were either assassinated, or nearly assassinated before they died of other means. Not that I'm advocating we go back to that or anything.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Your statement seems unfair. The people elected in democracies are not somehow uniquely benevolent and socially driven. They, at least in rolling with your worldview, once again will promote their own interests first. The election aspect changes very little. Our electorate is mostly poorly informed and easily manipulated. Try answering any question by asking 130 million people, of no qualification, after exposing them to months of emotionally charged misinformation, mud slinging, and FUD -- all carried out by the best manipulators money can buy. The answers you're going to get explain how we can have a 15% approval rating for the congress that we put into office. That said even though democracy is quite an awful system, it's probably the least awful of the alternatives. We, the people, are very unlikely to meaningfully change anything in any given election - but that power is, at least technically, there. Whereas if you have an awful monarch/dictator/life serving republic/etc then your only option is a bit messier.

baybal2 8y ago

>> I'm a big believer that a business must have an owner. >Surely you are also a big believer that a country must have a king. If not, why not? No, I believe that monarchies are weak, and risky. There might be modern day monarchs doing best for their realms, but the chance that after 3-4-5 good successions will come a man "who wrecks it all" is just too high. This is what history has demonstrated. In case of business, the risks are not human lives. In case of a failing business, an employee is free to vote with his feet at any moment, moreover if he is valuable specialist in a competitive market. In such circumstances, business owners are compelled to do well do deter desertions. This is in big contrast to command economies dominated by state businesses. Speaking about command economies, that not necessarily assumes communists countries - just how much of F500 a decade ago were de-facto state co's? GE - with net negative tax rate, GM - needs no explanations, defence companies - being de-facto one with their states in every country, agri businesses with roots in banana republics, dozens of megabanks kept alive by financial life support from taxpayers.

genericid 8y ago
Democracies elect idiots "who wreck it all" all the time. That is not the problem with monarchies. The problem with monarchies is that a monarch will promote the interests of the monarch, the nobility will promote the interests of the nobility. Only a democracy will promote the interests of everybody. That is true whether we talk about a state or a company. > In case of a failing business, an employee is free to vote with his feet at any moment, moreover if he is valuable specialist in a competitive market. A non-democratic economy works for certain people under certain circumstances. That is simply not enough. Equating democratic elections, the act of freely chosing how you run your society, to what amounts to fleeing a sinking ship is beyond ridiculous. So is calling the US a command economy.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Democracies elect idiots "who wreck it all" all the time. That is not the problem with monarchies. It actually is a recurring problem with monarchies (and often that's how democratic republics get established); heredity is no guarantee of competency.
  - genericid 8y ago
    Nothing is a guarantee of competency. It's not a problem with monarchies, it's a problem with anything involving humans.
    - baybal2 8y ago
      True, and democracy here is a big red "emergency brake" button. In a monarchy or de-facto monarchy (all states that saw multiple presidents-for-life from the same family are in that bunch as well) you have none. Only alternatives given to people in them is to start a civil war.
      - null000 8y ago
        There's always assassination. Look a the Roman Empire - most of the truly catastrophic emperors were either assassinated, or nearly assassinated before they died of other means. Not that I'm advocating we go back to that or anything.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Your statement seems unfair. The people elected in democracies are not somehow uniquely benevolent and socially driven. They, at least in rolling with your worldview, once again will promote their own interests first. The election aspect changes very little. Our electorate is mostly poorly informed and easily manipulated. Try answering any question by asking 130 million people, of no qualification, after exposing them to months of emotionally charged misinformation, mud slinging, and FUD -- all carried out by the best manipulators money can buy. The answers you're going to get explain how we can have a 15% approval rating for the congress that we put into office. That said even though democracy is quite an awful system, it's probably the least awful of the alternatives. We, the people, are very unlikely to meaningfully change anything in any given election - but that power is, at least technically, there. Whereas if you have an awful monarch/dictator/life serving republic/etc then your only option is a bit messier.