6 ms·

It's odd how obvious much of this is, but the realisation I don't think hits most people, and the consequences are not very well taught in school. 1984 and tho

by jariel 6y ago

It's odd how obvious much of this is, but the realisation I don't think hits most people, and the consequences are not very well taught in school. 1984 and those kinds of publications were written in an era wherein we were transitioning from 'small government' to 'large state entities'. Because we don't have 'small government' as an example in living memory, it's easy to believe, by default, that 'this is the way it always was'. Particularly WW1 and WW2 which for the first time required 'the entire states machinery' to be involved, we really started to see what the full capacity of state coordination looked like. The ultra authoritarian states of the last century - and some of this century, particularly enabled by technology, really have no historical parallel. Monarchs always had a tenuous position, the rate of taxation was relatively low, mostly involving defence/offence and maybe a few castles here and there. It should be added, that not until the Industrial Revolution were there enough surpluses to really do that much anyhow.

canniballectern 6y ago
> Monarchs always had a tenuous position I wonder how much of our modern idea of kings as supremely powerful dictators is just a result of posturing and good PR by past kings. As a king, you'd be acutely aware of how tenuous your position was, and you'd be doing as much mythmaking as you could to prevent people from questioning your power.
- jariel 6y ago
  I think it comes from modern English Monarchs who had a much more 'secure' role as quasi-Constitutional Monarchs. And Disney, literally.
- Torwald 6y ago
  > I wonder how much of our modern idea of kings as supremely powerful dictators is just a result of posturing and good PR by past kings. Depends on how you want to look at it. Kings of ancient times where often seen as gods or god-like beings. In the West and the Middle East these kings where well remembered through the religious sacred texts. It was part of the common knowledge, much like today Darth Vader. A story like that of Jude would be known by virtually everyone and do much of what you'd term "PR". In the Far East however, these mighty kings or emperors where in power in some countries up until very recent times.
- IggleSniggle 6y ago
  While maintaining a huge entourage of musicians, jesters, and other entertainers is certainly expensive, it’s a far safer and probably cheaper projection of power and influence than maintaining a standing army who you can only pay practically by allowing them to loot.
WalterBright 6y ago
The Civil War was the first industrial war, where the free market economy of the North handily outproduced and exhausted the unfree South.
- disown 6y ago
  The north wasn't a "free market economy". It was a protectionist economy rife with tariffs. As a matter of fact, it was the south that wanted a "free market" economy. They wanted little to no tariffs so that britain/europe would open their markets to their cotton/agricultural goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. Industrial production boomed in the free North. The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods, a typical problem for unfree economies.
    - disown 6y ago
      > It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Who else would you have tariffs on? Yourself? > Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Actually, tariffs by definition makes it a "not free market". Especially when it is part of a protectionist policy. What does taxes have to do with anything? "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." --lincoln > Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. What are you talking about? You can't tariff yourself. It would be like stealing from your left pocket to put it in your right pocket. > Industrial production boomed in the free North. Thanks to protectionism and high tariffs which kept british/european industrial goods out of the market. "free North"? Where blacks, natives and women were treated like second class citizens? > The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods The South was an agricultural economy. The land, weather and environment provided conditions for year-round farming. Unlike in the north where we had fall/winter that prevent year-round farming. > a typical problem for unfree economies. Well china is great at industrial goods and they aren't as "free" as norway. So using your logic, norway must be a slave owning nation? What are you doing? You just made up definitions, history, facts and confusingly misused the word "free" ( free as in markets vs free as in non-slave ). Are you alright?

by jariel 6y ago

canniballectern 6y ago

> Monarchs always had a tenuous position I wonder how much of our modern idea of kings as supremely powerful dictators is just a result of posturing and good PR by past kings. As a king, you'd be acutely aware of how tenuous your position was, and you'd be doing as much mythmaking as you could to prevent people from questioning your power.

jariel 6y ago
I think it comes from modern English Monarchs who had a much more 'secure' role as quasi-Constitutional Monarchs. And Disney, literally.
Torwald 6y ago
> I wonder how much of our modern idea of kings as supremely powerful dictators is just a result of posturing and good PR by past kings. Depends on how you want to look at it. Kings of ancient times where often seen as gods or god-like beings. In the West and the Middle East these kings where well remembered through the religious sacred texts. It was part of the common knowledge, much like today Darth Vader. A story like that of Jude would be known by virtually everyone and do much of what you'd term "PR". In the Far East however, these mighty kings or emperors where in power in some countries up until very recent times.
IggleSniggle 6y ago
While maintaining a huge entourage of musicians, jesters, and other entertainers is certainly expensive, it’s a far safer and probably cheaper projection of power and influence than maintaining a standing army who you can only pay practically by allowing them to loot.

WalterBright 6y ago

The Civil War was the first industrial war, where the free market economy of the North handily outproduced and exhausted the unfree South.

disown 6y ago
The north wasn't a "free market economy". It was a protectionist economy rife with tariffs. As a matter of fact, it was the south that wanted a "free market" economy. They wanted little to no tariffs so that britain/europe would open their markets to their cotton/agricultural goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...
- WalterBright 6y ago
  It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. Industrial production boomed in the free North. The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods, a typical problem for unfree economies.
  - disown 6y ago
    > It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Who else would you have tariffs on? Yourself? > Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Actually, tariffs by definition makes it a "not free market". Especially when it is part of a protectionist policy. What does taxes have to do with anything? "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." --lincoln > Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. What are you talking about? You can't tariff yourself. It would be like stealing from your left pocket to put it in your right pocket. > Industrial production boomed in the free North. Thanks to protectionism and high tariffs which kept british/european industrial goods out of the market. "free North"? Where blacks, natives and women were treated like second class citizens? > The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods The South was an agricultural economy. The land, weather and environment provided conditions for year-round farming. Unlike in the north where we had fall/winter that prevent year-round farming. > a typical problem for unfree economies. Well china is great at industrial goods and they aren't as "free" as norway. So using your logic, norway must be a slave owning nation? What are you doing? You just made up definitions, history, facts and confusingly misused the word "free" ( free as in markets vs free as in non-slave ). Are you alright?