4 ms·

I'm pretty sure thats the same reasoning Kings and Queens used for thousands of years to describe all the horrible things that would happen should the people be

by fleitz 16y ago

I'm pretty sure thats the same reasoning Kings and Queens used for thousands of years to describe all the horrible things that would happen should the people be put in charge. Go ask your average cop how many people they arrested for armed robbery and murder, then ask them how many seat belt tickets they handed out.

parasubvert 16y ago
Many horrible things have happened when "the people" WERE put in charge. The difference with democracy is not that you pick better leaders, it's that the majority is free to pick the leaders they want. It is arguably as easy to pick a scoundrel as bloodline was.
- arethuza 16y ago
  If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control (somewhat to their own surprise) and did anything they deemed necessary to maintain their grip on power - mostly by killing anyone who could conceivably be an opponent.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control And this time things are going to be different because ....? A huge fraction, if not most, revolutions end badly.
    - beedogs 16y ago
      Badly for whom?
      - anamax 16y ago
        "The people". They get lower living standards, more political oppression, and bad art. It's almost like revolutions are intended to demonstrate that "it can't get worse" is horribly wrong.
  - parasubvert 16y ago
    I was not particularly thinking about the Russian Revolution. On the "scourge of humanity" side, there's always Hitler, who was popularly elected multiple times. On the scoundrel side, there are folks like Nixon. Every U.S. president since 1960 has also presided over a lot of death and misery, and propped up "friendly" dictators in various global locales, plus a huge proliferation in armaments, often as part of proxy battles in the Cold War.
arethuza 16y ago
Are you an anarcho-capitalist? (Genuine question, not being snarky). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
- fleitz 16y ago
  Not quite. A lot of the core components of government are subject to well-known areas of market failure, examples include a well-regulated militia and the justice system. Gov't is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. I'm also with Lord Acton in my belief that power corrupts. Therefore I tend to think that the responsible role of government is very limited in scope. I'm of the opinion that the budgets of gov't in G8 states could be slashed by 75% to 90% whilst providing a major boost to the economy. To cut beyond that would involve cutting services that are subject to market failure in which we'd end up destroying a lot of the value in our governing institutions. One of the most effective things we could do to bring about these changes in a realistic manner is to setup Special Economic Zones or something like that where the normal rules of society do not apply and instead we'd use a more liberal set of rules. Perhaps we could find a smaller city with overwhelming popular support for these rules. Or an uninhabited area that capital could flow into to build the infrastructure from the ground up. Basically use a scientific approach to government where we run experiments to see what the effect of various rules are. Ultimately I could be wrong and a gov't that allocates 50% of the resources in an economy provides better allocation than the market could achieve but I tend to doubt it.
  - dantheman 16y ago
    A lot of the core components of government are subject to well-known areas of market failure, examples include a well-regulated militia and the justice system. When were market solutions ever tried for these problems? Not being an ass, im just looking for info.
    - pedrocr 16y ago
      Globalization could be argued to be a market solution for war. If your economies are interdependent you're much less willing or able to enter war. Seems to have worked in Western Europe.
dalke 16y ago
While I understand your point, your comparison is pointless. There are about 15,000 murders and 410,000 robberies in the US per year. How many people don't wear a seatbelt? A quick search shows that about 100,000 seat belt tickets were issued for the state of Wisconson, and assuming that every instance of driving without a seatbelt was ticketed, then there are about 6 million ticketable instances per year. Thus, "your average cop" tickets about 10 people for each reported robbery or murder. What do you think the answer should be, were the people put in charge?
mattmanser 16y ago
I'm a bit late on the reply but what you're describing is called feudalism and monarchism. It's very, very different to the relatively new trend of nationalism that has swept the globe in the last century. I don't mean this to be insulting, it's just that nationalism is pretty fundamentally different to monarchy or feudalism which you seem to be confusing the present state of the world with. You had it in Rome for a bit mixed with Imperialism but then it died out. Imperialism rose again, but then Nationalism rose pretty violently in opposition to it. Although it brought about Fascism it also brought about an end to Imperialism. It's at the heart of the Napoleonic wars to WW2. There are still echoes of the struggle in the Israel/Palestine mess. There's a lot, and I mean a hell of a lot, that's gone on in the last two centuries from the common man's point of view that has fundamentally shifted the power balance of rulers and subjects. It's very, very different to the 'reasoning Kings and Queens used for thousands of years'.

by fleitz 16y ago

parasubvert 16y ago

Many horrible things have happened when "the people" WERE put in charge. The difference with democracy is not that you pick better leaders, it's that the majority is free to pick the leaders they want. It is arguably as easy to pick a scoundrel as bloodline was.

arethuza 16y ago
If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control (somewhat to their own surprise) and did anything they deemed necessary to maintain their grip on power - mostly by killing anyone who could conceivably be an opponent.
- anamax 16y ago
  > If you are referring to events like the Russian Revolution I think it's more accurate to say that a bunch of thugs who said they were acting for "the people" got in control And this time things are going to be different because ....? A huge fraction, if not most, revolutions end badly.
  - beedogs 16y ago
    Badly for whom?
    - anamax 16y ago
      "The people". They get lower living standards, more political oppression, and bad art. It's almost like revolutions are intended to demonstrate that "it can't get worse" is horribly wrong.
- parasubvert 16y ago
  I was not particularly thinking about the Russian Revolution. On the "scourge of humanity" side, there's always Hitler, who was popularly elected multiple times. On the scoundrel side, there are folks like Nixon. Every U.S. president since 1960 has also presided over a lot of death and misery, and propped up "friendly" dictators in various global locales, plus a huge proliferation in armaments, often as part of proxy battles in the Cold War.

arethuza 16y ago

Are you an anarcho-capitalist? (Genuine question, not being snarky). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

fleitz 16y ago
Not quite. A lot of the core components of government are subject to well-known areas of market failure, examples include a well-regulated militia and the justice system. Gov't is a tool that can be used for good or for evil. I'm also with Lord Acton in my belief that power corrupts. Therefore I tend to think that the responsible role of government is very limited in scope. I'm of the opinion that the budgets of gov't in G8 states could be slashed by 75% to 90% whilst providing a major boost to the economy. To cut beyond that would involve cutting services that are subject to market failure in which we'd end up destroying a lot of the value in our governing institutions. One of the most effective things we could do to bring about these changes in a realistic manner is to setup Special Economic Zones or something like that where the normal rules of society do not apply and instead we'd use a more liberal set of rules. Perhaps we could find a smaller city with overwhelming popular support for these rules. Or an uninhabited area that capital could flow into to build the infrastructure from the ground up. Basically use a scientific approach to government where we run experiments to see what the effect of various rules are. Ultimately I could be wrong and a gov't that allocates 50% of the resources in an economy provides better allocation than the market could achieve but I tend to doubt it.
- dantheman 16y ago
  A lot of the core components of government are subject to well-known areas of market failure, examples include a well-regulated militia and the justice system. When were market solutions ever tried for these problems? Not being an ass, im just looking for info.
  - pedrocr 16y ago
    Globalization could be argued to be a market solution for war. If your economies are interdependent you're much less willing or able to enter war. Seems to have worked in Western Europe.

dalke 16y ago

While I understand your point, your comparison is pointless. There are about 15,000 murders and 410,000 robberies in the US per year. How many people don't wear a seatbelt? A quick search shows that about 100,000 seat belt tickets were issued for the state of Wisconson, and assuming that every instance of driving without a seatbelt was ticketed, then there are about 6 million ticketable instances per year. Thus, "your average cop" tickets about 10 people for each reported robbery or murder. What do you think the answer should be, were the people put in charge?

mattmanser 16y ago

I'm a bit late on the reply but what you're describing is called feudalism and monarchism. It's very, very different to the relatively new trend of nationalism that has swept the globe in the last century. I don't mean this to be insulting, it's just that nationalism is pretty fundamentally different to monarchy or feudalism which you seem to be confusing the present state of the world with. You had it in Rome for a bit mixed with Imperialism but then it died out. Imperialism rose again, but then Nationalism rose pretty violently in opposition to it. Although it brought about Fascism it also brought about an end to Imperialism. It's at the heart of the Napoleonic wars to WW2. There are still echoes of the struggle in the Israel/Palestine mess. There's a lot, and I mean a hell of a lot, that's gone on in the last two centuries from the common man's point of view that has fundamentally shifted the power balance of rulers and subjects. It's very, very different to the 'reasoning Kings and Queens used for thousands of years'.