4 ms·

Has that been quantified? I suppose there are studies comparing forms of governments, it's just that I don't know them. Having grown up in a democracy, obviousl

by Tichy 14y ago

Has that been quantified? I suppose there are studies comparing forms of governments, it's just that I don't know them. Having grown up in a democracy, obviously I can not trust what I have been taught (ie people in communist countries are being taught that communism is the best form of government). I could imagine that democracy provides a more steady form of mediocrity whereas for example kingdoms might have more ups and downs depending on the current rulers.

scottjad 14y ago
One book that tries to quantify along several dimensions is "Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Here's my notes from a related talk he gave on the subject: http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%20War%20I%20as%20the%20End%20of%20Civilization%20Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe.mp3 http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%... "in europe, during monarchy taxes were 3-5%, during democracy 25%. during monarchy debt was paid down during peace time, democracies increase debt during war and peace. during monarchy, price level fell century after century, and in democracy price level has risen. in monarchy interest rates fell, in democracy interest rates have risen. in monarchy money supply grew modestly (6x in century), in democracy it's grown enormously (1000x in century). govt gdp expenditures are much higher under democracy than monarchy. very little redistribution of wealth under monarchy. very little interference. very few new laws. most wars are limited to territory under dispute often bc of inheritance/marriage."
- da02 14y ago
  Good luck talking about this. A private law society is too radical for most people and few are willing to even skim a book on it. Most likely, they will mis-interpret the idea just most people mis-interpret libertarianism.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Benevolent Dictator For Life is probably the most productive form. The problem lies with finding a truly benevolent dictator. When it's been done, it's worked wonders. But most fall pretty short.
saraid216 14y ago
> Has that been quantified? I honestly only meant philosophically. I don't really buy the assumption that economic measures are the most valid way to justify governmental forms. Most other measures are a lot more tenuous in terms of quantifiability. > I could imagine that democracy provides a more steady form of mediocrity whereas for example kingdoms might have more ups and downs depending on the current rulers. Mediocrity of what, though? See, the question of what form of government is best depends a lot on the question of how you make that determination. The story we've been told is one of governmental self-doubt. You say you can't trust what you've been taught, but that's exactly what you've been taught. I mean, really. Think back to what you've been taught about democracy by The System. What methods did they use to indoctrinate you? What effects did those methods have? I was taught it in history as an inevitability and in civics as a mechanistic bureaucracy. I didn't take any college courses on the matter. And my conclusion, until 2.5 years ago, was that democracy was the least-worst, because that's what I had been taught. Everyone hates it, but they hate it least of all. This is how I've been looking at it: instead of doing a "comparative politics" survey, approach it from first principles. First, let's say that pure anarchy is unviable: human beings will naturally cluster into hierarchies for the sake of efficiency, and will naturally develop some kind of administrative organizational paradigm. So there's some government. But what then? What matters, and how do you protect and encourage it? What does the shape of the result look like?
- Tichy 14y ago
  Provide some arguments then? I guess for example democracy provides a means to settle conflicts without (too much) violence. But it might have other problems, for example minorities will probably be disadvantaged. More able people will be exploited by the less able people, too. As the US always demonstrates so clearly, opinions are easy to manipulate, too, so democracy might just empower a different set of people. I guess for me democracy is not a value in itself, and that it is is one of the lies we have been taught. If a democracy sends me into war and gets me killed when a monarchy wouldn't have, why should I think democracy is better (just a hypothetical example). I also think about tragedy of the commons type of problems, which a democracy should have an especially hard time of answering.

by Tichy 14y ago

scottjad 14y ago

One book that tries to quantify along several dimensions is "Democracy: The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Here's my notes from a related talk he gave on the subject: http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%20War%20I%20as%20the%20End%20of%20Civilization%20Hans-Hermann%20Hoppe.mp3 http://library.mises.org/media/The%20Costs%20of%20War/World%... "in europe, during monarchy taxes were 3-5%, during democracy 25%. during monarchy debt was paid down during peace time, democracies increase debt during war and peace. during monarchy, price level fell century after century, and in democracy price level has risen. in monarchy interest rates fell, in democracy interest rates have risen. in monarchy money supply grew modestly (6x in century), in democracy it's grown enormously (1000x in century). govt gdp expenditures are much higher under democracy than monarchy. very little redistribution of wealth under monarchy. very little interference. very few new laws. most wars are limited to territory under dispute often bc of inheritance/marriage."

da02 14y ago
Good luck talking about this. A private law society is too radical for most people and few are willing to even skim a book on it. Most likely, they will mis-interpret the idea just most people mis-interpret libertarianism.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Benevolent Dictator For Life is probably the most productive form. The problem lies with finding a truly benevolent dictator. When it's been done, it's worked wonders. But most fall pretty short.

saraid216 14y ago

> Has that been quantified? I honestly only meant philosophically. I don't really buy the assumption that economic measures are the most valid way to justify governmental forms. Most other measures are a lot more tenuous in terms of quantifiability. > I could imagine that democracy provides a more steady form of mediocrity whereas for example kingdoms might have more ups and downs depending on the current rulers. Mediocrity of what, though? See, the question of what form of government is best depends a lot on the question of how you make that determination. The story we've been told is one of governmental self-doubt. You say you can't trust what you've been taught, but that's exactly what you've been taught. I mean, really. Think back to what you've been taught about democracy by The System. What methods did they use to indoctrinate you? What effects did those methods have? I was taught it in history as an inevitability and in civics as a mechanistic bureaucracy. I didn't take any college courses on the matter. And my conclusion, until 2.5 years ago, was that democracy was the least-worst, because that's what I had been taught. Everyone hates it, but they hate it least of all. This is how I've been looking at it: instead of doing a "comparative politics" survey, approach it from first principles. First, let's say that pure anarchy is unviable: human beings will naturally cluster into hierarchies for the sake of efficiency, and will naturally develop some kind of administrative organizational paradigm. So there's some government. But what then? What matters, and how do you protect and encourage it? What does the shape of the result look like?

Tichy 14y ago
Provide some arguments then? I guess for example democracy provides a means to settle conflicts without (too much) violence. But it might have other problems, for example minorities will probably be disadvantaged. More able people will be exploited by the less able people, too. As the US always demonstrates so clearly, opinions are easy to manipulate, too, so democracy might just empower a different set of people. I guess for me democracy is not a value in itself, and that it is is one of the lies we have been taught. If a democracy sends me into war and gets me killed when a monarchy wouldn't have, why should I think democracy is better (just a hypothetical example). I also think about tragedy of the commons type of problems, which a democracy should have an especially hard time of answering.