3 ms·

1. As the state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy, and the in

by meric 12y ago

1. As the state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy, and the influence on policies from the democratic majority is reduced to zero, a 'country' controlled by warlord factions and private armies may be closer to the 'market' equilibrium by eliminating the waste of the bureaucratic middleman. No need to use roundabout ways and Kafkaesque policies to dominate the people and compete with other factions, just do it outright. You can read an example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_Era As you can read in the article, private armies are cheaper and just as effective (Possibly due to government overpaying weapons manufacturers controlled by friends or relatives of public bureaucrats). This efficiency may in the future outcompete public armies. 2. Eventually conflicts between warlords lead to increased inequality between various private 'states' and thus consolidation - and from this monopoly of private armies a state emerges. To maintain this monopoly and to maintain stability and create a sense of legitimacy (and thus preventing new competing warlords from arising) it introduces policies like public bureaucrats only indirectly controlled by the individuals who have actual power, who act for the benefit of the public; and depending on the era, an emperor that governs for all, or allow the public to elect some officials, - the economy prospers and generate more taxes for the rulers. 3. This morphs into a more or less fair and democratic and equal society that may last for several decades or even centuries, as the economy booms, inequality is introduced. More affluent individuals are able to afford better education and better connections to their children, who are more able to compete for positions of power. The state slowly becomes encumbered by politicians who are controlled by a tiny minority of individuals who control key sectors of the economy. Go to 1. "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been" - Romance of the three kingdoms With a couple of exceptions, I have thus described the revolving history of China from the Zhou to modern times.

542458 12y ago
Do nuclear weapons (or equivalently massive weapons) not change this equation, by making incumbents incredibly difficult to oust? Alternatively, would nuclear weapons not make conflicts between warlords either token or devastating? Does the reliance on extremely high-cost support and weapon systems (satellites, aircraft carriers) not make the barrier to entry for warlords impossibly high? While the idea of history always repeating itself is appealing, I fail to see how this example can apply in a modern world. Too much has changed, and short of a "mad max" regression, I don't see how feudal China can repeat itself here.
- meric 12y ago
  I have no idea, only noticed the recurring trend being described in the article. One thing we do know is nuclear weapons on its own is not sufficient to prevent the condition of warlords and private armies from appearing - Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons yet in the north of the country, tribes and warlords abound. US interference (incompetent due to corruption and graft?) in Middle Eastern politics allowed ISIS, a warlord-like state, to capture high-cost support and weapons systems and used them successfully against the Iraqi government, a government whose army was less than competent due to the corruption within. The Iraqi government is backed by a country with nuclear weapons and missiles and drones and fighter jets, and yet ISIS persists. Many US departments are being militarised, from the police to the IRS[1] to the Department of Education[2] to the Environmental Protection Agency[3] and the USDA[4]. I wonder if it's because many in the government itself see militarisation as a necessary reaction to the threat of private weapons, which as you can read in the article is an re-emerging trend. If nuclear weapons and missiles and carriers and drone strikes are sufficient to prevent the US government from being ousted, why is it busy acquiring conventional weapons? If the US government is relying on conventional weapons to hold off the tide of the privately armed, can mere conventional weapons be enough to cause it's --censored--? 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jeff-duncan-irs-rifle-training-92662.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jeff-duncan-irs-rifle-... 2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/us-school-districts-given-free-machine-guns-and-grenade-launchers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/us-school-distr... 3. http://www.thearkansasproject.com/no-federal-bureaucrats-dont-need-machine-guns/ http://www.thearkansasproject.com/no-federal-bureaucrats-don... 4. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/auditors-guns/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/auditors-guns/
  - donavanm 12y ago
    With regards to the militarization of the Unites States executive branch I blame the Department of State. State has been an utter failure in their core competency of nation building for the past 30 years. Ethiopia and the Baltics in the '90s, Iraq and Afghanistan in the '00s are examples of State basically abdicating their role to the DoD. The DoD has been the only major department with the budget, the expert personnel, the logistics, and the organizational will to tackle what should be civilian nation building exercises. It's a poor plan to put a 21 year old marine in charge of securing and rebuilding a village. An armies job is to "go places, kill people, and break their stuff." But for the last few decades the choice for the US has been to send our DoD personnel, or noone. Because we've increasingly leaned on the DoD for these actions that's bled over to other organizations. A prime example there is the transfer of absurd materials to LEO under the LESO and Excess Property Programs. See also the budget of DHS/ICE/CBP which simply exploded in the last decade by following the militarization path. If we want to stop the militarization of our society we need to fix our civilian agencies and stop relying on the martial.

by meric 12y ago

542458 12y ago

Do nuclear weapons (or equivalently massive weapons) not change this equation, by making incumbents incredibly difficult to oust? Alternatively, would nuclear weapons not make conflicts between warlords either token or devastating? Does the reliance on extremely high-cost support and weapon systems (satellites, aircraft carriers) not make the barrier to entry for warlords impossibly high? While the idea of history always repeating itself is appealing, I fail to see how this example can apply in a modern world. Too much has changed, and short of a "mad max" regression, I don't see how feudal China can repeat itself here.

meric 12y ago
I have no idea, only noticed the recurring trend being described in the article. One thing we do know is nuclear weapons on its own is not sufficient to prevent the condition of warlords and private armies from appearing - Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons yet in the north of the country, tribes and warlords abound. US interference (incompetent due to corruption and graft?) in Middle Eastern politics allowed ISIS, a warlord-like state, to capture high-cost support and weapons systems and used them successfully against the Iraqi government, a government whose army was less than competent due to the corruption within. The Iraqi government is backed by a country with nuclear weapons and missiles and drones and fighter jets, and yet ISIS persists. Many US departments are being militarised, from the police to the IRS[1] to the Department of Education[2] to the Environmental Protection Agency[3] and the USDA[4]. I wonder if it's because many in the government itself see militarisation as a necessary reaction to the threat of private weapons, which as you can read in the article is an re-emerging trend. If nuclear weapons and missiles and carriers and drone strikes are sufficient to prevent the US government from being ousted, why is it busy acquiring conventional weapons? If the US government is relying on conventional weapons to hold off the tide of the privately armed, can mere conventional weapons be enough to cause it's --censored--? 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jeff-duncan-irs-rifle-training-92662.html http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jeff-duncan-irs-rifle-... 2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/us-school-districts-given-free-machine-guns-and-grenade-launchers http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/18/us-school-distr... 3. http://www.thearkansasproject.com/no-federal-bureaucrats-dont-need-machine-guns/ http://www.thearkansasproject.com/no-federal-bureaucrats-don... 4. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/auditors-guns/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/auditors-guns/
- donavanm 12y ago
  With regards to the militarization of the Unites States executive branch I blame the Department of State. State has been an utter failure in their core competency of nation building for the past 30 years. Ethiopia and the Baltics in the '90s, Iraq and Afghanistan in the '00s are examples of State basically abdicating their role to the DoD. The DoD has been the only major department with the budget, the expert personnel, the logistics, and the organizational will to tackle what should be civilian nation building exercises. It's a poor plan to put a 21 year old marine in charge of securing and rebuilding a village. An armies job is to "go places, kill people, and break their stuff." But for the last few decades the choice for the US has been to send our DoD personnel, or noone. Because we've increasingly leaned on the DoD for these actions that's bled over to other organizations. A prime example there is the transfer of absurd materials to LEO under the LESO and Excess Property Programs. See also the budget of DHS/ICE/CBP which simply exploded in the last decade by following the militarization path. If we want to stop the militarization of our society we need to fix our civilian agencies and stop relying on the martial.