3 ms·

> "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that. It's not at all clear that A

> "democracy", which is a shorthand for what America is supposed to be about - government by, for, and of the people and all that. It's not at all clear that America was supposed to be about this, even if that is what they teach in schools today. However since it's not really relevant I won't argue the point further. > Do you have a counterexample? What non-democratic form of government do you consider free? Many monarchies and similar governments throughout history have allowed more freedom for their citizens than today's democracies. Of course, no one is completely free under any of these governments (certainly not a democratic one). > I guess, in a larger sense, I take it as given that a democratic and free society is a basic requirement for human progress...that make it possible for most to start anything new. You really, really shouldn't take that as a given, especially that "democratic" part. It is understandable, though, that many people believe this -- considering it's essentially what has been taught in schools for the last century or so. Do you really believe enterprise did not flourish in the West until after the rise of democracy? That is not what history shows. > what's to stop the political elite from taxing you at 99% of your income as soon as they think your widget would be fun to have? Nothing. Not that I want your hypothetical to come true, but it is worth considering that tax rates in monarchies were generally quite low (<10%), especially when compared to the tax rates in today's democracies. There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested.

Vivtek 17y ago
There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested. That's kind of where a link would go. I can't tell whether you're a monarchist or a libertarian, but your overall stance appears to be out-and-out libertarianism. To which I can only say: show me one. Show me a successful stateless nation (Afghanistan is the only one that springs to mind), and I'll subscribe to your newsletter. In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote. The same goes for monarchy. Show me an absolute monarchy that stays a good place for more than a generation or two - long enough for the good king to die and his half-wit nephew to take over - and I might give you that one, too. In the meantime, the raging free-for-all that America started out being is a pretty good start on a system that takes the human reality, that political power does in fact and will always in fact exist, and guides society away from the feudalism that both monarchy and libertarianism necessarily approach. Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you. I personally think America will totter back from this brink, as well, and clearly there are problems all around us. But to say that democracy itself is the root? No. You're going to have to be more eloquent.
- abefortas 17y ago
  I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to, but Medieval Iceland was a fine example of a funstioning anarchy: for longer than the United States has existed they had aterritorial, voluntary government by gothar (sort of kind of like chieftans, also sort of kind of like lawyers) who competed to provide people with governing services.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    > I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to You doubt that people wanted to move to the old European monarchies? Even if we're only talking about the present, I'm not a fan, but there are plenty of people who would love to move to the UAE.
    - abefortas 17y ago
      I suppose you're right. I shouldn't have said "anyone." But I don't think there's any example of a good monarchy.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  I get the impression that you've tried to pigeonhole me into a category that you're familiar with, and then responded to me based on that, instead of addressing my points directly. > In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote. Yes, I know the quote, but I'm not sure you do. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797 > Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you. If this is what you believe, I doubt you are familiar with much of the work of either of those groups. Who said anything about the top 0.5%? Do you really think all of the bottom 99.5% in a monarchy were like chattel slaves, but today's bottom 99.5% are free as a bird? Please consider what I wrote earlier -- even the average citizen was more free in many non-democratic countries.

Vivtek 17y ago

There are well-understood reasons for this if you are interested. That's kind of where a link would go. I can't tell whether you're a monarchist or a libertarian, but your overall stance appears to be out-and-out libertarianism. To which I can only say: show me one. Show me a successful stateless nation (Afghanistan is the only one that springs to mind), and I'll subscribe to your newsletter. In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote. The same goes for monarchy. Show me an absolute monarchy that stays a good place for more than a generation or two - long enough for the good king to die and his half-wit nephew to take over - and I might give you that one, too. In the meantime, the raging free-for-all that America started out being is a pretty good start on a system that takes the human reality, that political power does in fact and will always in fact exist, and guides society away from the feudalism that both monarchy and libertarianism necessarily approach. Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you. I personally think America will totter back from this brink, as well, and clearly there are problems all around us. But to say that democracy itself is the root? No. You're going to have to be more eloquent.

abefortas 17y ago
I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to, but Medieval Iceland was a fine example of a funstioning anarchy: for longer than the United States has existed they had aterritorial, voluntary government by gothar (sort of kind of like chieftans, also sort of kind of like lawyers) who competed to provide people with governing services.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  > I doubt there's an example of a monarchy anyone would seriously want to move to You doubt that people wanted to move to the old European monarchies? Even if we're only talking about the present, I'm not a fan, but there are plenty of people who would love to move to the UAE.
  - abefortas 17y ago
    I suppose you're right. I shouldn't have said "anyone." But I don't think there's any example of a good monarchy.
johnnybgoode 17y ago
I get the impression that you've tried to pigeonhole me into a category that you're familiar with, and then responded to me based on that, instead of addressing my points directly. > In the meantime, I'm standing over here in the corner with Churchill. You know the quote. Yes, I know the quote, but I'm not sure you do. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=571797 > Both monarchists and libertarians seem to think they'll be the ones in the 0.5% on top. The odds are against you. If this is what you believe, I doubt you are familiar with much of the work of either of those groups. Who said anything about the top 0.5%? Do you really think all of the bottom 99.5% in a monarchy were like chattel slaves, but today's bottom 99.5% are free as a bird? Please consider what I wrote earlier -- even the average citizen was more free in many non-democratic countries.