No.100543
The workers organise their own production like Bakounin 's collectivism but there is a state to tax and provide essential public services. I just came up with that idea, would that work?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100544
>>100543
What is the difference between what you're describing and the shit situation we're in right now
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100545
you retards should really learn about prices and economic calculation
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100546
you retards should really learn about prices and economic calculation
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100549
>>100544
The situation we're in is state capitalism, workers DO NOT organise their own production.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100550
>>100549
Wtf does that mean
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100551
>>100543
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, unless you mean we should give all businesses to the workers working in them and leave it at that. That would create a lot of chaos, but it would, in principle, work. Then the workers will also take the role of entrepreneurs and capitalists, they will sell and buy capital as usual, and there will be price signals to guide this process so that opportunity costs are minimized. It wouldn't work well, but that's for reasons which are, from an economic perspective, accidental.
I don't understand the advantage of such a situation, however. From an economic perspective, there is none, period. The workers cannot manage their own affairs very well, unless they elect agents who dispose over the capital for them all, in which case you end up with capitalists once again if you want those agents to be in any way effective (incentives, and all that frankly rather boring stuff). If you run the company democratically, you'll fail, unless it's a small business run by a tightly knit group of people, as democratic decisionmaking is notoriously cumbersome and irrational. If you run it according to abstract rules, you'll run it like an administration, which is, likewise, notoriously ineffective and irrational, and as we all know, bureaucracies eventually develop a life of their own, so yeah… no. Not a good idea.
If companies run by workers were particularly effective, the market would have more of them. It's not like there haven't been experiments in this direction. Some, no doubt, have been successful, but most haven't.
Pic related is the single most important book on the topic of the calculation-problem, which is kinda relevant in this context, too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100966
How do you prevent a government from growing and becoming to corrupt? I could see something like a small commune working somewhat but any bigger it'll probably get corrupt.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.100974
>>100966
>How do you prevent a government from growing and becoming to corrupt?
Mostly, by having a society in which this is not permitted. A good legal framework is also essential, but not sufficient. The most libertarian constitution in the world will be kill if no one cares for liberty anymore.
Why do you think that in the Middle East and East Asia, every president wins the candidacy with 97% of the votes? It's not because of corruption per se, it's because they have no democratic tradition. No matter how democratic your constitution is, you won't have a democratic country if no one believes in democracy. Likewise, you cannot have a government that defends property if this ideal is maligned, and you won't have officials following proper procedure and not taking bribes if your people never knew anything resembling the rule of law. Us Westerners are used to thinking of foreign countries as fellow Westerners doing it wrong, which is not how it works at all.
Okay, that was not quite related to your question, but this is: If you want a libertarian society, you need a libertarian culture. When every 2% tax increase is followed by a riot, you will very probably retain your liberty, no matter what the law or the constitution says. When people don't care about keeping their own income and only want gibs, then no amount of legal safeguards will ensure this doesn't happen.
Your form of government also matters. Democracies will tend to bigger growth, while monarchies are more contended with long-term growth and don't redistribute as much. Hoppe talked about this at length, I guess you know his theories but if not, just ask. However, even under a monarchy, you can end up with redistribution, as it happened under the Incas.
Tl;dr multifactorial analysis that doesn't make for good political slogans, just fucking kill me already.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101045
>>100974
Thanks man that was very interesting.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101099
>>101045
Glad you thought so, fellow anon.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101106
>>100543
>essential public services
What services do you think are essential?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101115
>>101106
Public toilets. I don't know how you ancraps plan to survive without them. Also, if all the roads are privatized, how will I be able to shit on the streets?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101117
>>100550
What OP means is that it's hard to have a business model where workers run a business the same way, for example, that a family runs a family business and shares the profits among themselves. Honestly, this isn't a bad way to run a business, but it's not ideal for everyone so I don't know why you would call yourself a libertarian if you want to force this on others. If anyone wants to share the means of production in ancap, they'll definitely be able to, they'll be able to start their communes or have entire districts in cities in which everyone runs their business this way.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101129
>>100543
>workplace democracy
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101383
>>101115
>how will I be able to shit on the streets?
You can go to India.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101642
>>101115
toilets are gay because other pp has been on them. missed me with that gay shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101649
>>101115
>Also, if all the roads are privatized, how will I be able to shit on the streets?
Feel free to dump a big one over the plebs or the nekoshota sex-slaves as you ride your helicopter
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.101675
>>100549
What do do you mean 'we'?
If it's the US, last time check this isn't the Soviet Union
If anything it's crony capitalism with neoliberal socjus varnish over it
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102327
>>101115
Can anyone answer his questions, please? I'd like to know.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102330
>>102327
If you really want to shit on a street, you can either find a street that allows you to (aka a designated shitting street) or purchase/build your own, where you permit yourself to shit. If you do not have the necessary up-front capital to build a designated shitting street you can go to the bank and try to get them to give you a loan for building a shitting street.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102342
>>102330
>building roads
Umm… sweetie, are you on the right board?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102343
>>100974
>monarchies are more contended with long-term growth and don't redistribute as much
<what is a palace economy
Seriously this meme meeds to die. From Ancien Régime France to ancient egypt, absolute monarchs have always sought to massively redistribute wealth as a means to stay in power.
The only governments which have effectively kept the state from growing are republics where the franchise is restricted to property owners, which makes sense in terms of incentives.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102349
>>102343
Feudal monarchies are generally what is being referenced, not absolute ones. And even absolute monarchies, while less stable than feudal systems, were still head-and-shoulders above their republican counterparts. There was redistribution, but it was consistently less redistribution, both in magnitude and in scope. Comparing tax rates in monarchies (even absolutist ones) to those in republics confirms this.
>republics where the franchise is restricted to property owners, which makes sense in terms of incentives.
The incentives in such a republic are for politicians to expand the franchise in order to grant themselves more power by seeking new voting blocs, which is exactly what happened in the United States. The franchise has constantly expanded as the years went by, until by the turn of the century the last vestige of limited suffrage was removed. And as the franchise grew, the state grew. Even if you could somehow guarantee that the franchise wouldn't grow, why would you assume that this would prevent the federal government from growing? Being a property owner does not preclude you from rent-seeking, nor does it mean you won't use the federal government to redistribute wealth to your own favor.
Further, again using the United States as an example, it's wrong to assert the limited franchise was a curb on state expansion. Barely seven years after the country was founded, it was subject to a massive federal power grab–the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and replaced by the far more centralized Constitution. The Constitution then went on to be interpreted, re-interpreted, and amended to grant the federal government ever-increasing amounts of power. This culminated in the War for Southern Independence, in which state governments attempted to peaceably secede from the Union and self govern. For the daring to defy the supreme power of federal authority, their lands were invaded, burned, and pillaged. In the aftermath, through Reconstruction, the plunderers built an even stronger federal government on the corpse of the Confederacy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102351
>>102343
>reddit strikes again
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102369
>>102349
>Feudal monarchies are generally what is being referenced, not absolute ones.
Most monarchists I've talked to online are of the absolute kind. I have no problem with actual feudalism, it's basically just a multi-generational rights enforcement system.
>There was redistribution, but it was consistently less redistribution, both in magnitude and in scope. Comparing tax rates in monarchies (even absolutist ones) to those in republics confirms this.
Got any examples? Because I can't think of a single one.
<18th century England vs. France
<late medieval Italian city-states vs. western European kingdoms
<ancient Greece vs. Persia
>The incentives in such a republic are for politicians to expand the franchise in order to grant themselves more power by seeking new voting blocs, which is exactly what happened in the United States.
That's the result of liberal principles gaining traction. No such tendencies existed in the republics of the classical world or medieval europe.
Why would the enfranchised vote in favour of the dilution of their own power?
>Being a property owner does not preclude you from rent-seeking
In a free market society, wealth is accumulated by the productive, who are by definition conscientious and generally oppose wealth redistribution.
In a monarchy, the primary goal of the monarch is to preserve his own power. That is best achieved by redistributing from the productive to the rest.
>it's wrong to assert the limited franchise was a curb on state expansion.
I'm not saying it's not degenerate (all states are) , I'm just saying it's better than giving one random cunt all the power and hoping he isn't a Machiavelli.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102372
>>102369
>No such tendencies existed in the republics of the classical world or medieval europe.
What about the Roman republic? Tribunes of the Plebs eventually became predominately "former" patricians, the massive grain redistribution that arose, the consolidation of public and smaller private lands into latifunda, and the gradual debasement of the currency.
>In a free market society, wealth is accumulated by the productive, who are by definition conscientious and generally oppose wealth redistribution.
True, but this was not in reference to property ownership in free markets but in republics.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102376
>>102369
None of your comparisons are between republics and absolute monarchies, so I don't see these as counterpoints. The only possible exception is the Persia/Greece (really just Athens) comparison, which isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. The tax rates of a city-state will look nothing like the tax rates of a vast empire, so saying one or the other is higher means very little.
>No such tendencies existed in the republics of the classical world.
The other guy already mentioned Rome, which is almost a textbook example of a republic starting out limited-franchise, expanding the vote, and then falling prey to populism and redistributionism. The franchise in Athens, for the period that it existed, also expanded over time until all free adult men could vote. Liberal principles or any other ideology has nothing to do with it–the incentives are the same regardless of what royal lie they hide behind. The enfranchised wouldn't dilute their own power, but that doesn't matter, because they aren't the ones who make the decision. Politicians make that decision, and politicians would absolutely expand the franchise if it meant consolidating their own power. They'll give the franchise to some group, along with some gibs, and in exchange they receive votes. This incentive exists, and no ideology will prevent it from existing.
>who are by definition conscientious and generally oppose wealth redistribution.
No, the productive oppose the redistribution of their wealth. They take no issue with redistribution as long as they're on the receiving end. Big business is first in line at the government trough in the US, despite being "productive."
>That is best achieved by redistributing from the productive to the rest.
That's true for all states regardless of organization, and hardly unique to monarchy. But in monarchy, it is in the king's own interest to be less restrictive and less redistributionist, for this benefits his own coffers the most in the long-term. The republican cares not what the treasury looks like in the long-term, because in the long-term somebody else is in office and it becomes somebody else's problem. Instead, he need only care about his present income, not the nation's long-term prospects. To that end he will implement higher tax rates which benefit him in the short-term, despite their damaging effects in the long-term.
>I'm just saying it's better than giving one random cunt all the power and hoping he isn't a Machiavelli.
But it isn't. I'd trust rolling the dice of genetics and upbringing which are biased in favor of better rulers, but we'll assume their 50-50 for the sake of argument over an election, even a limited election, any day of the week. If a "bad" monarch comes into power it's an accident of birth. But the nature of elections are such that they reward those power-hungry pathological liars that can win over an audience, and punish the humble honest man that cannot. In other words, the very process of election actively encourages "bad" rulers to come into power. And the thing about "bad" monarchs is that they aren't nearly as "bad" as "bad" democratic leaders–there is no medieval equivalent to Joseph Stalin.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102466
>>102372
The decay of the Roman republic has more to do with the 2nd punic war and the institutions of slavery and patronship than the limited nature of political participation.
>True, but this was not in reference to property ownership in free markets but in republics.
I don't see what you mean. Free(ish) markets can exist in republics.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102467
>>102376
>None of your comparisons are between republics and absolute monarchies, so I don't see these as counterpoints.
You're being disingenuous. In the 18th century England's landed elite held much more political power than their French counterparts. The Italian city states were mostly noble republics. Most of the members of the Delian league were republics in some form or another.
>The other guy already mentioned Rome, which is almost a textbook example of a republic starting out limited-franchise, expanding the vote, and then falling prey to populism and redistributionism.
That's not what happened. The fall of the roman republic was caused by slave-owning latifundia outcompeting the citizen farmer-soldiers which had been the backbone of the republic.
The redistributionism came later as a means to placate the growing numbers of urban poor displaced by this change.
>Politicians make that decision, and politicians would absolutely expand the franchise if it meant consolidating their own power. They'll give the franchise to some group, along with some gibs, and in exchange they receive votes. This incentive exists, and no ideology will prevent it from existing.
I am not contesting that fact. What I am saying is having one man monopolize all political power results inevitably in him trading privileges and money for support even more egregiously than in a republic where he has to weigh that gain in support with the loss of the support of the people who elected him.
>That's true for all states regardless of organization, and hardly unique to monarchy. But in monarchy, it is in the king's own interest to be less restrictive and less redistributionist, for this benefits his own coffers the most in the long-term. The republican cares not what the treasury looks like in the long-term, because in the long-term somebody else is in office and it becomes somebody else's problem. Instead, he need only care about his present income, not the nation's long-term prospects. To that end he will implement higher tax rates which benefit him in the short-term, despite their damaging effects in the long-term.
The king can't care about his long term prospects if he is challenged by a pretender every five minutes, and in order to avoid that, he will seek total control of every facet of the society through people who are loyal to him first and competent second- which is why transition periods in monarchies are fraught with violence, as the old power blocks of the regime are destroyed or placed under the control of the new monarch. The development of a free market and the protection of the rights of the king's subjects, which are essential to ensure their long term prosperity, are absolutely antithetical to the primary goal of consolidating the king's power. This is what was SEEN in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's the reason why absolutism lasted less in the west than feudalism and about as long as the US has been a republic. These absolute monarchies touted as long-term successes lasted from the mid 16th to the early 19th centuries. They are not more viable than republics, limited or otherwise.
The tendency of republican politicians to think shot-term in order to win votes is obviously bad, but it's not nearly as grave as this. Reelection is a concern for most of them, and favouring one bloc too much attracts the ire of the rest. And people aren't stupid; they want gibs for themselves, yes, but they care about their children too. You're underestimating the power of the current system. It's degenerate, but also resourceful and flexible, which is why it's survived this long. It's wishful thinking to pretend our enemy is so weak and stupid that a method of political organisation that's been dead for over a century is better than it.
>the nature of elections are such that they reward those power-hungry pathological liars that can win over an audience, and punish the humble honest man that cannot. In other words, the very process of election actively encourages "bad" rulers to come into power.
Being taught from the moment you are born that God Himself has chosen you to have absolute power over an entire nation; don't you see how that might cause reliably pathological kings to come into power too? And charisma and ambition aren't synonymous with a pathology anyways.
>And the thing about "bad" monarchs is that they aren't nearly as "bad" as "bad" democratic leaders–there is no medieval equivalent to Joseph Stalin.
Leaving aside the fact that Stalin was never elected into power, that statement is just historically ignorant. What about Ivan the Terrible or Andronikos Komnenos? And what about the "good" rulers like Basil the Bulgar-Slayer, or Charles V of Spain? At best they were murderous bastards who legitimised their rule by attacking out-groups and cementing the privileges of incompetent aristocrats. Machiavelli was right, a good prince is an evil man by necessity.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102481
>>101675
thats why every minority must be eliminated for true communism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102482
>>102376
voting is gay and I bet that faggot votes instead of shitting in the booth like a rational person would do.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102486
>>102482
I can't even tell if you're being ironic
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102504
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102527
>>102466
>Why would the enfranchised vote in favour of the dilution of their own power?
For temporary gain. The populares gained power because they offered land reform and the expansion of the dole. The Gracchi drafted laws that diluting the voting power of romans by expanding citizenship to other Italian provinces.
>The decay of the Roman republic has more to do with the 2nd punic war and the institutions of slavery and patronship than the limited nature of political participation.
Slavery was indeed a factor, but the acquisition of public land by senators (and the fact it was tax free) allowed them to out-compete smaller landowners through economies of scale.
>Free(ish) markets can exist in republics.
Examples?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102602
>>100551
Authoritarian institutions are more effective at production than free ones are. That doesn't make them "better." Functioning well in a market does not justify hierarchical structures.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102607
>>100549
Fuck, I don't want to get into management, and I don't want to have to worry about quarterly profits. Just give me my paycheck and let the MBA worry about the business side of shit.
As a worker, I DON'T WANT to organize my production. I've got enough to worry about as it is. I've got to track the spec, log all my equipment and make sure it's in calibration, document every-fucking-thing, tell the client any time data steps out of tolerance of a nanosecond, get approval for deviations….
No; let somebody else worry about that other shit. My plate is full and I'm too busy trying to handle toxic chemicals and explosives to pay attention to anything else. And no; I can't subdivide that job. The guy who finds the problem is the only one who understands it clearly enough to document it, and the guy who reads the spec is the only one who understands it well enough to follow it. Fuck that Marxist shit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102610
>>102602
okay you are free not to work in hierarchical company
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102613
>>102602
>Authoritarian
Nobody's forcing you to work there.
>but muh basic needs!
Nobody is forcing you to work ""there"". You can participate in the market in any way and to any degree you want. It is non-authoritarian by definition.
>but muh boss forces me to do stuff!
No. He's specifying the conditions under which he is willing to trade his capital for your labour. You can take the deal or leave it.
What's your non-authoritarian alternative? You say what you wanna do and Mr. Boss is forced to pay you for it no matter what?
>but muh hierarchy!
Hierarchy is a function of the way humans operate. Saying you want the "end of hierarchy" is saying you want the end of people valuing some things and people more than others.
>>102527
>For temporary gain.
The gain in this situation is of the politicians, not the electorate.
>The Gracchi drafted laws that diluting the voting power of romans by expanding citizenship to other Italian provinces.
That was going to happen one way or another. I'm not arguing that all restrictions on the franchise are good.
>Slavery was indeed a factor, but the acquisition of public land by senators (and the fact it was tax free) allowed them to out-compete smaller landowners through economies of scale.
Slavery gave the Senators the manpower they needed to outcompete the smallholders, I'd say it was a major factor. But either way, this is beside the point.
The Republic lasted 500 years, and when it fell apart, it did so basically because of statist land controls which were abused by an aristocratic class.
In what way is having a monarch going to alleviate any of that?
<Free(ish) markets can exist in republics.
>Examples?
Oh I don't know how about virtually every other country there is? Really, what monarchy has ever been more free than say the early 19th century US?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102615
>>102613
where'd my flag go
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102619
>>102467
>You're being disingenuous
How? France/England is a constitutional-feudal monarchy versus an absolute one. For Italian city-states, see what I said before about comparing city-states to large empires. Regardless of political makeup, a city-state will tend to have lower taxes and less restrictive government than a larger power, as in such a small locale the negative effects of wealth redistribution are felt much sooner. Apples-and-oranges comparison.
>The king can't care about his long term prospects if he is challenged by a pretender every five minutes
That's a very big declaration you're making out of the blue. Why would he be challenged by a pretender every five minutes? People only revolt if they're unhappy. Even if they're being ruled over by a "tyrant," as long as they're getting food and entertainment they have no inclination to support a revolt or a coup d'etat. There are no pretenders to challenge the king if he keeps the people content, which he does through low tax rates and allowing autonomy.
>Reelection is a concern for most of them
Re-election changes nothing. They still think no further in the future than the next election, as a great success three elections from now means nothing if you don't win the next one. If anything, re-election only encourages more rent-seeking by allowing politicians to create a problem in their first term, blame that problem on something else, and campaign to fix it in the next term. We see this all the time with regulation. Some pencil-pushers enacts a regulation or a price control or what have you, it fails as all such things do, and he successfully campaigns by blaming these failures on not enough regulation.
>which is why it's survived this long.
It's survived barely a hundred years. That's nothing. It also doesn't follow that the current system is more successful than the old by virtue of it being newer, especially when one considers the absolute shitshow that was the 20th century.
>Being taught from the moment you are born that God Himself has chosen you to have absolute power over an entire nation; don't you see how that might cause reliably pathological kings to come into power too?
No, that's actually a form of positive selection, not negative. I'd much rather trust a narcissist to power than a sociopath; one who places his own abilities in high regard will take it upon himself to "fix" problems rather than manipulate them to his own benefit. Further, one who is born into power will never covet power, for he already has it. Any sort of cognatic succession, whether the selector be "the people" or the current ruler, promotes the rise of sycophants, whereas birth does not. And unlike a chosen successor, the born successor is taught his entire life how to properly wield his power.
>Leaving aside the fact that Stalin was never elected into power
Stalin and the Bolsheviks rode a wave of popular appeal and demagoguery into power; he was more democratic than democracies, as democracies are soft forms of communism. Ivan IV's rule saw a vast number of domestic reforms and allowed much of his realm relative autonomy; the absolute worst that can be said of him is that he expanded his empire. Andronikos implemented harsher laws but didn't kill scores of his own people the way Stalin did–by a far greater margin than what the difference in technology would allow. The worst absolute monarchs have shown themselves to be not much worse than the best republicans. Machiavelli's work should be interpreted as a parody of the mirrors for princes genre and not as a serious work.
>>102613
>Really, what monarchy has ever been more free than say the early 19th century US?
If late Imperial Russia was around today, it would have been in the top 20 of the Economic Freedom Index. Before the Bolshevik scum took over, it had phenomenally low tax rates, and for 18 of the 25 years preceding WWI it was the fastest growing economy in the world. By the time WWI began it had overtaken France as the 4th largest industrial producer. Economists were predicting that Russia would be the economic capital of the world by 1950. Austria-Hungary wasn't quite on this level, but it had phenomenally low tax rates, and the different nations within it enjoyed a great deal of autonomy in the way they were governed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102629
>>102613
> not the electorate
The electorate gains by land reform and the expansion of the dole.
> That was going to happen one way or another
But you mentioned earlier that the enfranchised will not vote for the dilution of their power. So what is it?
> Slavery gave the Senators the manpower they needed to outcompete the smallholders
Slavery is an inefficient system because slaves lack the monetary incentives of free labor. Economies of scale, bid rigging, and tax breaks are the contributing factors to land consolidation.
> In what way is having a monarch going to alleviate any of that?
Probably nothing, but I am also against monarchy.
> every other country there is?
Every country of which I know has large encompassing regulatory bureaucracies, high taxes, tariffs, and subsidy/quota programs.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102633
The problem with minarchists is that they typically want to keep a legal system to enforce property rights. The "objective" third party enforcing property rights is exactly what leads to all the problems we have today though, because it's never actually objective.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102646
>>102613
>Nobody's forcing you to work there.
<what are Monopsonies and Natural Monopolies?
>but muh basic needs!
<what is determinism and the free will impossibility?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102755
The only argument against it is that the direct action of the wingnuts, rather than capitalism in either form, is what provides essential goods and services, such as gardens and trails.
-hippityhoppitythereisnopropertygang
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102761
>>102646
>what are Monopsonies and Natural Monopolies?
Unproven hypothetical scenarios used to justify government interventionism and irrelevant to the discussion unless you're literally glued to a spot in the ground.
>what is determinism and the free will impossibility?
Also irrelevant to the discussion.
>>102629
>The electorate gains by land reform and the expansion of the dole.
>But you mentioned earlier that the enfranchised will not vote for the dilution of their power. So what is it?
You answered your own question. The electorate voted for land reform and the grain dole, not the expansion of the franchise.
In fact, the younger Gracchus got murdered by a rabid mob (the electorate) when he expanded the franchise.
The electorate fought to keep the franchise limited. You can't get elected by an electorate that can't vote.
>Slavery is an inefficient system because slaves lack the monetary incentives of free labor.
Tell that to the millionaire plantation owners of the antebellum south. Slavery is inefficient overall, but very profitable to the slaveowners.
I mean why do you think it existed for so bloody long as an institution?
>Probably nothing, but I am also against monarchy.
I said
<The only governments which have effectively kept the state from growing are republics where the franchise is restricted to property owners, which makes sense in terms of incentives.
<I'm not saying it's not degenerate (all states are) , I'm just saying it's better than giving one random cunt all the power and hoping he isn't a Machiavelli.
I would rather have no state at all, but out of all the states that have existed in history, I believe the ones where the enforcers of rights (the citizen-soldiers) aren't beholden to the sensibilities of "compassionate" limp-dick urbanites have proven to provide the most freedom for the largest number of people and for the longest periods of time.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102763
>>102761
>have proven to provide
have provided
I'm too tired for this shit
>>102619
Let me tell you where I'm coming from so we can stop talking about minutiae and look at the bigger picture.
I believe the defining characteristic which determines how free a society is has nothing to do with voting itself, but rather with the relationship between producers and consumers of a single good:
Rights enforcement.
The monopolisation of the production of this good, most commonly done by the state, will inevitably result in tyranny. The larger the state (both in physical terms such as land or population, and in terms of the presence of statist thinking in the minds of the members of the society), the more complete its monopoly and the faster the tyranny will progress. Therefore, in choosing which kind of state is the least predisposed to tyranny, I ask myself two questions:
1) Does the structure of belief which allows the state to justify its own existence lead to totalitarian modes of thinking?
2) Is the production of rights enforcement solely the purview of the state in this society?
The first question is fundamentally about ideology; the second is fundamentally about economics. Since I am not a Marxist and therefore not retarded, I know that economics follows from belief and physical circumstance. Since we cannot control the physical circumstances of the world, it is safe to ignore them for the purposes of this discussion. We can therefore pare down these two questions down into a more fundamental one:
Who do the people believe produces the enforcement of rights?
In a citizen-soldier republic the people believe they are the producers of their own rights, and the state is relegated to the position of a coordinator.
The popular militia, in this framework, is the single greatest agent for freedom that can exist in a state since it not only decentralizes the production of rights enforcement but also by necessity creates in the minds of the people the spirit of independence from the government. The ideals of the citizen soldier, however, are opposed by those held by the consumers of the rights enforcement the citizens themselves produce. These are the serfs and their masters, or in modern terms the socialists and the politicians, who are fundamentally ruled by despondency and lust for power, respectively. They believe rights emerge from the state itself, as they are either ignorant, brainwashed or too fearful to become fully responsible for their own freedom. The fatal flaw of the citizen republic is that it makes rights so abundant that it allows these parasitic classes, which consume rights while producing bugger all, to emerge and prosper. Vountaryism fundamentally prevents this dynamic from emerging because it posits that you are not entitled to the products of anyone's labour, and that includes rights enforcement. But in a staist society, where the redistribution of this good is a given, the only way to temporarily halt the descent into parasitism and tyranny is to deny the parasite classes the right to vote, or more fundamentally, to explicitly call them out as second class non-citizens.
Yes, I am unironically advocating for starship troopers.
In an absolute monarchy, however, there is no room for such a mentality to emerge, since rights enforcement is by necessity placed in the hands of a monarch from whom all good things emerge. The monarch taxes the serfs and then pays for their protection by purchasing a mercenary army. The monarch may sometimes chose policies which lead to the expansion of the economic freedom of the serfs in order to make them more productive, but never at the cost of the taxes required for the production of centralized rights enforcement, and he will never expand their political freedom, since doing so weakens his position leaving him vulnerable to rebellion. And the serfs will rebel; the reason why monarchy died is because they realised they were getting a lousy deal, as ultimately they themselves were the ones producing the rights enforcement they were paying for through conscription into the army, which becomes necessary once inter-state conflict makes mercenaries obsolete.
This is distinct from feudalism, where I do not believe one actually can say there is a state, but rather an explicit relationship between producers and consumers of rights enforcement.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102792
> The electorate voted for land reform and the grain dole, not the expansion of the franchise.
The electorate essentially voted for both by voting for the officials that did both.
> the younger Gracchus got murdered by a rabid mob (the electorate)
He committed suicide, and he was not chased by a mob but by Opimius’ men.
> Slavery is inefficient overall, but very profitable to the slaveowners.
Plantations were profitable (not really that profitable in antebellum South since Washington and Jefferson had to rely on rents to sustain their income) due to legislation favoring slavery. It was the large land grants from the state that made them profitable, not slaves. Tobacco crops required large landholdings to counteract nutrient depreciation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102793
>>102792
I forgot your (You): >>102792
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
No.102794
>>102792
I forgot your (You): >>102761
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.