http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa594.pdf This is a well-explained case against democracy and general economic-ignorance that I think everyone should read. Democratic fundamentalism and anti-market bias, are things that plague too many people, and this is a handy guide to destroy their line of thinking.
OP, if I remember right, your answer to a democracy was a constitutional monarchy. So do you believe in divine right and monarchy based on family lineage, or do you propose these same irrational voters pass an election to vote in their monarch?
This is completely off topic, and is a desperate attempt at a 'gotchea' question, but whatever I'll bite. You should throw away your preconceived notions of divine-roght, and feudalism (as I recall, didn't Japan abolish feudalism once it's monarch took hold of power?) all I argue'd was the flaws of democratically elected rulers in that they have no incentive to really made a sustainable society due to having a limited time of having power. While a long-term ruler would have an incentive keep things run right, kinda like how a CEO has more of a incentive to keep his business running smoothly compared to a short-term elected government official. But that all only applies to systems with a state, Privatize everything I say! From rights enforcements, to law arbitration, and to the very air you breath till only big nosed royal businessmen will have a monopoly on air berthing.
No "gotcha" question, just a legitimate inquiry that is entirely ON TOPIC. Your post attacked democracy, the system of election, and the intelligence of the average voter. I wanted to see what alterative you had, and I recall your love for kings and queens (which have nothing to do directly with feudalism). You still dodged my question though. You barely covered divine right, and didn't answer exactly how your monarch would come to power and stay in power, and how succession would play out upon the monarch's death or removal from the "throne." So, perhaps this time you could answer the question instead of just sharing your silly views on privatizing the atmosphere. :lol:
The system of organization and succession would be very similar to Samsung, Toyota, Ford, and Wal-mart, they're business that family run, i.e succession is hereditary, not due to some divine right, but rather due to efficiency. Usually son's of the head of those businesses spend their education and adult life preparing for the rule as the leader, with a heavy vested interest in making sure things are ran accordingly. I'm saying that governments would be better off being ran as such businesses. But at the end of the day services such as law enforcement and arbitration would be better provided more fair and efficient on the market.
Oh you are one of those "government should be run like a business" people. Better to have the government run people's lives without their consent and without representation. We pretty much already have this and it's failing. I can't wait to entrust my freedoms, rights, and receive protection from the Walton family. I think at this point there is only one thing left to do here forty.
Actually if government services were provided more like a business you would exactly have it with people's consent and representation, as that's the only way one can receive business. This is really getting pathetic now, you've lost this debate and you know it, that's why have have no more arguments to offer and now are resorting to lame dismissal posts. Run off little child and have fun being empirically wrong about everything.
Lost the debate, there is no debate to be had. You call for monarchy/corporatocracy and claim citizens will be represented. And then have the audacity to toss in a few ad hominems to boot. Classy debating..lol. In all seriousness, you clearly don't see the flaws in government already being played like a puppet by corporate America. Combine that with the long nasty history of abuse of power by monarchies throughout the world, which you've clearly forgotten, and we are left with an pretty irrational approach to running this country. Good luck finding another blade on here that wants to return to the days of hereditary monarchies with corporate tendencies. A society of Wal-mart employees that owe allegiance to a single man and his family....just sounds fantastic.
Historically monarchies have been proven to be more stable compared to their democratic counterparts, and all attempts to rove them and take their place need up being complete failiures if you look at the Reign of Terror, Oliver Cromwell and his slaughters, Brazil after Pedro II, Russia after the Revolution, and not to mention that the 20th century is considered the bloodiest. The fact the you conflate private law (i.e anarcho-capitalism) with corporatocracy shows you know fuck all about economics, if you would like an accurate description on how law would work privately look no further http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html . Honestly man, you have done zero research into this topic and just regurgitate generic anti-market rhetoric, and you'll just respond to this with the same smug rhetoric "huuurrrr duuurrr da corporations and medieval rulers durrrrrr hurrrrr".
Historically, monarchies have been most stable because the vast majority of the people under each monarchy haven't been much more educated than the livestock they depended upon. History happens to be my profession, so spare me the history lessons. To return to a time of subservience to a monarch, especially an hereditary one is asinine to say the least. No thinking person is going to go for that. While economics isn't my forte, I'm far from knowing "fuck all" about it. Of course I would love to hear how you are going to keep an hereditary monarch from turning this business like government he runs into part of the greater corporatocracy we already have, or better yet how such a monarch will disengage the tentacles of said corporatocracy from the strings that already play our government like a puppet. This radical pipedream of yours has some flaws. My rhetoric has been far less anti-market than you make it appear. The real ridiculousness of your philosophies is returning to an hereditary monarchy. I speak with anarcho-capitalists on here all the time and have for many years. You aren't breaking any new ground in that department with me, I've been there, done that. Now the monarch shit is what makes me facepalm like a motherfucker.
Sorry, but even now people are still not educated enough, they may not be focusing their energies on livestock anymore, but they're still as distracted with their lives as before, and the masses will never be enlightened enough to enact rational policy. So far all of your appeals to being the expert is nothing but an egg on your face, and it another pathetic way to dismiss any argument against you, Just look at Hitler's rise after end of monarchy in Germany and Austria, or the warlord period and the bloody communist rule after it in China, or the fall of the Shah that led to Islamist terror in Iran, I would say history is not on your side. In fact, an analysis in history really goes to show the folly of progressive ideas given the cyclical nature of a republic from enthusiastic idealistic people in the beginning, to later down the road, the people become apathetic and swayed by smooth talkers and give control to them instead of participating in the system themselves. I would like to point out that you have not once dressed anything about the article that I've originally posted which doesn't even go into detail on monarchism, goes to show that you are not interested in a real discussion, only "gotchea monarchy, questions".
Ok, so since you won't give up on this idea that I'm out to get you and that I'm avoiding your original topic, lets get back to square one and address a few things....no hard feelings. Unless you want to create a thread that is nothing more than a circle jerk for democracy and average voter hating, you must address and or discuss your alternatives. Which I, of course, attempted to get you to do from my first post. I do hope you are willing to do this, otherwise this thread is rather limited and will quickly become boring. Secondly, we must be willing to discuss the possibility that the reason our society is so ignorant about politics/economics, etc.. is because of a larger failure upon society that has little to do with the philosophy of democracy. Thirdly, you must be willing to at least acknowledge that your opinion of democracy is just that....an opinion. The US currently is not operating under any form of democracy. The people vote, but they are not represented. We are a pseudo republic. Democracy in its purest form has never been implemented in human history, therefore to demonize the philosophy outright as malevolent is illogical. Likewise, we must address the fact, and for me to acknowledge (which I do) that a true free market has never been implemented. Painting it as the absolute savior or absolute corruptor of the economic situation within a society is illogical. Basically, fanatic viewpoints from either of us leads to unintelligent discourse and anger. Finally, and this is not a "gotcha question" but a legitimate question that stems from previous comments made by yourself: If you prefer a stateless society (which I do too, at least philosophically) then why would you ever make a call for one of the most absolute forms of statism?