Monarchy and the "general solution"

[Hygro]

TF stop being so reasonable.

 

[KevinLancaster]

Brits are only one who were able to use "democracy" without significant degradation.

Are you sure about that? What do you think of the modern British government, and the dissolution of the Empire? External forces?

Also, since I remember you brought up this topic in a thread about the situation in Iraq, what are your thoughts about the time the British actually installed a monarchy in the country? It would be interesting to me to see how you would compare it to Jordan, the other nation the Brits decided to do this in and arguably the more successful one.

EDIT: It also isn't dependent on exporting oil for external support, it seems, which makes it an even more ideal candidate for discussion within the framework you have created.

 

[Tahuti]

I think you're coming close to the same mistake that Kaiserguard makes, assuming the causal relationship suits you: that the nature of a country's political regime is responsible for its prosperity or its lack of prosperity, rather than the country's prosperity being responsible for the nature of the political regime.

Well, I'm actually rather cautious. I think the signs are unmistakenble, though it shouldn't be interpreted as a be-end end-all acceptation.

The ultimate burden that all of these countries suffer is the legacy of colonialism, to which neither monarchy nor democracy, socialism nor capitalism offer any magical solution.

I think the problem was opposite: It tried so hard to shed colonialism it erased all good things that happened to be introduced by the colonisers. At least, from our perspective that is.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, to be fair, Prussians, Austrian and French also had to eat this medicine. Brits are only one who were able to use "democracy" without significant degradation.

The British monarchs have developed a reluctant tolerant for parliamentary government because the one time they seriously tried to obstruct it the republican blades went snicker-snack and they spent a decade moping in France. And even then, they come very close to fouling it up on at least three subsequent occasions. It's survival instinct and good luck that's allowed them to survive this long.

Well, I'm actually rather cautious. I think the signs are unmistakenble, though it shouldn't be interpreted as a be-end end-all acceptation.

Unmistakable, but consistently mistaken by everyone except yourself and Snorrius. What's going on there, do you think?

I think the problem was opposite: It tried so hard to shed colonialism it erased all good things that happened to be introduced by the colonisers. At least, from our perspective that is.

I don't know what "all the goods things" means, in this context, or how these countries are alleged to have shed them.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Using Lewis Carroll to describe Charles I is a-snack-ronistic.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am sincerely pleased that somebody understood that.

 

[jackelgull]

The best colonialism did was inspire near fanatical nationalism in the conquered regions stemming from their hatred of the oppressor. Some divisions were too great to overcome, like the Muslim/ Hindu division in the Indian subcontinent, but there is no nationality known as an Indian before British imperialism, there were Tamils, there were Gujrats etc... but they were distinct ethnic groups and kingdoms.
British imperialism united them, and these groups stressed a common Indian identity because they might have hated each other, but they hated Britain more.
After British imperialism though, this alliance didn't last, and when India was formed, many independent kingdoms, like Hyderabad, refused to recognize Indian sovereignty. The Indian government had to launch military campaigns, and then administer these regions as near autonomous states. Even then this didn't solve the problem, and India has one of the highest rates of domestic terrorism in the world, I think it is third.
And I think the modernization argument is invalid, because if Japan proves anything, it is that these countries were capable of modernizing on their own had they had more stable and competent governments leading the way.

 

[amadeus]

I also suspect monarchies will be more inclined to protect property rights than "democracies".

A monarchy is more compatible with property rights than a democracy.

I think Hans Hermann-Hoppe (libertarian) wrote about this in his book Democracy: The God That Failed. I haven't read the book, however.

I think you're coming close to the same mistake that Kaiserguard makes, assuming the causal relationship suits you: that the nature of a country's political regime is responsible for its prosperity or its lack of prosperity, rather than the country's prosperity being responsible for the nature of the political regime. Are these places dumps because they were socialist ("socialist"), or did they give socialism a go because capitalism didn't seem to be doing much for them?

I think capitalism could have done plenty for them, but as you mention:

The ultimate burden that all of these countries suffer is the legacy of colonialism ....

 

[kochman]

The problem
So I've decided to look for an evidence and checked the "Human Development Index": a good chart which takes in account not only economy but also life expectancy, education and other important statistics. Let's check who is on Top Ten.

Norway - monarchy
Australia - monarchy
Switzerland - rare confederacy
Netherlands - monarchy
United States - thalassocracy
Germany - "democracy" (follows the "general solution")
New Zealand - monarchy
Canada - monarchy
Singapore - benevolent hereditary authocracy
Denmark - monarchy

Calling these states a monarchy is a bit silly.
The monarchy is just a festering welfare case in most of those places... with little to no real power.
To call the US a thalassocracy is also silly.
All of those, other than Singapore, which is essentially a city, are democratic/republic variants.

If you're going to make a case, please be serious.

Anyway, I get the point... why are there so many bad "democracies".
Well, assuming they actually had fair elections, the reason generally falls to, per education of the voter on the issue at hand, Condorcet's Jury Theorem.

The assumptions of the simplest version of the theorem are that a group wishes to reach a decision by majority vote. One of the two outcomes of the vote is correct, and each voter has an independent probability p of voting for the correct decision. The theorem asks how many voters we should include in the group. The result depends on whether p is greater than or less than 1/2:

If p is greater than 1/2 (each voter is more likely to vote correctly), then adding more voters increases the probability that the majority decision is correct. In the limit, the probability that the majority votes correctly approaches 1 as the number of voters increases.
On the other hand, if p is less than 1/2 (each voter is more likely than not to vote incorrectly), then adding more voters makes things worse: the optimal jury consists of a single voter.

 

[Snorrius]

These days it is easy to find numerous books explaining why democracy is good in general. Additionally many others explain why numerous countries which tried to put it in action failed in practice.

There two main objections: first funny and second misdirected.

Funny one was that my reasoning is incorrect because USA is not thalassocracy. Well, USA is thalassocracy but whether this is true or not is actually irrelevant (though I may touch this subject in future). What really matters is that USA quite far from "general solution". For example, USA has a complicated election system called "Electorate college". The other example is that votes in USA can be of different weight. Vote of Alaskian equals three votes of Californian. This is very unique system and if a young nation would try to implement something like this today it probably would be heavily critisized for inequality and non-democraticness.

The second one was the false propositon that monarchies at the top are not monarchies. This is nonsence which stems from false presupposition that monarch is a guy (or girl) which have absolute power and can do whatever he or she wants. It is a misbelief similar to "strawberry is a berry". Monarchies vary from absolute to constitutional and even former ones should not be confused with tyrannies.

The other way to put it is that using Human Development Index we made an observation about relative superiority of monarchies comparing to "democracies" in procuring of prosperity to nation but we not yet established which properties of monarchy give such boost and how much real power of monarch among others contributes. Kaiserguard put forward a good hypothesis, I will share my thoughts a little later.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Anyway, I get the point... why are there so many bad "democracies".
Well, assuming they actually had fair elections, the reason generally falls to, per education of the voter on the issue at hand, Condorcet's Jury Theorem.

Democracies fail due to the participants failing to realize that even when they are in the majority it is possible for them to also be in a minority. For democracy to work all participants must be constantly reminded that the majority is expected to determine what is best for all, not what is best for the majority. In places with no prior experience this is difficult to get into action so democracy generally leads to 'we're the majority, let's make it legal to unmercifully beat the minority'. In places with too much prior experience the participants just forget.

 

[Traitorfish]

The other way to put it is that using Human Development Index we made an observation about relative superiority of monarchies comparing to "democracies" in procuring of prosperity to nation but we not yet established which properties of monarchy give such boost and how much real power of monarch among others contributes.

You haven't proven that monarchy is a relevant consideration. You haven't even defined "monarchy". This entire thread is a joke.

 

[Snorrius]

You haven't proven that monarchy is a relevant consideration. You haven't even defined "monarchy".

Judging from HDI it seems being defined by Wikipedia as monarchy does the trick. Seriously, check dictionary or something. This is not a rare word like "thalassocracy".

 

[Traitorfish]

An Economic Fable, by Traitorfish.

There was a little town called Colour Town. Mr. Blue was the richest man in Colour Town, while Mr. Yellow as the poorest man in Colour Town.

Mr. Blue had a peculiar habit of burning the content of his wallet every evening. Mr. Yellow did not have this habit, but rather preserved the contents of his wallet.

Most people would say that Mr. Yellow was wiser in this regard than Mr. Blue, yet it was Mr. Blue who was rich and Mr. Yellow who was poor.

And it is obvious, children, that if two things should coincide, that Mr. Blue burns his money and that Mr. Blue is rich, there must be a causal relationship between the two, and further, that the causal relation should be identical to the arbitrary grammatical ordering of my description. Because I said "Mr. Blue burns his money" and then I subsequently said "Mr. Blue is rich", it must be the case that Mr. Blue is rich because he burns his money. If Mr. Yellow wishes to become rich, he should burn his money too!

Now, you might ask, perhaps Mr. Blue is able to burn his money to no ill-effect because he is rich? That perhaps if he did not burn his money, he would be richer? And you may wonder if Mr. Yellow burned his money, might he not simply find himself poorer still, because there is no clear mechanism by which burning money produces more money?

But that is only because you are foolish Anglo-Saxon materialists who do not know any better.

The End.

 

[Snorrius]

An Economic Fable, by Traitorfish.

There was a little town called Colour Town. Mr. Blue was the richest man in Colour Town, while Mr. Yellow as the poorest man in Colour Town.

Mr. Blue had a peculiar habit of burning the content of his wallet every evening. Mr. Yellow did not have this habit, but rather preserved the contents of his wallet.

Most people would say that Mr. Yellow was wiser in this regard than Mr. Blue, yet it was Mr. Blue who was rich and Mr. Yellow who was poor.

The secret of Colour Town is simple though not much known. Mr. Blue is a treasury keeper. Nobody in Colour Town sure what "treasure keeper" does as well what "treasury" supposed to be, and Mr. Blue is saying it is just a ritual position, a tribute to the glorious past of the city. Whether it is true or not, every day he goes down to ancient dungeon (of which he have a key inherited from father) where very old machines print Colour Town's money. Then he counts how much machines have printed and using a secret formula calculates how much he needs to spend, how much to donate and how much to burn.

 

[kochman]

Well, USA is thalassocracy but whether this is true or not is actually irrelevant (though I may touch this subject in future).

Quite clearly incorrect.
Greece is, maybe, even that is questionable.

What really matters is that USA quite far from "general solution". For example, USA has a complicated election system called "Electorate college". The other example is that votes in USA can be of different weight. Vote of Alaskian equals three votes of Californian. This is very unique system and if a young nation would try to implement something like this today it probably would be heavily critisized for inequality and non-democraticness.

It's a democratic republic. True democracy would be a referrendum on every issue, unworkable for a nation so large.

The second one was the false propositon that monarchies at the top are not monarchies. This is nonsence which stems from false presupposition that monarch is a guy (or girl) which have absolute power and can do whatever he or she wants. It is a misbelief similar to "strawberry is a berry". Monarchies vary from absolute to constitutional and even latter ones should not be confused with tyrannies.

No, I didn't say it has to be an absolute monarchy.
Those monarchies are almost all ceremonial, powerless positions.

This thread is a joke.

 

[Algeroth]

Funny one was that my reasoning is incorrect because USA is not thalassocracy. Well, USA is thalassocracy but whether this is true or not is actually irrelevant (though I may touch this subject in future).

You understood that wrong. The objection isn't if USA are thalassocracy or not, but that using thalassocracy in the same categorization as democracy or monarchy shows that your "analysis" is an incoherent mess without rhyme or reason, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

An Economic Fable, by Traitorfish. *snip*

Ech, you should go with the Twilight of Idols, these people luvs him. It's probably the mustache. Or syphilis.

There is no more insidious error than mistaking the effect for the cause: I call it the real corruption of reason. Yet this error is one of the most unchanging habits of mankind: we even worship it under the name of "religion" or "morality." Every single principle from religion or morality contains it; priests and moral legislators are the originators of this corruption of reason. Here is an example. Everybody knows Cornaro's famous book in which he recommends a meager diet for a long and happy life — a virtuous life, too. Few books have been read so widely; even now thousands of copies are sold in England every year. I do not doubt that scarcely any book (except the Bible) has done as much harm, has shortened as many lives, as this well intentioned oddity. Why? Because Cornaro mistakes the effect for the cause. The worthy Italian thought his diet was the cause of his long life, whereas the precondition for a long life, the extraordinary slowness of his metabolism, was the cause of his slender diet. He was not free to eat little or much; his frugality was not a matter of "free will" — he made himself sick when he ate more. But whoever has a rapid metabolism not only does well to eat properly, but needs to. A scholar in our time, with his rapid consumption of nervous energy, would simply destroy himself on Cornaro's diet. Crede experto — believe me, I've tried.

 

[Snorrius]

QNo, I didn't say it has to be an absolute monarchy.
Those monarchies are almost all ceremonial, powerless positions.

Probably you do not understand what I am writing. Surely, it is my fail as English is not my native language. Here is what I wrote:

The other way to put it is that using Human Development Index we made an observation about relative superiority of monarchies comparing to "democracies" in procuring of prosperity to nation but we not yet established which properties of monarchy give such boost and how much real power of monarch among others contributes.

It meant it may be not solely power of monarch which gives monarchy a boost. There might be other properties. One of them was outlined by Kaiserguard.

 

[kochman]

The only potential boost I can see is once having had a unified government system when other places were still weaker... a history benefit...

 

[warpus]

If the OP knew enough about European history, he would understand why so many "monarchies" are at the top of his list.

It has nothing to do with democracy.