Time to read morefareSeptember 27 2010, 20:12:11 UTC
I'd level the same criticism at libertarians.
Except that libertarians DO possess epistemological tools to think about choice between alternate opportunities - praxeology.
Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.
It is certainly implausible for Ancien Régime kings the kind we had just before Democracy overtook the world to fight those wars. Those kings regarded people as assets, not liabilities.
Good to choose the period of relative peace immediately after the Hundred Years' War.
To consider the contribution of Democracy, we should compare it to a different continuation of what was just before it. If you want to transpose Democracy to barbaric times, then see how it applies to those times, but don't play double standards by comparing Kings amongst XIXth century BC barbarians to Democracies amongst the XIXth AD civilized.
My statement about libertarian class politics striking me as really bizarre was evidently an understatement.
Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." - Isaac Asimov
Re: Time to read morel33tminionSeptember 27 2010, 21:40:34 UTC
It is certainly implausible for Ancien Régime kings the kind we had just before Democracy overtook the world to fight those wars.
Okay, I thought you were making a point about democracy and monarchy in general, not the Ancien Régime in particular. My point isn't that autocrats can never be benevolent, nor that democracy can never go wrong.
I still think that the historical change in whether people are viewed by "the Establishment" as an asset has more to do with technological change and population growth than any particular political idea.
Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.
Not every instance of someone else's beliefs seeming odd is cognitive dissonance.
Assets and Secure rightsfareSeptember 30 2010, 03:32:17 UTC
Stop "thinking" without an argument. Whether people are viewed as an asset is directly linked to one and only one thing: whether the (property) of the owner/ruler is stable or not. Where no property right is recognized (conquest underway), then the life of the conquered is worth shit. Where long-term property rights exist across generations without death tax, dynasties invest for centuries ahead (as was common under the Ancien Regime). Regimes based on recent usurpation by mere brute force are most oppressive. Old monarchies based on ancient usurpation are least oppressive. Democracies as such ensure a permanent usurpation with no possible long-term prospects, and are thus extremely destructive; this destruction is often limited by the power being actually held by a non-democratic establishment, but this establishment being insecure in its rights will be particularly ruthless. Western countries additionally have strong traditions of liberty countering democracy, but these traditions are eroding.
When under the influence of leftist scumbag do-gooders the Queen of Spain, with the intention to "protect" her subjects the (american) indians forbids the conquistadores from enslaving them, yet doesn't pay anticonquistadores to defend them (that she can't afford anyway), then she actually artificially lowers the value of the life of indians in the eyes of their masters, and leads to a vast destruction of her "protected" subjects.
Except that libertarians DO possess epistemological tools to think about choice between alternate opportunities - praxeology.
Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.
It is certainly implausible for Ancien Régime kings the kind we had
just before Democracy overtook the world to fight those wars.
Those kings regarded people as assets, not liabilities.
Good to choose the period of relative peace immediately after the Hundred Years' War.
To consider the contribution of Democracy,
we should compare it to a different continuation of what was just before it.
If you want to transpose Democracy to barbaric times,
then see how it applies to those times,
but don't play double standards by comparing
Kings amongst XIXth century BC barbarians
to Democracies amongst the XIXth AD civilized.
My statement about libertarian class politics striking me as really bizarre was evidently an understatement.
Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
- Isaac Asimov
Reply
Okay, I thought you were making a point about democracy and monarchy in general, not the Ancien Régime in particular. My point isn't that autocrats can never be benevolent, nor that democracy can never go wrong.
I still think that the historical change in whether people are viewed by "the Establishment" as an asset has more to do with technological change and population growth than any particular political idea.
Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.
Not every instance of someone else's beliefs seeming odd is cognitive dissonance.
Reply
When under the influence of leftist scumbag do-gooders the Queen of Spain, with the intention to "protect" her subjects the (american) indians forbids the conquistadores from enslaving them, yet doesn't pay anticonquistadores to defend them (that she can't afford anyway), then she actually artificially lowers the value of the life of indians in the eyes of their masters, and leads to a vast destruction of her "protected" subjects.
Reply
Leave a comment