Understanding the Liberal Mindset

[Emily's Cat]

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Intergenerational wealth and stability in itself is a form of hereditary rule. Wealth is power. He with the most money rules.

True equality can only be accomplished when everyone is equally poor?

Or dead, I suppose. No peace like the grave and all that.

 

[steenkh]

It's something that doesn't sit well with most anyone in a liberal democracy... but historically, monarchies have been fairly effective. Not necessarily for every single person, and when they go wrong they go really really wrong. But most monarchs throughout the ages took their roles quite seriously and did a decent job of it.

Have you ever studied history? You are probably talking about absolute monarchies. Historically, such monarchies have been fairly effective at making the lives a misery for most of their populations. The only important segments of society has been the nobility, whether it secular, or clerical, and every monarchy has been deeply corrupt.

In fact, the Trump era can be compared with a monarchy in that only the rich counts for anything, and corruption is the way to achieve anything. In monarchies, it is demanded that people bow and scrape before the monarch, and he (it was usually a "he") has to be flattered without bounds. Same with Trump.

 

[acbytesla]

True equality can only be accomplished when everyone is equally poor?

Or dead, I suppose. No peace like the grave and all that.

I never said anything like that. But there is a reason to consider John Rawls philosophy of original position.

 

[arthwollipot]

Right, so a lot of leftists seem to like the idea of leftist authoritarianism.

Not as much as rightists love the idea of leftist authoritarianism. It's practically all they can talk about.

This is exactly what Machavelli wrote about in The Prince. That ideally the best government is one that is dictatorial. But was wise and did the right thing. Dictatorships are efficient. Democracies are not.

Machiavelli was a terrible politician and a worse diplomat. Taking advice from him would be a mistake.

 

[jimbob]

This is exactly what Machavelli wrote about in The Prince. That ideally the best government is one that is dictatorial. But was wise and did the right thing. Dictatorships are efficient. Democracies are not.

They are potentially efficient in theory. They can have faster decisions.

But I'm practice they are less efficient than one where the ruled people can choose their rulers and get rid of ones that they don't like.

But of course there's a reason why, elections are often suspended in wartime. To enable a democracy to have the streamlined decision making in a time of crisis.

 

[acbytesla]

Machiavelli was a terrible politician and a worse diplomat. Taking advice from him would be a mistake.

I don't disagree. But Il Principe is considered one of the most politically influential books ever written. Controversial as well.

 

[acbytesla]

They are potentially efficient in theory. They can have faster decisions.

But I'm practice they are less efficient than one where the ruled people can choose their rulers and get rid of ones that they don't like.

But of course there's a reason why, elections are often suspended in wartime. To enable a democracy to have the streamlined decision making in a time of crisis.

It is also used as an excuse to retain power.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't disagree. But Il Principe is considered one of the most politically influential books ever written. Controversial as well.

It was written during a time of warring city states, about warring city states. Whatever relevance it might have had then it has lost in this time of modern developed democracies.

 

[steenkh]

It was written during a time of warring city states, about warring city states. Whatever relevance it might have had then it has lost in this time of modern developed democracies.

It is still relevant for authocracies, of which there is a growing number.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have read that there's growing support for the view that Machiavelli was not being serious when he wrote The Prince, that the whole thing was satire. It wasn't published (officially) in his lifetime, after all. Perhaps he never meant it to be published.

(I think we'd have to be much greater experts on the personalities of the time to really reach a solid conclusion on that point. Suffice it to say I have grave doubts about any theory that a) reduces the political characters of that era to easily understood soundbites and b) that is regurgitated by rote by seventh grade English teachers in American public schools. The Italian Renaissance was many things but simple it was not.)

 

[arthwollipot]

The Prince is certainly interesting from a historical perspective. And it really did explain the plot of Dune quite well.

 

[acbytesla]

I have read that there's growing support for the view that Machiavelli was not being serious when he wrote The Prince, that the whole thing was satire. It wasn't published (officially) in his lifetime, after all. Perhaps he never meant it to be published.

(I think we'd have to be much greater experts on the personalities of the time to really reach a solid conclusion on that point. Suffice it to say I have grave doubts about any theory that a) reduces the political characters of that era to easily understood soundbites and b) that is regurgitated by rote by seventh grade English teachers in American public schools. The Italian Renaissance was many things but simple it was not.)

I would love if it was satire. It would certainly give an interesting twist to the term Machiavellian .

 

[steenkh]

I have read that there's growing support for the view that Machiavelli was not being serious when he wrote The Prince, that the whole thing was satire. It wasn't published (officially) in his lifetime, after all. Perhaps he never meant it to be published.

(I think we'd have to be much greater experts on the personalities of the time to really reach a solid conclusion on that point. Suffice it to say I have grave doubts about any theory that a) reduces the political characters of that era to easily understood soundbites and b) that is regurgitated by rote by seventh grade English teachers in American public schools. The Italian Renaissance was many things but simple it was not.)

I have read The Prince, and I didn't find it satire, or controversal at all, but sound advice for a ruthless dictator who wants to survive in a world where he has to look out for internal, and external enemies. As far as I remember, there is nothing about making conditions better for the subjects, but there is some advice of how to keep the subjects docile. Real princes only see their subjects as the providers of their riches and as potential soldiers.

I have just finished reading a book on the Nordic Seven Years war 1563-1570, and the suffering of the people in the afflicted areas is of course marked, but also their loyalty, when having their farms burned, and live-stock killed, they still cough up with extra supplies for the army if they have anything left. There is of course also some physical persuasion. The subjects are press-ganged, forbidden to travel, and need special permission to even go to the market with goods to sell. This is how effective monarchies can be. These measures would surely have taken longer in a democracy. The nobility in Denmark is only taxed (horror!) at the end of the war when things are really bad, in Sweden never. Thus, the wealth of the most important part of society is untouched, if not torched by the enemy.

This is against a backdrop of treason, killings, and corruption that Machiavelli knows intimately.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think most people - and by most I would speculate somewhere around 90% - would be really happy if out governments would just consistently apply the current laws in a reasonable way. If we could just get that one basic foundation shored up, all the rest can be discussed.

I think you don't understand how laws work.
It's the Courts, not the government, that applies laws, reasonably or not.

And I agree - we need a lot more Courts and Judges to deal with all the cases. Just by population growth, the US should have about double the size of the Judiciary, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Glad you are coming around to the "We Need Big Government" Tent.

 

[Mojo]

Have you ever studied history? You are probably talking about absolute monarchies. Historically, such monarchies have been fairly effective at making the lives a misery for most of their populations. The only important segments of society has been the nobility, whether it secular, or clerical, and every monarchy has been deeply corrupt.

In fact, the Trump era can be compared with a monarchy in that only the rich counts for anything, and corruption is the way to achieve anything. In monarchies, it is demanded that people bow and scrape before the monarch, and he (it was usually a "he") has to be flattered without bounds.

See, for example, the Consolidated Fund Act 1995:

Most Gracious Sovereign,
WE, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards making good the supply which we have cheerfully granted to Your Majesty in this Session of Parliament, have resolved to grant unto Your Majesty the sums hereinafter mentioned; and do therefore most humbly beseech Your Majesty that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Totally true.

But that doesn't mean the children are capable and should take over the family business. For every story about a business that successfully passed on from one generation to the next, there is the story of children ruining it.

One of the best arguments for inheritance taxes is that it breaks up business dynasties. New blood is required.

Anecdotally, I've worked in several multigenerational family owned businesses and always seen the same pattern. First generation: Small business, shop, plant hire etc. Second generation got lucky by being in the right sector at the right time (80s building boom usually) and took it from small to national/international. Third generation, f'ing useless entitled brats given 'Directorships' or management positions with absolutely no competence (including an operations director who managed to close the M4 on Christmas Eve and a sales office manger who would storm out in literal tears when he had a fight with daddy over his copious golf days). One exception was the bosses daughter who was very competent, but consigned to being his secretary while his son got a directorship.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

See, for example, the Consolidated Fund Act 1995:

But at least here in the UK we don't have to make AI generated pictures of King Charles as an astronaut or super hero. It's not much but I'll take it.

 

[Darat]

See, for example, the Consolidated Fund Act 1995:

Yeah - but at the bottom in invisible ink is "don't forget it is we that wield the axe".

 

[jimbob]

Yeah - but at the bottom in invisible ink is "don't forget it is we that wield the axe".

It's why I can only bear to sing one line in the national anthem.

May he defend our laws

Because otherwise he knows what can happen

 

[Mojo]

It's why I can only bear to sing one line in the national anthem.

May he defend our laws

Because otherwise he knows what can happen

Send him victorias
And other kinds of plum