If Permanent Portfolio existed during the American Revolution what would the 4th branch be

[stuper1]

That sounds very much like the old British comedy, Yes, Minister. The civil servants are there for life, and they do their best to subvert the ministers they're supposed to be serving. Meanwhile, the ministers are worried about popularity, elections. Fictional scripts, but pretty much based on the truth, apparently. Margaret Thatcher's favorite show.

Thanks for the tip.  I just found the complete collection of DVDs at my library.  Can't wait to watch it.  Named one of the top ten TV programs of all time by the British Film Institute.

[dualstow]

That sounds very much like the old British comedy, Yes, Minister. The civil servants are there for life, and they do their best to subvert the ministers they're supposed to be serving. Meanwhile, the ministers are worried about popularity, elections. Fictional scripts, but pretty much based on the truth, apparently. Margaret Thatcher's favorite show.

Thanks for the tip.  I just found the complete collection of DVDs at my library.  Can't wait to watch it.  Named one of the top ten TV programs of all time by the British Film Institute.

Some people like it, others may find it boring and/or dated. It's not a laugh-out-loud show, but it always brings a smile to my face. Very witty and well-written.

[Ad Orientem]

Speaking of monarchs, it's the anniversary of Bloody Sunday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

And you believe that Russia became a much better and more enlightened society after the Revolution and the massacre of the Imperial Family? We also just saw the anniversary of the regicide of Louis XVI with all the bloody horror that followed. And we are approaching the anniversary of the regicide of Charles I with the totalitarian theocracy that replaced it.

See a pattern here?

Monarchies are not/were not perfect. Perfection doesn't exist on this side of the Pearly Gates. But what typically followed their overthrow was nightmarish. Almost all of the geo-political calamities of the last two centuries, including three world wars, can be laid at the feet of the enlightenment and modern liberalism.

Lenin and Stalin killed more Russians than all of the Czars put together. Give me "bloody" Nicholas thank you very much.

[dualstow]

Speaking of monarchs, it's the anniversary of Bloody Sunday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

And you believe that Russia became a much better and more enlightened society after the Revolution and the massacre of the Imperial Family? We also just saw the anniversary of the regicide of Louis XVI with all the bloody horror that followed. And we are approaching the anniversary of the regicide of Charles I with the totalitarian theocracy that replaced it.

See a pattern here?

Have to break eggs to make an omelet?
Seriously, overthrow is often violent, but I think France is doing better now than under any of the Louises OR Robespierre.

...Almost all of the geo-political calamities of the last two centuries, including three world wars, can be laid at the feet of the enlightenment and modern liberalism.
Lenin and Stalin killed more Russians than all of the Czars put together. Give me "bloody" Nicholas thank you very much.

But Lenin and Stalin were far closer to monarchs than elected officials, which is what I thought you were indicating as the problem. (Putin, too, for that matter. He keeps finding ways to get himself elected no matter what the people want).

[Ad Orientem]

Speaking of monarchs, it's the anniversary of Bloody Sunday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

And you believe that Russia became a much better and more enlightened society after the Revolution and the massacre of the Imperial Family? We also just saw the anniversary of the regicide of Louis XVI with all the bloody horror that followed. And we are approaching the anniversary of the regicide of Charles I with the totalitarian theocracy that replaced it.

See a pattern here?

Have to break eggs to make an omelet?
Seriously, overthrow is often violent, but I think France is doing better now than under any of the Louises OR Robespierre.

...Almost all of the geo-political calamities of the last two centuries, including three world wars, can be laid at the feet of the enlightenment and modern liberalism.
Lenin and Stalin killed more Russians than all of the Czars put together. Give me "bloody" Nicholas thank you very much.

But Lenin and Stalin were far closer to monarchs than elected officials, which is what I thought you were indicating as the problem. (Putin, too, for that matter. He keeps finding ways to get himself elected no matter what the people want).

Breaking eggs... is that how you refer to the systematic murder of entire populations? I don't recollect any of the Czars doing that. Neither the French or Russian Revolutions were violent. They were blood baths, a sadistic orgy of slaughter. And neither Lenin nor Stalin were monarchs. They were criminal thugs and ideological monsters, children of the enlightenment and the classical liberalism promoting egalitarianism and other silliness. No true monarch could do such tings because in Monarchies the sovereign is constrained in the use of his/her powers. There is tradition, the aristocracy and the church, all of which act as a counterbalance to any tyrannical tendencies.

You are confusing monarchy with totalitarianism.

That's not to say there have been no bad monarchs. But they were not all that common, certainly on balance far less so than bad politicians. And again there are checks in monarchies that don't exist in dictatorships.

[Lowe]

Libertarian thinkers have kicked around the idea that monarchs were more responsible with public goods, because they knew their sons would inherit the state in whatever condition they left it.  Whereas democratic gov't suffers the tragedy of the commons, in comparison.

However democracy is a step forward from monarchy, because it is a leveling of power, and a step toward the universalization of ethical values.  It legitimizes violence by anyone who can get group approval, vs. only by someone who inherits a crown.

[Ad Orientem]

However democracy is a step forward from monarchy, because it is a leveling of power, and a step toward the universalization of ethical values.  It legitimizes violence by anyone who can get group approval, vs. only by someone who inherits a crown.

Universalization of ethical values? Where do we see that? The liberal democracies of the West seem to have embraced a thoroughly subjectivist approach to ethics. If it were put in theological terms it seems they have all become Unitarian Universalists with no common understanding of morality much less a shared faith. Or is that what you meant?

And in what way is this great leveling beneficial? In a monarchy you need to worry about what one person, raised and educated from birth to rule, might do. In a democracy you have to worry about what the hundreds of thousands or even millions of idiots who can't tell you what the three branches of government are, will do. Since the Enlightenment have wars become less common or less savage? When Kings waged war against one another in general they tried to avoid laying waste to cities and crops. When democracies wage war against each other they flatten entire cities. Genocide is the ideological descendant of the French Revolution. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité... you can inscribe those words on the guillotine, or the gates of Dachau.

It is true that in a monarchy you may have limited recourse if the King raises your taxes. But what recourse do you have in a democracy? The difference of course is incentive. A King is only likely to raise your taxes because there is a need on the part of the state. In democratic regimes it is almost axiomatic that the majority use their power to transfer wealth from the minority to themselves. Even a profligate monarch can only build so many palaces. Weigh if you will, the cost of maintaining Windsor Castle against that of Obamacare. For that matter what modern liberal democracy has a government that is smaller, less intrusive and with lower taxes than the one we labeled as tyrannical and rebelled against 238 years ago? No need for a long list...

Just name ONE.

[Benko]

However democracy is a step forward from monarchy, because it is a leveling of power, and a step toward the universalization of ethical values. 

"By any means necessary?"

"a step toward the universalization of ethical values"
Seriously?  "universalize" ethical values sounds like forcing your values on everyone. which makes monarchy look appealing.

[Pointedstick]

For that matter what modern liberal democracy has a government that is smaller, less intrusive and with lower taxes than the one we labeled as tyrannical and rebelled against 238 years ago? No need for a long list...

Just name ONE.

Qatar. Zero income tax, zero sales tax, zero payroll tax, zero capital gains tax.

No wait, that's a monarchy. Darn.

[moda0306]

However democracy is a step forward from monarchy, because it is a leveling of power, and a step toward the universalization of ethical values.  It legitimizes violence by anyone who can get group approval, vs. only by someone who inherits a crown.

Universalization of ethical values? Where do we see that? The liberal democracies of the West seem to have embraced a thoroughly subjectivist approach to ethics. If it were put in theological terms it seems they have all become Unitarian Universalists with no common understanding of morality much less a shared faith. Or is that what you meant?

And in what way is this great leveling beneficial? In a monarchy you need to worry about what one person, raised and educated from birth to rule, might do. In a democracy you have to worry about what the hundreds of thousands or even millions of idiots who can't tell you what the three branches of government are, will do. Since the Enlightenment have wars become less common or less savage? When Kings waged war against one another in general they tried to avoid laying waste to cities and crops. When democracies wage war against each other they flatten entire cities. Genocide is the ideological descendant of the French Revolution. Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité... you can inscribe those words on the guillotine, or the gates of Dachau.

It is true that in a monarchy you may have limited recourse if the King raises your taxes. But what recourse do you have in a democracy? The difference of course is incentive. A King is only likely to raise your taxes because there is a need on the part of the state. In democratic regimes it is almost axiomatic that the majority use their power to transfer wealth from the minority to themselves. Even a profligate monarch can only build so many palaces. Weigh if you will, the cost of maintaining Windsor Castle against that of Obamacare. For that matter what modern liberal democracy has a government that is smaller, less intrusive and with lower taxes than the one we labeled as tyrannical and rebelled against 238 years ago? No need for a long list...

Just name ONE.

Depends on how you define "intrusive."  To me, the ultimate form of intrusiveness is forced labor (especially if that "labor" is battling foreigners), murder, or genocide.

To that end, our democracies are far less intrusive per capita today than they used to be.

[Kshartle]

However democracy is a step forward from monarchy, because it is a leveling of power, and a step toward the universalization of ethical values. 

"By any means necessary?"

"a step toward the universalization of ethical values"
Seriously?  "universalize" ethical values sounds like forcing your values on everyone. which makes monarchy look appealing.

Democracy is an orgy of immorality in which all the voters get to play dictator. It breeds lazy and weak minds where people think they can go scratch someone's shitty name on a slip of paper and get a better life at the expense of someone else.

It's a suggestion box for slaves and tyranny of the majority. Claiming it's more moral to have 2 people rule over 1 rather than 1 ruling over 2......I hope everyone can see what rubbish that line of thinking is.

[Pointedstick]

Depends on how you define "intrusive."  To me, the ultimate form of intrusiveness is forced labor (especially if that "labor" is battling foreigners), murder, or genocide.

To that end, our democracies are far less intrusive per capita today than they used to be.

Umm… you really might want to read up on the issue a bit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... militaries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscript ... nscription
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription#World_Wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscript ... ted_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscript ... ed_Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscript ... etherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscript ... outh_Korea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscript ... witzerland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Afr ... ence_Force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Finland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_ ... d_Reserves


I could go on…

[Ad Orientem]

Depends on how you define "intrusive."  To me, the ultimate form of intrusiveness is forced labor (especially if that "labor" is battling foreigners), murder, or genocide.

To that end, our democracies are far less intrusive per capita today than they used to be.

Really? Military conscription was fairly rare during the Ancien Régime outside of Russia which still had serfdom. Once again it was the Revolutionary Government of France that introduced the world to Total War and the mass compulsory mobilization of the entire population. Napoleon Bonaparte conquered most of Europe with a conscript army and to this day most modern democratic states have some form of military conscription.

Louis XVI and George III certainly didn't.

[Kshartle]

I'd rather pay for the king and his court than have hundreds of public "servants" auction off my stolen property to the voters and their donors every two years.

[Ad Orientem]

Umm… you really might want to read up on the issue a bit...

+1

[dualstow]

For that matter what modern liberal democracy has a government that is smaller, less intrusive and with lower taxes than the one we labeled as tyrannical and rebelled against 238 years ago? No need for a long list...

Just name ONE.

Costa Rica?

Breaking eggs... is that how you refer to the systematic murder of entire populations? I don't recollect any of the Czars doing that. Neither the French or Russian Revolutions were violent. They were blood baths, a sadistic orgy of slaughter. And neither Lenin nor Stalin were monarchs. They were criminal thugs and ideological monsters, children of the enlightenment and the classical liberalism promoting egalitarianism and other silliness. No true monarch could do such tings because in Monarchies the sovereign is constrained in the use of his/her powers. There is tradition, the aristocracy and the church, all of which act as a counterbalance to any tyrannical tendencies.

You are confusing monarchy with totalitarianism.

That's not to say there have been no bad monarchs. But they were not all that common, certainly on balance far less so than bad politicians. And again there are checks in monarchies that don't exist in dictatorships.

Like I said, totalitarian dictators are closer to monarchs than to elected officials with term limits. I'm not saying they are one and the same.

[Lowe]

Universalization of ethical values? Where do we see that? The liberal democracies of the West seem to have embraced a thoroughly subjectivist approach to ethics. If it were put in theological terms it seems they have all become Unitarian Universalists with no common understanding of morality much less a shared faith. Or is that what you meant?

Democracies are founded on the moral principle that all people are equal in right.  At least theoretically, anyone can become the one who wields force with group consent.  This is more equal, more level, than inheriting the right to wield force.

It recognizes that there is no difference in inborn moral quality, among human beings.  No one is more morally righteous in his use of force, than anyone else, by virtue of who he is.  Monarchy specifically eschews this moral principle, creating at least two moral classes of people (at minimum, king and commoner).

The observation is philosophical.  I don't know empirically whether kings were better for the public good, than parliaments.  That seems like an impossible question to answer.



EDIT : Clarified second paragraph.

[Libertarian666]

Universalization of ethical values? Where do we see that? The liberal democracies of the West seem to have embraced a thoroughly subjectivist approach to ethics. If it were put in theological terms it seems they have all become Unitarian Universalists with no common understanding of morality much less a shared faith. Or is that what you meant?

Democracies are founded on the moral principle that all people are equal in right.  At least theoretically, anyone can become the one who wields force with group consent.  This is more equal, more level, than inheriting the right to wield force.

It recognizes that there is no difference in inborn moral quality, among human beings.  No one is more morally righteous in his use of force, than anyone else, by virtue of who he is.  Monarchy specifically eschews this moral principle, creating at least two moral classes of people (at minimum, king and commoner).

The observation is philosophical.  I don't know empirically whether kings were better for the public good, than parliaments.  That seems like an impossible question to answer.



EDIT : Clarified second paragraph.

Unfortunately, there is a difference in moral quality among men, whether inborn or otherwise, and those with the least qualms about using violence are the ones most likely to seek political power. So paradoxically it would be better to have people chosen at random, which monarchy approximates in terms of moral qualities, than self-selected to wield power.

[Kshartle]

Unfortunately, there is a difference in moral quality among men, whether inborn or otherwise, and those with the least qualms about using violence are the ones most likely to seek political power. So paradoxically it would be better to have people chosen at random, which monarchy approximates in terms of moral qualities, than self-selected to wield power.

Good observation! Yet another arrow in the quiver when I say Democracy is the least moral of human livestock management tecniques. It is the most advanced form of management and fiat currency is the most advanced form of theft by far ever seen. That intelligent people on this forum can't understand this seemingly basic concepts is saddening.    It speaks to the irrationality of human beings in the present age. It would be great to fast forward a few hundred years.

Imagine how bad it was for Socrates.

[moda0306]

Unfortunately, there is a difference in moral quality among men, whether inborn or otherwise, and those with the least qualms about using violence are the ones most likely to seek political power. So paradoxically it would be better to have people chosen at random, which monarchy approximates in terms of moral qualities, than self-selected to wield power.

Good observation! Yet another arrow in the quiver when I say Democracy is the least moral of human livestock management tecniques. It is the most advanced form of management and fiat currency is the most advanced form of theft by far ever seen. That intelligent people on this forum can't understand this seemingly basic concepts is saddening.    It speaks to the irrationality of human beings in the present age. It would be great to fast forward a few hundred years.

Imagine how bad it was for Socrates.

This assumes politicians are on average the most violent people in a society.

Unaccountable power brings out the worst in anyone, whether they ran for government or not.

[Kshartle]

Unfortunately, there is a difference in moral quality among men, whether inborn or otherwise, and those with the least qualms about using violence are the ones most likely to seek political power. So paradoxically it would be better to have people chosen at random, which monarchy approximates in terms of moral qualities, than self-selected to wield power.

Good observation! Yet another arrow in the quiver when I say Democracy is the least moral of human livestock management tecniques. It is the most advanced form of management and fiat currency is the most advanced form of theft by far ever seen. That intelligent people on this forum can't understand this seemingly basic concepts is saddening.    It speaks to the irrationality of human beings in the present age. It would be great to fast forward a few hundred years.

Imagine how bad it was for Socrates.

This assumes politicians are on average the most violent people in a society.

Unaccountable power brings out the worst in anyone, whether they ran for government or not.

It assumes that people who are more violent will seek out the opportunity (elected office) to rule over others. Does that not seem like it's obvious? If I like to swim in the ocean am I not more likely to move where I live near the beach?

Additionaly, since humans tend to believe what they want to.....in order to get votes you just need to lie and make promises that you never intend or are capable of keeping.

Combine the two and in Democracy you get the more violent, less honest people in power. Power should be wielded by the least violent and most honest people. That's called the voluntary marketplace or capitalism.

Add in all the people thinking they are part of the system......and then they will accept any kind of violence the government can cook up and they think they are a part of it so it's ok. Sick

[moda0306]

Good observation! Yet another arrow in the quiver when I say Democracy is the least moral of human livestock management tecniques. It is the most advanced form of management and fiat currency is the most advanced form of theft by far ever seen. That intelligent people on this forum can't understand this seemingly basic concepts is saddening.    It speaks to the irrationality of human beings in the present age. It would be great to fast forward a few hundred years.

Imagine how bad it was for Socrates.

This assumes politicians are on average the most violent people in a society.

Unaccountable power brings out the worst in anyone, whether they ran for government or not.

Combine the two and in Democracy you get the more violent, less honest people in power. Power should be wielded by the least violent and most honest people. That's called the voluntary marketplace or capitalism.

Sure, because when I see a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, I see a man who is likely FAR less controlling and more benevolent and hones than your average congressman.

Same sh!t. Different Pile.

[Kshartle]

Sure, because when I see a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, I see a man who is likely FAR less controlling and more benevolent and hones than your average congressman.

Same sh!t. Different Pile.

Corporations are legal fictions created by the state. They are an extension of the apartus created by the government in order to give legal immunity to managers and limited liability to owners. They have everything to do with governments and violence and nothing to do with the free market or capitalism. We've gone over this so many times I've lost track. Is it ground hog's day everyday?

[Lowe]

Unfortunately, there is a difference in moral quality among men, whether inborn or otherwise, and those with the least qualms about using violence are the ones most likely to seek political power. So paradoxically it would be better to have people chosen at random, which monarchy approximates in terms of moral qualities, than self-selected to wield power.

People vary in moral character, yes, but that is not what I meant.  People do not vary in their moral prerogatives.  No one has special moral powers that others do not.  Kings are not chosen by god.

The idea that there are different classes of humans, some who can rule and others who cannot, is plainly false and consequently does not appeal to enough people for it to be widely accepted.  Humans brains are healthier than they were when kings had power, and they're getting healthier every year.

Because brains are healthier, they work better, and they will not accept rationalizations of violence, when said rationalizations are as unsophisticated as divine right.  Democracy is a more sophisticated ideology, closer to philosophical truth, so it suffices at present.

[Kshartle]

Because brains are healthier, they work better, and they will not accept rationalizations of violence, when said rationalizations are as unsophisticated as divine right.  Democracy is a more sophisticated ideology, closer to philosophical truth, so it suffices at present.

I haven't looked at it this way before. Thank you. It's exciting to think about something from a different perspective that actually makes sense and is not obvious programming. You and Tech should argue back and forth on the topic so I can learn without having to do all the heavy lifting.