Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Culture
Deep forum
Monarchy vs Democracy
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="third_eldest" data-source="post: 1393264" data-attributes="member: 19268"><p>Hans-Herman Hoppe, a prominent thinker in the Austrian school of economics, has interesting things to say about democracy.</p><p></p><p>My summarized take on this:</p><p></p><p>- Democracy encourages politicians who focus on short-term pandering and "goody programs" since they can leave the system and make it someone else's problem once the consequences of their policies start to take effect.</p><p></p><p>- The idea that everyone in a country's population should have an equal say in how the government is run is ridiculous. Even Winston Churchill believed this, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." People in general just do not dedicate enough time and knowledge to learning proper economic policy, political theory, and short-term vs. long-term planning. People who do not have to put as much capital into the system are encouraged to vote for things that they will benefit from by spending someone else's money. This is why all direct democracies have always tended towards leftism/progressivism.</p><p></p><p>- Democracy would work if democracy if voting rights were limited to the people who actually paid for and ran the system. America was like this originally. You couldn't vote unless you were a land owning male farmer. However, you were not taxed if you did not fall into this category. This I believe makes for a far more stable and reliable system, since those who do vote have the most to gain or lose, since they will be the ones who pay for it. This will encourage them to become more informed about how to vote properly and in general be more conservative with their votes. People who couldn't vote had no reason to complain, because they didn't have to pay into the system and still benefited from it.</p><p>This, however, is considered sacrilege in the modern dialogue, where the "right to vote" is considered sacred. I don't think we could go back to this sort of system. Note how things started getting a whole lot worse a whole lot faster once we started deviating from this system in America.</p><p></p><p>- Monarchy has some benefits. One is the incentive for long-term planning and power structures. Since ideally you'll be holding the position for a long time, you will want to put policies in place that are beneficial long-term. If you were to put a short-term program in to place with long-term consequences, you would still be in office and bear the public shame and responsibility for said program.</p><p></p><p>- In addition, hereditary monarchy in particular has long term stability and success incentive, mainly because many rulers want to be able to hand down a kingdom worth giving to their heir.</p><p></p><p>- However, you may run into the problem of having a problematic family/problematic ruler, and in that case it may take a very long time to remove them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="third_eldest, post: 1393264, member: 19268"] Hans-Herman Hoppe, a prominent thinker in the Austrian school of economics, has interesting things to say about democracy. My summarized take on this: - Democracy encourages politicians who focus on short-term pandering and "goody programs" since they can leave the system and make it someone else's problem once the consequences of their policies start to take effect. - The idea that everyone in a country's population should have an equal say in how the government is run is ridiculous. Even Winston Churchill believed this, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." People in general just do not dedicate enough time and knowledge to learning proper economic policy, political theory, and short-term vs. long-term planning. People who do not have to put as much capital into the system are encouraged to vote for things that they will benefit from by spending someone else's money. This is why all direct democracies have always tended towards leftism/progressivism. - Democracy would work if democracy if voting rights were limited to the people who actually paid for and ran the system. America was like this originally. You couldn't vote unless you were a land owning male farmer. However, you were not taxed if you did not fall into this category. This I believe makes for a far more stable and reliable system, since those who do vote have the most to gain or lose, since they will be the ones who pay for it. This will encourage them to become more informed about how to vote properly and in general be more conservative with their votes. People who couldn't vote had no reason to complain, because they didn't have to pay into the system and still benefited from it. This, however, is considered sacrilege in the modern dialogue, where the "right to vote" is considered sacred. I don't think we could go back to this sort of system. Note how things started getting a whole lot worse a whole lot faster once we started deviating from this system in America. - Monarchy has some benefits. One is the incentive for long-term planning and power structures. Since ideally you'll be holding the position for a long time, you will want to put policies in place that are beneficial long-term. If you were to put a short-term program in to place with long-term consequences, you would still be in office and bear the public shame and responsibility for said program. - In addition, hereditary monarchy in particular has long term stability and success incentive, mainly because many rulers want to be able to hand down a kingdom worth giving to their heir. - However, you may run into the problem of having a problematic family/problematic ruler, and in that case it may take a very long time to remove them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Culture
Deep forum
Monarchy vs Democracy
Top
