Post: #1

Tell me your thoughts on the video. Is Monarchy as is claimed in the video the key to lower time preference in societies?

And democracy necessarily the incentive to high time preference?

Post: #2

Do you have a video on what "Time Preference" means first?

Post: #3

(04-18-2018 08:06 AM)Ice Man Wrote:  Do you have a video on what "Time Preference" means first?

Low time preference is just another term for actions and inclinations that benefit the long-term

And High-time preference is inclination towards short-term benefit.

Its Crime vs Investment.

Delayed gratification vs instant gratification

Post: #4

I'm going to be honest.

I don't have a high enough time preference to watch a video that long.

I will say that democracy is essentially a snake eating its own tail. The speed of its demise is only limited by it's appetite.

I never used to be a monarchist but now I see real value in being able to place blame where it will stick and not with an endlessly churning clutch of political rodents, all working together to create a tyranny while none in particular being culpable enough to hang.

Post: #5

Monarchy has more problems long-term than democracy. Sooner or later you end up being led by the moronic grand-grand-son of the genius king.

Democracy can be good or bad depending, but I would count a Republic as superior.

Even more superior would be a meritocracy that tests for psychopathy and has usury-free money creating enshrined in the constitution as the first amendment.

Also never forget that a monarchy encompasses a large aristocracy class, a moronic class system and other wonderful gimmicks. Plus - try to tell Mr. Highborn that he is a moron and lazy fool, when he is given the general position as his birthright. That is why Napoleon wiped the floor with the aristocratic military leaders that led most European armies.

Post: #6

(04-18-2018 02:58 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Monarchy has more problems long-term than democracy. Sooner or later you end up being led by the moronic grand-grand-son of the genius king.

Democracy can be good or bad depending, but I would count a Republic as superior.

Even more superior would be a meritocracy that tests for psychopathy and has usury-free money creating enshrined in the constitution as the first amendment.

Also never forget that a monarchy encompasses a large aristocracy class, a moronic class system and other wonderful gimmicks. Plus - try to tell Mr. Highborn that he is a moron and lazy fool, when he is given the general position as his birthright. That is why Napoleon wiped the floor with the aristocratic military leaders that led most European armies.

I agree with you on the ascension of the hierarchy through merit. And I can't think of a better example but Genghis Khan who appointed commoners like Subutai simply on the basis of merit and loyalty as one of his top Generals. Who on a simple scouting mission utterly defeated the western nomads and the armies of Eastern Europe.

So how are the best men going to end up in power without being overtaken by power-hungry psychopaths and incompetents?

Post: #7

I agree with Zel. Monarchy and the inbreeding that is inherently (no pun intended) produces the Caligulas, Neros, King George 3 of the world. Nevertheless, constitutional monarchy does seem harmless.

Post: #8

(04-19-2018 08:13 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  I agree with you on the ascension of the hierarchy through merit. And I can't think of a better example but Genghis Khan who appointed commoners like Subutai simply on the basis of merit and loyalty as one of his top Generals. Who on a simple scouting mission utterly defeated the western nomads and the armies of Eastern Europe.

So how are the best men going to end up in power without being overtaken by power-hungry psychopaths and incompetents?

First you have to realize that we as humans are too emotional and too diverse in terms of skills and ambitions to be overly stable for a long time.

I see two options for a fleeting utopia:

A) The entirety of mankind rises in consciousness and becomes aware of the key issues to fight for - usury, meritocracy and a stable system of strong families, sane patriarchy and unalienable rights (fat chance)

B) One day a group of highly ethical highly competent shitlords takes over with force and cunning, creates a meritocratic system similar but even superior to the US constitution that lets an order of genius-level kids be trained since childhood and be tested for psychopathy. They would then rule over the rest and watch out for psychopaths trying to con themselves back to power, watch against corruption, watch against re-introduction of usury and other cons. But even then - that group of Jedi-like leaders would have to constantly watch out for traitors.

It's possible, but frankly I find the B) alternative as something that humanity may achieve and then lose within a few centuries or at best in 1-2 millennia. That would be already an overwhelming success.

We are currently around year 6000 of our more or less clear development. And only the last 700 years were more remarkable and straightforward.

So who knows - we may manage such a similar system in the next couple hundred years or millennia - before losing it again.

Such is the fate of our species and this planet - lack of stability is our motto. On the other hand it makes things more interesting, so maybe it's not all bad than other planets who have some uniform race of little emotion - maybe they manage a stable boring system lasting tens of thousands of years without change - we certainly don't.



And we will bring our own volatility wherever we go.

Post: #9

I don't think anything short of a catastrophic natural disaster or a cascading collapse of the current order (due to overreach) will unseat the current rulers of the world so for now we're reduced to undermining that reach or praying for a black swan event.

If such a collapse occurs then I think the next evolution of government would be one with a merit based voting franchise where everyone has the right to earn citizenship or remain a second class citizen by birth.

I don't agree with systems like the original Constitution of the US which leaves itself open to oligarchical usurpation (make sure your tribe buys as much land as possible and you win) but the universal franchise is obviously even worse.

Post: #10

< Yeah - the US constitution was no way perfect and has way too many loopholes. It avoided all mention of usury and banking and the election system can easily be corrupted with money. What were the plans to stop the election of a psychopath who got billionaire backing?

I too don't think that anything can stop the current elite unless a massive collapse, cataclysmic disaster (tectonic shift, destruction of entire continents, giant vulcano eruption) or an Alien invasion happens.

The current bunch have been working too long at the big plan and they keep on working on it 24/7 while the majority of the people don't even have an idea that they exist.

Post: #11

^Im still optimistic though. Throughout history the elite eventually get their comeuppance. The kings of Europe, the Romans, the Haitian revolt, Isabel and Ferdinand etc. The peasants will win in the end and the volcano that the rich sit on will one day explode.

Post: #12

I haven't read a lot of Heinlein but I know he believed that voting was a privilege and not a right, something you earn by proving you're not a numbskull.

I think that would go a long way to fixing democracy rather than allowing the snake to eat its tail, so to speak.

Post: #13

Only a dictator can save the Western world now. Like an Augustus, Julius Caesar, Mussolini type.

Post: #14

(05-15-2018 03:40 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Only a dictator can save the Western world now. Like an Augustus, Julius Caesar, Mussolini type.

I have considered it, but it's way too much bloodshed. The globalists would fight back with such immense strength that you end up in a massive bloodbath - even if you have Superman's powers.

The power-matrix is too embedded. At best you could draft deals with the very top and force them to change their plans - and again - that dictator would have to be Superman incarnate without any Kryptonite.



Even if you create an utopian world in the end - the globalists and the ruling psychopaths would want to destroy utopia in order to rule over their fellow man. Humanity is currently not ready for such a system.

Post: #15

I think us Brits had it right, before we allowed the disenfranchised commoners, younger men and women in general vote.

Things went pretty swimmingly during that period.

Post: #16

BTW, there's currently a series on TV about the rise of civilization and inequality is baked into the cake. You can decide how you want your inequity spread, but it's always gonna be there. I think a lot of the disconent seems to be pining away for a solution to that intractable problem.

http://www.pbs.org/video/rise-inequality-qtykhr/

I think a lot of people try to personalize these problems by suggesting that it's just a matter of taking out a few bad apples, but then you wind up with an Animal Farm situation of oppressed becoming the new oppressors. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The best you can hope for is to narrow the gap between have and have nots but you can't eliminate it nor can you stop power from corrupting. People just can't see the forest through the trees and therefore we get stuck in this endless cycle. It's systemic.

Post: #17

^ Peterson talks about this all the time. The common man for some reason (I'm sure women do too) buys into the utopia nonsense.

Post: #18

^Equality can be achieved...in a hunter gatherer society.

Post: #19

Even in a perfectly egalitarian society (where wealth can be accumulated and inherited), different consumption patterns and offspring numbers lead to huge inequalities after a few generations. I’ve run the model.

Additionally, the variability of productivity is enormous compared to any other period in history. Many people are just incapable of producing anything other that the most basic tasks in our complex society, while a few smart guys generate billions single handedly. If you have such inequalities of productivity AND meritocracy, social inequality is inevitable.

Post: #20

(05-18-2018 10:02 AM)Pride male Wrote:  ^Equality can be achieved...in a hunter gatherer society.

A hunter-gatherer society does not have advantages for the 140 IQ guy vs the 70 IQ guy, but it has some advantages towards the one who can run faster and hit stronger. So even in those societies the stronger, taller, faster and more aggressive one has some advantage.

Theoretically racial equality can sort-of be attained by a few centuries of eugenics breeding - just pay the smarter ones to have more kids, temper a bit with the genome - and voila every race has an IQ of 130 on average. But of course that is average - even in that society there will be those who will be much smarter.

And don't let me get started on the physical - you will still have those who are stronger, faster and more able - those who are more pretty. Would the eugenics program have to pay stronger and faster Asians and Whites to have more kids so that there are more fast sprinters and NBA, NFL players because blacks have genetic advantages there? Do Mestizos have to be as fast, tall and strong as West-Africans to achieve equality? That will take a while to get there....

A sane society could simply have an ethical ruling class who creates an utopia out of the goodness of their hearts. Their members would have to be tested not only for skill, but also for ethics. But that ruling group would have to constantly be aware of smart psychopaths who want to topple the utopia. We humans are simply too versatile - even if we equalize racial differences, the individual differences would remain and so would the differences between men and women. We will never be all be equal - we can blame homo sapiens and the God/evolution/the divine hierarchy for that.

Post: #21

delete sorry

Post: #22

My own thoughts are that an absolute monarchy is much healthier than a democracy. I share the point of view of Hans-Hermann and mikke korwin in this aspect. Politicians always do whatever it takes to win votes, they don't care about the future consequences of their decisions. Nonetheless, a king will always do what he considers is right for his country economically/socially (he might be advice by the wrong person and he also might be stupid of course).

A good analogy would be the following one:

Imagine that in one scenario, we give a flat to a given person for 10 years, and besides we don't allow him to choose who is going to receive the house after those 10 years nor to sell it. Most likely, he will not take care of the house since he will have to get it back.

On the other scenario, where we would give away the house and he could maintain the house forever. Therefore, we can assume that he will take of it in order to either sell it in the future or to give it to his children.

What history has shown us is that, modern democracy are by far more in debt than absolute monarchies from the past(excluding period of wars).

two good examples would be Monaco and Liechtenstein (Liechtenstein is not strictly speaking an absolute monarchy but still is pretty close). Both of this countries have one the highest gdp per capita in the world.

I couldn't agree more with people who say: well, but there is always a chance that the throne is taken by an idiot. even so, I would still consider it better because with democracies we will always lead by idiots and even if we get a good politician (like Donald Trump), he will not be allowed to make big changes. Other point in favour is that no modern democracy is avoiding feminism and cultural marxism. Perhaps some countries from eastern europe are reluctant to embrace this ideology for the time being. However, I think is a matter of time before all modern democracies embrace this way of thinking. Democracies are controlled by the highest bidder. As far as I can see, only dictatorships (e.i north Korea) and countries who can look as if they are democracy but in reality are dictatorships (i.e. China, Rusia) are against this movement.

Regarding stupid kings, I feel that the only way is to do like they do in Switzerland. Militar service should be mandatory for every men and they must be forced to get their rifle at home. I don't really think that a dynasty would opt for a stupid replacement that would risk their heritage (even then, I assume that when it comes to economic affairs, kings would have advisers)

Post: #23

^I think a monarchy like the Vatican pope is better than a hereditary one. You choose the most competent guy to rule until he dies and select the next guy.

Post: #24

Both are terrible. Change is too slow in a democracy while Monarchies are rife with violence and totalitarianism.

Its all about tradeoffs. And democracy seems to have less downsides than Monarchy, so its superior.

Theocracy would be best if god were real.

Post: #25

(07-17-2018 12:26 PM)Capitan Pescanova Wrote:  My own thoughts are that an absolute monarchy is much healthier than a democracy. I share the point of view of Hans-Hermann and mikke korwin in this aspect. Politicians always do whatever it takes to win votes, they don't care about the future consequences of their decisions. Nonetheless, a king will always do what he considers is right for his country economically/socially (he might be advice by the wrong person and he also might be stupid of course).

A good analogy would be the following one:

Imagine that in one scenario, we give a flat to a given person for 10 years, and besides we don't allow him to choose who is going to receive the house after those 10 years nor to sell it. Most likely, he will not take care of the house since he will have to get it back.

On the other scenario, where we would give away the house and he could maintain the house forever. Therefore, we can assume that he will take of it in order to either sell it in the future or to give it to his children.

What history has shown us is that, modern democracy are by far more in debt than absolute monarchies from the past(excluding period of wars).

two good examples would be Monaco and Liechtenstein (Liechtenstein is not strictly speaking an absolute monarchy but still is pretty close). Both of this countries have one the highest gdp per capita in the world.

I couldn't agree more with people who say: well, but there is always a chance that the throne is taken by an idiot. even so, I would still consider it better because with democracies we will always lead by idiots and even if we get a good politician (like Donald Trump), he will not be allowed to make big changes. Other point in favour is that no modern democracy is avoiding feminism and cultural marxism. Perhaps some countries from eastern europe are reluctant to embrace this ideology for the time being. However, I think is a matter of time before all modern democracies embrace this way of thinking. Democracies are controlled by the highest bidder. As far as I can see, only dictatorships (e.i north Korea) and countries who can look as if they are democracy but in reality are dictatorships (i.e. China, Rusia) are against this movement.

Regarding stupid kings, I feel that the only way is to do like they do in Switzerland. Militar service should be mandatory for every men and they must be forced to get their rifle at home. I don't really think that a dynasty would opt for a stupid replacement that would risk their heritage (even then, I assume that when it comes to economic affairs, kings would have advisers)

Agreed. Currently reading Skin in the Game by Nassim Taleb. He points this out, noting that politicians and political parties are just interested in keeping their hold on power. They'll do whatever it takes to get votes, instead of solving long-term problems.

Monarchs on the other hand have a vested interest in keeping their lands safe and prosperous. It's their kingdom--their property. They'll pass it down to their children and therefore have a vested interest in keeping their subjects happy.