So.... the USA sits out. Lets say hypothetically germany discovers the BFG and just beats britain and france. Why is this bad? Germany gets some new territory. The people still live under a lame government. Democracy is actually probably worse. If we lived under monarchies we'd be way richer now :I
Anyway, my history is not very good (BFG is WWII i know). Can any history buffs offer me thoughts on this subject?
From what I've read/heard, the assumption is that, if the US had stayed out (and there was no 'BFG'), the two powers would have accepted the stalemate and drew up conditions satisfactory to both France and Germany. At least, more mutually satisfactory than what Germany was forced to accept.
I don't know if the Austro-Hungarian empire would have survived. Ralph Raico shares a lot of great insights in his "History: The Struggle for Liberty" lecture series.
If the US had stayed out, there wouldn't have been as likely a chance for "Blessed Democracy" to take root. Democracy wouldn't be revealed as the excellent war-mongering tool that it is, at least not at that point in history.
If we assume total non-intervention(Something the US hardly did in the events leading up its "official" involvement in WW1), then the inflation that took place so the Britons would have an easier time paying back their debts would not have occurred. The circumstances that lead up to WW2 would not be in place(Such as Wilson enabling the Britons to extort Germany for no real reason)
This just scratches the barest surface, but I'm positive that the world would've been a safer and more peaceful place if the US had minded its own business during WW1.
The hitory of monarchies shows a general upward trend in wealth? I was sure it shows a lot of stagnation from the 500s to the 1300s, then a little bit of growth. I thought for sure history showed that wealth exploded after the 1600s, concurrent with the democritization of the west (even the monarchies)....
Eh, maybe I'm wrong.
Democracy isnt perfect, I dont see any justification to say monarchy is even close.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Are you familiar with hoppe's argument?
I have heard it bandied about in another thread. I was not a fan.
Essentially democratic leaders are temporary caretakers of the country. They have no incentive to promote good long term policies for growth. Kings, on the other hand, own the country and can pass it down through inheritance. They are more likely to pursue good long term policy so they can maximize their personal wealth. If you think about it, a modern king could take 1% of the US economy for 1 year and be the richest man on earth...
They have no incentive to promote good long term policies for growth
uhh, reelection? Some senators have been serving for 3 and 4 decades now. I dont find that particularly convincing (logic based on false premises).
Kings, on the other hand, own the country and can pass it down through inheritance
This is a good thing? They can also change the law on a whim, and claim your wife's virginity as their birth-right.
hey are more likely to pursue good long term policy so they can maximize their personal wealth
And yet they didn't. Kings were notorious for disasterous policy, and still maximized their wealth, as it takes an overwhelming majority opposing the king to change his rule. And so what if the country loses a little money, if the king feels any part of it, he will just raise taxes and call it "God's divine will."
I really don't see how you can support not just a territorial monopoly on violence, but one in the hands of one person at that. Unless you're talking about some anarchist monarchy... but I don't see that as in any way feasible.
I agree with you, Epicurus. Monarchy sounds relatively better in theory, but it is definitionally authortarian. I know the autocrat can be at the mercy of barons and lords, but still, he has the capability of doing things at his whim. While democracy lends itself to abuse, there is a certain give-or-take dynamic where the laws voted upon apply to everybody in the nation so people aren't going to vote for something that is egregiously abusive.
Under the assumption that you are not a fan of mass death, insane revolutions, and rampant destruction of wealth, nothing good came out of WWI. The only good thing that could have happened was for it to end sooner. It really didn't matter who won or lost once it started, it was 4 years of shit that snow balled to the big pile of shit we have today. It was perhaps the single biggest pieve of ugliness humanity has had to offer (especially when paired w/ the Russian Revolution), though one can make an argument for the French Revolution as well.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:uhh, reelection? Some senators have been serving for 3 and 4 decades now. I dont find that particularly convincing (logic based on false premises).
Senators are still caretakers. They cannot pass their seats on to their offspring, and do not directly own the country the way a king (or counsil of princes) would.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:This is a good thing? They can also change the law on a whim, and claim your wife's virginity as their birth-right.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:And yet they didn't. Kings were notorious for disasterous policy, and still maximized their wealth, as it takes an overwhelming majority opposing the king to change his rule. And so what if the country loses a little money, if the king feels any part of it, he will just raise taxes and call it "God's divine will."
They cannot pass their seats on to their offspring, and do not directly own the country the way a king (or counsil of princes) would.
Under good stewardship this would normally be a good thing. But Kings own country with scant fear of recourse, however they treat their "property." A king owns a country like he owns his body, totally. A good king will "eat right and exercise" (figuratively), but a bad king will smoke, drink, and cut themselves.
'm not a monarchist :P. I just think its likely for the king to pursue better long term economic policies.
I know. But I disagree that they are more likely. Some kings will be,k many will not. For who would challenge the rule of the king. He would have to do something pretty disasterous for people even to consider the notion.
Total war and the welfare state > inheritance disputes and 1-20% tax rates.
It is true that deaths from war have rosen dramatically, but so has overall population. I just watched a TED video that showed your overall likelihood to die from war has decreased dramatically since the medieval era. Tax rates are enormously high, I will grant you that, but wealth has exploded dramatically as well. What's worse, having 40% of your income taken away but living rather comfortably anyway, or 1% of your income taken away but you live in a backward shack, hoping the next harvest is big enough to get you though the winter (literally, like, you will die. not be a lil cold, but still have food to eat like you would now)?
Too bad all the modern monarchies are essentially resource states. We don't have very good compare and contrast between old monarchies and new democracies.
This may be a stupid question, but what is a "BFG"? I know it isn't Dahls "Big Friendly Giant"
Big Fu**in Gun, popularized in the game Doom, if I remember correctly.