Dictatorship of the Intelligentsia [Archive]

Vlerchan

October 11th, 2015, 10:28 AM

I've spent some amount of time considering an alternative form of government and am looking for critiques.

There would be strict separation between the Executive and the Legislature. The Executive would be split into a number of different branches and deal with a set portfolio. Examples might include 'Economics & Finance' or 'Justice'. Invested in the Executive would be the sole right of legislative initiative with regards to their portfolio. On crafting specific legislation this would then be put to the Legislature. There would be no right to amendment imbued in this Legislature.

Each branch of the Executive would be a the product of sortition. The pool would be all of the citizens in that state which possess a PhD in that subject. Each branch of the Executive would need to get a pass from the Legislature which can veto the entire list - and just the entire list - a maximum of twice in succession. The Executive would serve a term of seven years.

The Legislature would be the product of a democratic vote utilising proportional representation (single transferable vote). Each representative would serve a term of three years, renewable twice. It would have the power to set up enquiries into specific branches of the Executive and have them referred to the courts on grounds of malpractice - to-be-defined.

The branch of the Executive dealing with Justice would elect members of the higher courts of Judiciary from a pool of high ranking barristers and solicitors. This would not need to be put to the Legislature. Those elected would hold permanence of residence and pay. The former can be revoked for specified malpractice - the latter can be altered through popular referendum. Those in the lower courts would be elected from by a panel combining members of the executive, higher courts, and high ranking barristers and solicitors elected from within their respective societies.

The arm of the Executive dealing with Economics and Finance would elect the president of the Central Bank. This would not need to be put to the Legislature. The president would serve a term of seven years, with unlimited scope for renewal. It would be constitutionally-defined as an independent Central Bank and it would have a dual mandate similar to the FEDs.
That's it summarised. I'm still considering whether there would be a head of the Executive and from where - and in what manner - this head should be chosen. I'm also questioning whether giving citizens the right to initiate legislation through popular petition is a good idea.

Thoughts anyways?

Stronk Serb

October 11th, 2015, 03:37 PM

The more minimized the political power of imbeciles is, the better.

Vlerchan

October 11th, 2015, 03:43 PM

The more minimized the political power of imbeciles is, the better.
Out of curiosity, would you consider yourself one of the 'imbeciles'?

I'm just trying to get a sense of who it refers to.

Stronk Serb

October 11th, 2015, 03:47 PM

Out of curiosity, would you consider yourself one of the 'imbeciles'?

I'm just trying to get a sense of who it refers to.

Somebody who votes without reading what the party he voted for stands for, who is politically illiterate etc. I mean, if less intelligent people can vote and know what and who they are voting for, it's okay.

Judean Zealot

October 12th, 2015, 02:27 PM

I'm so proud of young Vlerch. Such promise he shows! :')

Uniquemind

October 13th, 2015, 04:19 AM

Judean Zealot

October 13th, 2015, 04:34 AM

Uniquemind

October 13th, 2015, 04:56 AM

The problem I see is that the legislature would be comprised of the same populist buffoons as now, on account of the intellectual proletariat having suffrage. As brilliantly crafted as the executive branch may be, should they not control the legislation they will constantly be thwarted by the loopholes the legislature will dredge up to neutralise executive directives they disagree with.

What about a clause in the highest law of the land, at the onset of a society's design that forbids any legislator or legislation group/political party to seize control over an issue and leverage it against core business procedures protecting the function of a steady cash flow for the country's business to the point of gridlock. Doing so would be a violation of the oath of the position held in government.

The main issue within the USA now, is that issues can't even come up for discussion and for votes, even if they are due to core function of the country and the country's credibility on the world stage.

There obviously needs issue tiers, where a small set of issues will always be immune to social leveraging to get their way on smaller issues.

We'd have to define what comprises the Omega issues, VS lower tier issues that CAN be used for political games.

Judean Zealot

October 13th, 2015, 05:12 AM

What about a clause in the highest law of the land, at the onset of a society's design that forbids any legislator or legislation group/political party to seize control over an issue and leverage it against core business procedures protecting the function of a steady cash flow for the country's business to the point of gridlock. Doing so would be a violation of the oath of the position held in government.

The main issue within the USA now, is that issues can't even come up for discussion and for votes, even if they are due to core function of the country and the country's credibility on the world stage.

There obviously needs issue tiers, where a small set of issues will always be immune to social leveraging to get their way on smaller issues.

We'd have to define what comprises the Omega issues, VS lower tier issues that CAN be used for political games.

On first thought I would recommend making the divide between municipal and national government. I feel the damage done on a municipal level by political jockeying is on a far smaller scale than national decisions.

In any event, both of us are mutilating Vlerchan's proposal beyond recognition, considering as Vlerchan intends the legislature to prevent the onset of an aristocracy, you and I are proposing just that, with the added caveat of tossing the proles a bone or two to keep them happy.

Vlerchan

October 13th, 2015, 04:15 PM

The State of California, USA, has a direct democracy system where anyone can write a Bill and propose it as a law if it gets enough backing.
I'd heard of California having this. It hasn't been a great success from what I've read. It seems to have resulted in fiscal mismanagement and the empowerment of special interest groups. That's what puts me at unease about the entire proposition. But - at the same time - it seems to have worked quite well in Switzerland. I think I'll be doing a lot more research before I come down on either side though. Being honest I don't know the political histories and cultures of the regions well enough at all to make intelligent comment.

What has me interested is the role referendums have played in the Irish political process. There's been 22 since I was born. The draw is that these tend to spark national debates and discussions about where Ireland is heading. It this sort of deliberation that I desire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy) as the centrepiece of political societies. To some extent I propose a technocratic executive to more act as guides towards the electorate through agenda-setting and their own speech-acts.

---

I also agree with the complexities of law. I'm doing law in uni and there's been some major interpretational issues surrounding certain introductions to the constitution that stem from referendums. That's then material that academics themselves composed.

40.3.3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

This is a good example. It led to the infamous X case as heard in the HC and SC and then four subsequent referendums for clarification.

We should discuss more in PM and see if we can identify areas of breakdown and really craft a system that improves what we've got without detraction.
I wouldn't mind. Though really this thread is for anyone to make propositions with regards to institutions.

I just didn't phrase it like that in the OP because I didn't want to get a bunch of "democracy!!1" responses.

What about a clause in the highest law of the land, at the onset of a society's design that forbids any legislator or legislation group/political party to seize control over an issue and leverage it against core business procedures protecting the function of a steady cash flow for the country's business to the point of gridlock. Doing so would be a violation of the oath of the position held in government.

The main issue within the USA now, is that issues can't even come up for discussion and for votes, even if they are due to core function of the country and the country's credibility on the world stage.

There obviously needs issue tiers, where a small set of issues will always be immune to social leveraging to get their way on smaller issues.

We'd have to define what comprises the Omega issues, VS lower tier issues that CAN be used for political games.
I would agree for the most part with Judean Zealot about localisation of governance when it comes to smaller issues. I feel that barring the legislature from initiating legislation and amending it should for the most part rule out leveraging big issues for political gain. With regards to the executive I'm considering strict punishments for political incompetence.

I think the biggest issue though would be setting out the Omega from the Other and constitutionalising that. I agree though. I think the best means of dealing with it is the reserve the government I outlined in the OP to dealing with issues that can be seen as being required to be dealt with at a national level in order for the dealing to be most efficient. I find these are the problem issues that tend to be leveraged the most.

---

I also think I'm understanding what you're saying here.

The problem I see is that the legislature would be comprised of the same populist buffoons as now, on account of the intellectual proletariat having suffrage.
There's a number of reasons for this.
Like I've mentioned before I desire a government that's accountable to a population.
I desire a government that seems legitimate to the population. In relation to the fiscal properties of government in particular this is important.
Tangential to this it would seem to be the case that in order for a government to maintain itself when it's people are alienated from it that government must ensure the support of local elites. This is something that's expensive and undesirable.
I can see how it might be possible to ignore this in a state that's based around some grand social narrative. But we don't have that privilege here. Not to mention that Ireland in particular has a strong democratic tradition that seems ingrained in our political culture.

should they not control the legislation they will constantly be thwarted by the loopholes the legislature will dredge up to neutralise executive directives they disagree with.
I think this is a fair point. I'm at the moment considering a means to neutralise the legislature so that it doesn't act as a constant torn in such cases. It would seem that in the case of government shutdown though the torn tends to lose on an electoral level which I would would discourage it.

[...] considering as Vlerchan intends the legislature to prevent the onset of an aristocracy [...]
Judean Zealot gets it, I'm still a liberal at heart.

sqishy

October 13th, 2015, 04:45 PM

If you had the opportunity to have a supercomputer, would you use it to work with your system, using possible algorithms regarding how to automate activities in a state? If not, why not?

I'm not saying I want you to have a supercomputer in your system, I'm only wondering if you would go for it it.

Judean Zealot

October 13th, 2015, 05:17 PM

What has me interested is the role referendums have played in the Irish political process. There's been 22 since I was born. The draw is that these tend to spark national debates and discussions about where Ireland is heading.
Not to forget the Home-Rule referendum and the 1918 election of Sinn Fein. That sort of popular participation does seem to be uniquely Irish, as opposed to the American Continental Congress and the French Third Estate.

There's a number of reasons for this.
Like I've mentioned before I desire a government that's accountable to a population.
I desire a government that seems legitimate to the population. In relation to the fiscal properties of government in particular this is important.
Tangential to this it would seem to be the case that in order for a government to maintain itself when it's people are alienated from it that government must ensure the support of local elites. This is something that's expensive and undesirable.
Do you desire conditions 1 and 2 on account of consideration of an ideal of just governance, of maximal utility to the governed, or do you roll the two into an inseparable union?
I can see how it might be possible to ignore this in a state that's based around some grand social narrative. Of course, here is where we differ. I'm all for a national government elected by the optimates (who would in truth be a sizable portion of the population) centered around a robust social program, preferably one of Renaissance or Enlightenment ideals.
But we don't have that privilege here. Not to mention that Ireland in particular has a strong democratic tradition that seems ingrained in our political culture.
Which seems rather ironic, considering the early Republic's dalliance with Fascists.

I think this is a fair point. I'm at the moment considering a means to neutralise the legislature so that it doesn't act as a constant torn in such cases. It would seem that in the case of government shutdown though the torn tends to lose on an electoral level which I would would discourage it.

...Which I deal with by reserving the national suffrage to my renaissance men (and yes, perhaps I do agree with your proposal of dividing the legislature into various ministries, each with their own respective electorate), barring them from initiating or amending bills (although the executive branch ought to present legislation that allows for the elected officials a degree of leeway in interpretation), and giving the suffrage to all non-criminal, mentally able individuals with a basic education in municipal and possibly even county elections.

If you had the opportunity to have a supercomputer, would you use it to work with your system, using possible algorithms regarding how to automate activities in a state? If not, why not?

I'm not saying I want you to have a supercomputer in your system, I'm only wondering if you would go for it it.
Do you mean with view of economics or some Orwellian sort of 'public sentiment gauge'?

Judean Zealot

October 13th, 2015, 05:19 PM

Double post.

sqishy

October 13th, 2015, 05:22 PM

Do you mean with view of economics or some Orwellian sort of 'public sentiment gauge'?

A purely mathematical function in economics or some analogy to it. I did not mean any sort of Orwellian tool you speak of, I should have clarified I know.

Judean Zealot

October 13th, 2015, 05:29 PM

A purely mathematical function in economics or some analogy to it. I did not mean any sort of Orwellian tool you speak of, I should have clarified I know.

Ultimately such a machine would only prove as accurate as the algorithm itself. Considering that I don't view the individual and his decisions in a mechanistic light, I'm unsure how precise such a computer would be.

I'd be fine using it as an aid, but I would be very cautious.

sqishy

October 13th, 2015, 05:33 PM

Ultimately such a machine would only prove as accurate as the algorithm itself. Considering that I don't view the individual and his decisions in a mechanistic light, I'm unsure how precise such a computer would be.

I'd be fine using it as an aid, but I would be very cautious.

I fully agree with this, it was my background opinion from the outset.

Vlerchan

October 14th, 2015, 04:08 PM

Do you desire conditions 1 and 2 on account of consideration of an ideal of just governance, of maximal utility to the governed, or do you roll the two into an inseparable union?
I see a government being accountable to it's people as providing maximal utility over the long-run. It forces governments to cede to their interests. Like I also mentioned before I also do see engagement with the masses as furthering conversation - Even amongst experts.

I see a government seeming legitimate in the view of it's people as being a perquisite to the running of a modern (welfare-capitalist) state that remains stable in the long-run.

I'm all for a national government elected by the optimates (who would in truth be a sizable portion of the population) centered around a robust social program, preferably one of Renaissance or Enlightenment ideals.
That's interesting. Would you be able to define what Enlightenment ideals are being referred to here. I'm presuming 'universal reason' and the universalism that entails is the major one.

One other question. What credentials must these optimates hold?

---

I also find governance in pursuit of some high ideal superior to what confronts Ireland at the moment on this point. Here - normal people have become so steeped in anglo-american liberalism as the prevailing state of affairs that we've begun to see a creeping depoliticisation of the masses [same-sex marriage referendum an exception]. To me it seems there is no longer ideals behind politics, just economic arrangements.

It's to the extent that we can see foreign affairs being abdicated to the EU or privatised with respect to our NGOs [Exception of N.I - which we see as domestic though to a much lesser extent than historical precedent]. These are activities that should be at the core of a sovereign nation.

It's a hope of mine that through the forging of a political union with the other nations of Europe we'll see the emergence of a new European man that will confront this stagnation in a similar manner to Prezzolini (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Prezzolini) and those of La Voce desired the coming of a new Italian man in a bid to renew the modernist movement. In such a case I can imagine the re-emergence of grand social narratives that might replace legitimation through democratisation, i.e., subservience to a believed-self.

Which seems rather ironic, considering the early Republic's dalliance with Fascists.
Yeah. Those brief flirtations aside.

One fun fact on this issue is that out Upper House was intended to be a homage to the corporatist model. Before it became a home for failed careerists it was intended to be grounds for Capital and Labour to co-operate.

[...] although the executive branch ought to present legislation that allows for the elected officials a degree of leeway in interpretation [...]
Just on this note would you be able to expand on the degree of leeway in interpretation?

Perhaps it's just the law student in me but I like when the law is airtight and, well, legalistic.

If you had the opportunity to have a supercomputer, would you use it to work with your system, using possible algorithms regarding how to automate activities in a state? If not, why not?
I'm more or less in agreement with Judean Zealot and you.

This also raises the interesting question of whether if economic agents realise that the government will react in-line with this algorithm, will economic agents continue to act in the same manner as before.

Uniquemind

October 14th, 2015, 05:36 PM

Vlerchan, that's a serious concern, because the capitalistic and finance sector of any nation's economy, is a total 5th arm (which is an extension of the 4th arm of government, being the media, if media is controlled by corporations which is controlled by money).

Campaign finance reform would be absolutely necessary, and there would have to be a duel concept in how a intellectual meritocracy could arise in combination with everything suggested thus far in your proposed system of government.

It would also have to filter out for nepotism, and focus on the merit of new ideas and the trade-offs of new bills/laws, as well as being socially inclusive among the entire populace rather than closed social groups of intellectuals.

Open and genuine communication is key for such a government to work long term, and also hear the scale of issues citizens are saying are problems at the local, to state, to national/central levels.

Vlerchan

October 16th, 2015, 04:04 AM

[...] that's a serious concern, because the capitalistic and finance sector of any nation's economy, is a total 5th arm[.]
I'm not quite sure what this exactly refers to. Would you mind clarifying? Thank you.

Campaign finance reform would be absolutely necessary, and there would have to be a duel concept in how a intellectual meritocracy could arise in combination with everything suggested thus far in your proposed system of government.
I live in a state where there's massive restrictions on campaign finance and it more or less eliminates it as an issue. To a much greater extent than Irish electoral politics is separated from the 'capitalist arm'. For an indication of how alien Ireland is, the biggest social group in both our upper and lower house is school teachers, which includes our prime minister. I can agree that the U.S requires campaign finance reform though - but I'm not sure to what extent that is possible considering the perverted free speech laws there.

With that in mind there might be issues with unofficial donations. In Ireland we've had multiple issues with cronyism and corruption. There's not much we can do there other than ensure that such conduct is dealt with in the strictest manner. I feel it would be restricted though in that the legislature is quite restricted as far as it's actual legislative functions are concerned. The fact that the executive need not worry about financing their future campaigns make them a lot less susceptible to corruption I would also believe. Though I still think those should have a full bar on the receipt of donations or what not.

In regards to the emergence of the Intelligentsia that would exist along the same format as we elect PhD candidates as of the moment. That's something that the free market requires is fair and impartial or otherwise the degree is worthless - and if the degree is worthless then PhD candidates wouldn't decide to invest in the college. If required I can include directions that Thesis reviews should be double-blind but I don't think it will be.

Then sortition ensures the pool can't be manipulated to produce candidates that would sit the ends of nepotists and cronyists.

---

I've also had my girlfriend raise the point before that some people can't afford to attend higher education. I've always held that up to someone's MA should be government funded. Or at least a lending platform similar to the one introduced in the U.K. should exist. For PhDs people can do research PhDs - fund it with part-time teaching - or take out of U.K.-styled loans. Just so that's explicit I'll mention it here though.

Uniquemind

October 16th, 2015, 04:47 AM

Ah makes sense, I was taking your idea and applying it to the problems in USA government.

My mistake on context.

Vlerchan

October 16th, 2015, 05:04 AM

Ah makes sense, I was taking your idea and applying it to the problems in USA government.
Even if we presume Citizens United exists in Ireland I still think that the proposal I've presented neuters the judgement to some extent.
The Executive doesn't have to consider financing it's next campaign and that makes it less susceptible to selling itself for donation.
In that case it does there's little to distinguish between a donation and an open bribe: In the case we can agree it's a bribe it falls under 18 U.S. Code § 201 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201#.ViDKePlVhBc).
With regards to the legislature it would seem there there's a much lesser return on donations to individuals that don't posses the right to initiate legislation and don't possess the right to amend it. I would imagine that reform as I suggest would result in a quite diminished equilibrium.

sqishy

October 16th, 2015, 07:53 PM

I'm more or less in agreement with Judean Zealot and you.

This also raises the interesting question of whether if economic agents realise that the government will react in-line with this algorithm, will economic agents continue to act in the same manner as before.

Indeed, yes.

Judean Zealot

October 17th, 2015, 07:05 PM

That's interesting. Would you be able to define what Enlightenment ideals are being referred to here. I'm presuming 'universal reason' and the universalism that entails is the major one. Universal reason with a theistic/deistic bent. I absolutely reject romantic humanism, however.

One other question. What credentials must these optimates hold?

I immediately imagine a renaissance man sans the poetry and dancing. I suppose only polymaths with an impeccable devotion to the various duties of a citizen, son, husband, and father. Although the knowledge of, say, astronomy does little to improve one's judgement of state affairs, a love of truth and wisdom is to me the most telling sign of nobility when held by an honest man.

In summary, I would require a recognition of effort (perhaps from the University) in studies such as mathematics, physics, and the other sciences, as well as a thorough knowledge of whatever disciplines pertain to the department of government for which he wishes to vote (I would divide the legislative into three houses, one economic, one social, and one international. The joint legislations will elect the chief executive)
Just on this note would you be able to expand on the degree of leeway in interpretation?

Perhaps it's just the law student in me but I like when the law is airtight and, well, legalistic.

As a Talmudist I'm in full agreement. What I'm saying is that I would encourage the Executive to propose legislation to the elected officials (who, as you recall cannot amend a bill) with given postulates for the Senate to work with within the bounds set by the executive.

Vlerchan

October 18th, 2015, 09:52 AM

I absolutely reject romantic humanism, however.
What's wrong with the Romantics?

I suppose only polymaths with an impeccable devotion to the various duties of a citizen, son, husband, and father.
Boys only then?

Is it also required you be married and have children.

In summary, I would require a recognition of effort (perhaps from the University) in studies such as mathematics, physics, and the other sciences, as well as a thorough knowledge of whatever disciplines pertain to the department of government for which he wishes to vote (I would divide the legislative into three houses, one economic, one social, and one international. The joint legislations will elect the chief executive)
I've seen you emphasise the sciences before. Is there a reason this is the case? Is there some inherent good in their understanding. I ask because at a personal level I've never liked reading the sciences. I find it a distraction from reading the arts which I have a much greater preference for.

I just find their emphasis curious.

Judean Zealot

October 18th, 2015, 11:49 AM

What's wrong with the Romantics?
When reason ceases to drive the intellect and emotion takes over you can end up anywhere. I realize the power of emotion, but it must be properly channeled by the intellect. Otherwise I'm afraid of the effects of the deliriously excited crowds hailing the Führer.

Boys only then?
Absolutely not. Simply amend it to 'the duties of a citizen, daughter, wife, and mother'.

Is it also required you be married and have children.
I don't think so. As much as I would like to make marriage a prerequisite I am afraid that doing so would cause marriage to simply become a jaded political affair.

If one is married though, and neglects his wife and children, such a person ought to absolutely lose the vote. If a person cannot maintain a rightful fidelity to his own flesh, then how can he be trusted in his fidelity to the overall welfare of the state?

I've seen you emphasise the sciences before. Is there a reason this is the case? Is there some inherent good in their understanding. I ask because at a personal level I've never liked reading the sciences. I find it a distraction from reading the arts which I have a much greater preference for.

I just find their emphasis curious.

The sciences are a push towards discovering the harmonious and the beautiful, while the arts are merely a manner of feeling imperfect copies of those forms on an emotional level. The man who strives in the sciences is focused on tuning his psyche with the perfection and symmetry of the universe, whereas the artist limits his work to transposing that symmetry and perfection onto his own imperfect soul. Instead of elevating his soul to the divine, he lowers the divine to his soul.

Of course, this doesn't push away all the arts. I would divide the arts into two classes- the representative and the expressive. The representative is that art which merely represents the perfection and symmetry of the cosmos, while the expressive is that in which the artist expresses his feelings. Picasso or John Lennon would both be wonderful examples of the expressive, while Michaelangelo and Händel would both fall under the representative mold.

The representative is that which I enjoy immensely- I play the piano, love classical music, and enjoy the devotional poetry of Solomon ibn Gabirol (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_ibn_Gabirol) in particular. I find that in much of classical music the harmony of the universe is expressed brilliantly, and indeed, I believe that from a perfected theory of music we can extrapolate the dynamics and ratios of the universe.

The expressive, however, is only as good as the ideas expressed therein. I'm fine, for example, with much of Tennyson or Addison, but when we get to T.S. Eliot and cubism I would venture to say that both would be better off in the scrap heap of history.

sqishy

October 18th, 2015, 01:20 PM

When reason ceases to drive the intellect and emotion takes over you can end up anywhere. I realize the power of emotion, but it must be properly channeled by the intellect. Otherwise I'm afraid of the effects of the deliriously excited crowds hailing the Führer.

I don't think so. As much as I would like to make marriage a prerequisite I am afraid that doing so would cause marriage to simply become a jaded political affair.

The sciences are a push towards discovering the harmonious and the beautiful, while the arts are merely a manner of feeling imperfect copies of those forms on an emotional level. The man who strives in the sciences is focused on tuning his psyche with the perfection and symmetry of the universe, whereas the artist limits his work to transposing that symmetry and perfection onto his own imperfect soul. Instead of elevating his soul to the divine, he lowers the divine to his soul.

Would we be human without the arts? In my view, the arts and the sciences are not unequally important, nor are they even equally important, because they are irreducible. We need both. Reasoning and emotion would make us different than we are, if we only go with one of them.
Is there something wrong with, as you put it, 'lowering' the soul? What is wrong with imperfection? We are beings of blood and flesh.
I'm not giving a brick-clear viewpoint here, I'm more questioning yours.

[I know this is going offtopic]

Judean Zealot

October 18th, 2015, 04:15 PM

[COLOR="Yellow"]Would we be human without the arts? In my view, the arts and the sciences are not unequally important, nor are they even equally important, because they are irreducible. We need both. Reasoning and emotion would make us different than we are, if we only go with one of them.

I do not say to not employ emotion. Emotion is a very useful tool for accomplishing what one must. However, emotions, and by extension, the arts, must be held accountable to and dictated by reason. If the message of the art is reflective of universal truth, than the art is being employed in a beneficial manner. If however, the message of the art is crude and earthly it is unworthy. As such, art in and of itself is neutral, either good or bad. As such, it's pursuit is hardly prioritized by myself, as opposed to enlightenment, which is the greatest good a man can achieve. Further explanation will be given in the following segment.

Is there something wrong with, as you put it, 'lowering' the soul? What is wrong with imperfection? We are beings of blood and flesh.
We are dual creations. On the one hand we are clothed in a body identical in it's functions to any brute animal, but on the other hand, we have an intellect capable of abstracting and unifying itself with the very cosmos and forms themselves.

Body and soul are in a constant struggle for dominance- when one is ignored the other grows strong. Technically, a man can ignore all of his bodily needs, neglect his health, and completely abstain from the pleasures of this world in order to fully occupy his mind with the divine. Yet that is insufficient to fully exalt the entire man, only his soul. His body is cast away as nothing more than an impediment.

The ideal, then, is for a man to exalt the union of body and soul, by way of appending his bodily functions to those of his soul. When he eats, he does so not just for his taste buds, but for the sake of his health so that he may continue along the path to enlightenment. Before he begins he reflects on the supreme Architect of the universe, and his duties towards Him. When he sleeps, he sleeps to have strength to fulfill his duties the next day. When he walks in the street, when he talks, in every action that he does, he carries himself with modest dignity with the thought that he is in the service of the most glorious King, and it does not befit him to act in any other manner. If a man lives his life like this, and uses his body to further his soul, then his body becomes a sacred shrine, a temple for the divinity within us.

However, the opposite is possible as well. If a man abuses the soul, and uses his mind solely for the purpose of figuring out ways how to increase his bodily pleasures, then he debases his soul along with his body. His soul becomes nothing more than a prop for an animal. Such a man is analogous to a man who receives a beautiful and expensive tapestry from his king, but instead of hanging it up in a prominent place he cuts it up and uses it as toilet paper. Such a man will debase his soul along with his body.

Now here is where emotions come in. Essentially, what emotions are are the bridge between the body's brute sensuality and the soul's abstractions, and as such, the emotions are the portal through which both body and mind attempt to influence the other.

The common (and negative) way in which emotion is employed is when the body has some desire or another, be it food, sleep, sex, or whatever. Emotion subverts the intellect to be happy when the wish is fulfilled, worried when in doubt, and anger when frustrated. By way of the above emotions, the body makes inroads into the realm of the mind.

Yet the man who employs his body for the advancement of the soul will not be concerned about anything but truth and virtue, and will constantly reflect on those. When a man meditates on his privilege of having duties and comprehends the magnitude of his good fortune and opportunity, his emotions will kick in as well, but in a drastically different way. He will be seized with such a powerful exuberance that his body will literally carry him on it's own accord to do good and further develop his virtue. He will be so suffused with joy at his ability to serve his King that absolutely nothing will be able to quench that happiness.

Art that brings a man closer to his mind dominating his body is good. Art that leads to vice versa is bad.

sqishy

October 18th, 2015, 04:30 PM

I do not say to not employ emotion. Emotion is a very useful tool for accomplishing what one must. However, emotions, and by extension, the arts, must be held accountable to and dictated by reason. If the message of the art is reflective of universal truth, than the art is being employed in a beneficial manner. If however, the message of the art is crude and earthly it is unworthy. As such, art in and of itself is neutral, either good or bad. As such, it's pursuit is hardly prioritized by myself, as opposed to enlightenment, which is the greatest good a man can achieve. Further explanation will be given in the following segment.

We are dual creations. On the one hand we are clothed in a body identical in it's functions to any brute animal, but on the other hand, we have an intellect capable of abstracting and unifying itself with the very cosmos and forms themselves.

Body and soul are in a constant struggle for dominance- when one is ignored the other grows strong. Technically, a man can ignore all of his bodily needs, neglect his health, and completely abstain from the pleasures of this world in order to fully occupy his mind with the divine. Yet that is insufficient to fully exalt the entire man, only his soul. His body is cast away as nothing more than an impediment.

The ideal, then, is for a man to exalt the union of body and soul, by way of appending his bodily functions to those of his soul. When he eats, he does so not just for his taste buds, but for the sake of his health so that he may continue along the path to enlightenment. Before he begins he reflects on the supreme Architect of the universe, and his duties towards Him. When he sleeps, he sleeps to have strength to fulfill his duties the next day. When he walks in the street, when he talks, in every action that he does, he carries himself with modest dignity with the thought that he is in the service of the most glorious King, and it does not befit him to act in any other manner. If a man lives his life like this, and uses his body to further his soul, then his body becomes a sacred shrine, a temple for the divinity within us.

However, the opposite is possible as well. If a man abuses the soul, and uses his mind solely for the purpose of figuring out ways how to increase his bodily pleasures, then he debases his soul along with his body. His soul becomes nothing more than a prop for an animal. Such a man is analogous to a man who receives a beautiful and expensive tapestry from his king, but instead of hanging it up in a prominent place he cuts it up and uses it as toilet paper. Such a man will debase his soul along with his body.

Now here is where emotions come in. Essentially, what emotions are are the bridge between the body's brute sensuality and the soul's abstractions, and as such, the emotions are the portal through which both body and mind attempt to influence the other.

The common (and negative) way in which emotion is employed is when the body has some desire or another, be it food, sleep, sex, or whatever. Emotion subverts the intellect to be happy when the wish is fulfilled, worried when in doubt, and anger when frustrated. By way of the above emotions, the body makes inroads into the realm of the mind.

Yet the man who employs his body for the advancement of the soul will not be concerned about anything but truth and virtue, and will constantly reflect on those. When a man meditates on his privilege of having duties and comprehends the magnitude of his good fortune and opportunity, his emotions will kick in as well, but in a drastically different way. He will be seized with such a powerful exuberance that his body will literally carry him on it's own accord to do good and further develop his virtue. He will be so suffused with joy at his ability to serve his King that absolutely nothing will be able to quench that happiness.

Art that brings a man closer to his mind dominating his body is good. Art that leads to vice versa is bad.

So overall, the mind/reason has the high ground in respect to the body/emotion.

You also assume that there are forms and an ultimate reality, let alone it being which is accessible to us.
Could one argue that ultimate reality is not in some other place, but is in the present moment, fully accessible to us by emotion/etc.?

Would, in your opinion, someone be fulfilled in life if he/she had a career of expressive art and was in a long-lasting relationship, without giving thought to the sciences, philosophy or other thought?

[Again, I'm not giving my own POV, I am speculating parts of your one]

Judean Zealot

October 18th, 2015, 05:29 PM

You also assume that there are forms and an ultimate reality, let alone it being which is accessible to us.
Yes. I am in many respects a Platonist. Don't forget, by the way, my weltanschaunng is set against a backdrop of the Newtonian Cause of all causes and the cosmological arguments of Maimonides and Aquinas.
Could one argue that ultimate reality is not in some other place, but is in the present moment, fully accessible to us by emotion/etc.?
Not with the Cosmological arguments you can't. The only reality is that of God, and as such no contingent being can bear any truth. Now you can possibly propose that the here and now is that by which the Supreme Being actualizes the Truth of His will, and the intellective faculties are merely as an aid to man in the 'pursuit of happiness'. I will respond to that below.

Would, in your opinion, someone be fulfilled in life if he/she had a career of expressive art and was in a long-lasting relationship, without giving thought to the sciences, philosophy or other thought?

No. That person would be like a child who exchanges his hundred dollar bill for two shiny pennies. Let me express it this way, with the existence of the God of classical theism as a given postulate.

To prove that of man's two faculties, the intellectual is the greater good, with the given postulate of Necessary Being:

1. Necessary Being exists.
2. All else is contingent on Necessary Being.
3. A contingency cannot be greater than it's cause.
4. Thus Necessary Being is maximally great, as no contingent ideas are greater than It.
5. Necessary Being contains no deficiency.
6. Thus the contingencies do not contain deficiencies, rather all that appears so is so willed by Necessary Being, and thus the greatest good.
7. If pleasurable physical existence were the ultimate good in the world, then it would be attainable to all men.
8. But physical pleasure is most of the time unavailable to most people, by virtue of natural infirmity, death, and lack of resources.
9. Thus it is not physical pleasure that is the ultimate goodness of Necessary Being in the world.
10. Which leaves us with only the pleasure of the soul as an option.
:. Thus the ordering of the soul must be the ultimate good, and can be said to be so as it is available to all men.

Similarly, I can phrase 7 that if physical pleasure was the greatest good and contingent on Necessary Being it ought to be unbounded by time etc.

----

You can ask on these propositions and I'll gladly explain them in more depth, as I am aware of the several modal flaws in the argument's current formulation, although I can fill in the gaps.

sqishy

October 18th, 2015, 05:38 PM

Yes. I am in many respects a Platonist. Don't forget, by the way, my weltanschaunng is set against a backdrop of the Newtonian Cause of all causes and the cosmological arguments of Maimonides and Aquinas.

Not with the Cosmological arguments you can't. The only reality is that of God, and as such no contingent being can bear any truth. Now you can possibly propose that the here and now is that by which the Supreme Being actualizes the Truth of His will, and the intellective faculties are merely as an aid to man in the 'pursuit of happiness'. I will respond to that below.

No. That person would be like a child who exchanges his hundred dollar bill for two shiny pennies. Let me express it this way, with the existence of the God of classical theism as a given postulate.

To prove that of man's two faculties, the intellectual is the greater good, with the given postulate of Necessary Being:

1. Necessary Being exists.
2. All else is contingent on Necessary Being.
3. A contingency cannot be greater than it's cause.
4. Thus Necessary Being is maximally great, as no contingent ideas are greater than It.
5. Necessary Being contains no deficiency.
6. Thus the contingencies do not contain deficiencies, rather all that appears so is so willed by Necessary Being, and thus the greatest good.
7. If pleasurable physical existence were the ultimate good in the world, then it would be attainable to all men.
8. But physical pleasure is most of the time unavailable to most people, by virtue of natural infirmity, death, and lack of resources.
9. Thus it is not physical pleasure that is the ultimate goodness of Necessary Being in the world.
10. Which leaves us with only the pleasure of the soul as an option.
:. Thus the ordering of the soul must be the ultimate good, and can be said to be so as it is available to all men.

Similarly, I can phrase 7 that if physical pleasure was the greatest good and contingent on Necessary Being it ought to be unbounded by time etc.

----

You can ask on these propositions and I'll gladly explain them in more depth, as I am aware of the several modal flaws in the argument's current formulation, although I can fill in the gaps.

You're using some of Descartes' causal argument I see. I will stop my criticism of your point of view, not at all that I don't see a way to go against your argument, but that I don't feel energised to do more to be honest, at least for the moment. I respect your view.

Judean Zealot

October 18th, 2015, 05:41 PM

You're using some of Descartes' causal argument I see. I will stop my criticism of your point of view, not at all that I don't see a way to go against your argument, but that I don't feel energised to do more to be honest, at least for the moment. I respect your view.

Some Cartesian elements, but not entirely. I could formulate it differently as well, but I was just flying by the seat of my pants. Anyway, it was an enjoyable exchange. :)

sqishy

October 18th, 2015, 05:44 PM

Some Cartesian elements, but not entirely. I could formulate it differently as well, but I was just flying by the seat of my pants. Anyway, it was an enjoyable exchange. :)

Some idea expressions work best on the spot, indeed. Yes, so ends our topic deviation in this thread. I feel the other one regarding overpopulation may continue in coherence.

(I'm being intentional with my formality now, I know)

Judean Zealot

October 18th, 2015, 05:45 PM

Some idea expressions work best on the spot, indeed. Yes, so ends our topic deviation in this thread. I feel the other one regarding overpopulation may continue in coherence.

(I'm being intentional with my formality now, I know)

Eh. I think I'm done with that. Let Vlerchan bust his jaw dealing with our friend there.

Arkansasguy

November 8th, 2015, 06:14 PM

Judean Zealot

November 8th, 2015, 06:25 PM

The problem with it is the same problem with any meritocratic system. In order to get promoted in the executive one must boast of one's own virtues (in this case virtue means academic prowess), which tends to promote the proud and arrogant.
As opposed to a monarchy in which promotions are only secured by the craven and the flatterers. I would rather the boastful any day. I'm addition, men who would employ less than ideal methods to procure social advancement will be denied promotion by the authorities that be, having themselves been chosen only by virtue of their wisdom and morality.

While reducing suffrage in executive matters to the educated will help a little, it ultimately will have a minute effect, as masses of people are like parallel resistors, no matter how intelligent they are, they'll be stupid as a group.

I'm talking about a level of education which the majority of the country wouldn't be able to reach. In addition, they would need schooling in philosophy and ethics, and as such will be far more capable of reasoned discourse.

Now, when it comes to bureaucracy, meritocracy does have a place, but only under the leadership of and commingled with merit-neutral authority. As I've said before, the most efficient means of transmitting merit-neutral authority is hereditarily. Thus any executive branch should be headed by a monarch or lord, depending on whether we're speaking of national or local government.

And when you have a lunatic who believes he's made from glass? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_VI_of_France)

Arkansasguy

November 8th, 2015, 07:10 PM

As opposed to a monarchy in which promotions are only secured by the craven and the flatterers. I would rather the boastful any day. I'm addition, men who would employ less than ideal methods to procure social advancement will be denied promotion by the authorities that be, having themselves been chosen only by virtue of their wisdom and morality.

Many of the positions of authority in a monarchist state would be held based on heredity, a means of acquisition immune to promoting the vicious over the virtuous. To the extent that there could be promotions based on flattery, it would only be within the meritocratic bureaucracy, and would be no worse than in a democratic bureaucracy.

I'm talking about a level of education which the majority of the country wouldn't be able to reach. In addition, they would need schooling in philosophy and ethics, and as such will be far more capable of reasoned discourse.

You seem to think that you can teach people wisdom. And you missed the point, regardless of how wise they are as individuals, they will be stupid collectively.

And when you have a lunatic who believes he's made from glass? (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_VI_of_France)

Then you have a regent.

Hyper

November 8th, 2015, 10:53 PM

I can just picture the value of higher education in the modern age...

And then a room with say 200 PhDs arguing about a subject with divergent schools of thought i.e Keynesian economists screaming at screeching Friedman schoolers.

Judean Zealot

November 9th, 2015, 04:21 AM

Many of the positions of authority in a monarchist state would be held based on heredity, a means of acquisition immune to promoting the vicious over the virtuous.

What? If the heir is vicious...

To the extent that there could be promotions based on flattery, it would only be within the meritocratic bureaucracy, and would be no worse than in a democratic bureaucracy.

That's not very reassuring to somebody who thinks that the democratic bureaucracy is hopeless.

You seem to think that you can teach people wisdom. And you missed the point, regardless of how wise they are as individuals, they will be stupid collectively.
[citation needed]

I would say that society is the sum of it's parts. Considering as the fools and immoral are disenfranchised, they have no inlet to corrupt the national discourse.

Then you have a regent.

You can't just pop up a regent whenever you feel. In addition, how many wars, intrigues, and murders would it take to destabilise the government? I mean, the very case of Charles VI (linked in my previous post) is ample demonstration of this. The power vacuum created by the lawful king's bout with insanity almost entirely destroyed France with the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armagnac-Burgundian_Civil_War). Even the legal regency when Charles was in his minority led to his uncles squandering the royal coffers over internal feuds.

Or we can hop across the channel, and look at the English regency during the reign of Edward VI (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England), when regency issues caused a civil war, the Duke of Somerset (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Seymour,_1st_Duke_of_Somerset) to lose his head, and the Duke of Northumberland (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dudley,_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland)to defraud and plunge the country into a protracted period of religious violence, which didn't end until the beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots by Elizabeth I.

And that's not even to get involved in the succession issues so prevalent in monarchies (for a biblical example I give you Adonijah's (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonijah) attempted coup against Solomon, and more relevantly, the English Anarchy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy) and the War of the Spanish Succession (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession)).

Arkansasguy

November 9th, 2015, 11:04 AM

What? If the heir is vicious...

I should have been more clear, hereditary monarchy does not give the vicious an advantage over the virtuous.

That's not very reassuring to somebody who thinks that the democratic bureaucracy is hopeless.

It would be no worse than any bureaucracy.

[citation needed]

I would say that society is the sum of it's parts. Considering as the fools and immoral are disenfranchised, they have no inlet to corrupt the national discourse.

Even a wise man cares more about those things immediately in his power, than about things he has only a remote interest in. So even one who is diligent in running his own household will be likely to vote for wicked men, particularly if the wicked men in question are skilled at disguising their wickedness. And of course, the point still stands that the very act of promoting oneself for elective office is morally corrupting.

You can't just pop up a regent whenever you feel. In addition, how many wars, intrigues, and murders would it take to destabilise the government? I mean, the very case of Charles VI (linked in my previous post) is ample demonstration of this. The power vacuum created by the lawful king's bout with insanity almost entirely destroyed France with the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armagnac-Burgundian_Civil_War). Even the legal regency when Charles was in his minority led to his uncles squandering the royal coffers over internal feuds.

Or we can hop across the channel, and look at the English regency during the reign of Edward VI (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VI_of_England), when regency issues caused a civil war, the Duke of Somerset (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Seymour,_1st_Duke_of_Somerset) to lose his head, and the Duke of Northumberland (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dudley,_1st_Duke_of_Northumberland)to defraud and plunge the country into a protracted period of religious violence, which didn't end until the beheading of Mary, Queen of Scots by Elizabeth I.

And that's not even to get involved in the succession issues so prevalent in monarchies (for a biblical example I give you Adonijah's (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adonijah) attempted coup against Solomon, and more relevantly, the English Anarchy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchy) and the War of the Spanish Succession (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Spanish_Succession)).

Yes, sometimes monarchies have conflicts over succession or regency. That doesn't mean they are constantly in such states. I'd point out the problem cases of your preferred system except it's never been tried.

Judean Zealot

November 9th, 2015, 11:21 AM

Even a wise man cares more about those things immediately in his power, than about things he has only a remote interest in. So even one who is diligent in running his own household will be likely to vote for wicked men, particularly if the wicked men in question are skilled at disguising their wickedness. And of course, the point still stands that the very act of promoting oneself for elective office is morally corrupting.

The wise man would consider the public welfare as something extremely vital, and would take far more than a remote interest in it. He would consider it his sacred duty, not a privilege. Cato of Utica (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger) is a perfect example of such a man.

Yes, sometimes monarchies have conflicts over succession or regency. That doesn't mean they are constantly in such states. I'd point out the problem cases of your preferred system except it's never been tried.

Every royal court in European history was awash with intrigues and murders.

A similar system to mine has been tried, and was a tremendous success, even with it's minor abuses, in Imperial China (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination).

Arkansasguy

November 9th, 2015, 12:33 PM

The wise man would consider the public welfare as something extremely vital, and would take far more than a remote interest in it. He would consider it his sacred duty, not a privilege. Cato of Utica (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Younger) is a perfect example of such a man.

Cato certainly was not common, and in any case I was speaking of electors not politicians.

Every royal court in European history was awash with intrigues and murders.

A similar system to mine has been tried, and was a tremendous success, even with it's minor abuses, in Imperial China (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination).

It worked under the direction of a hereditary absolute monarchy.

Judean Zealot

November 9th, 2015, 12:42 PM

Cato certainly was not common, and in any case I was speaking of electors not politicians.

Neither would those with the suffrage be very common.

Ideally, they would be one and the same. Every man ought to understand it as his full duty to closely follow the affairs of state- as did Cato with the Roman treasury, even after he was but a private citizen.

It worked under the direction of a hereditary absolute monarchy.

The monarchy was the flaw of the whole system. It allowed flatterers to gain prominence without respect to their actual virtues.

Arkansasguy

November 9th, 2015, 12:56 PM

Neither would those with the suffrage be very common.

Ideally, they would be one and the same. Every man ought to understand it as his full duty to closely follow the affairs of state- as did Cato with the Roman treasury, even after he was but a private citizen.

Cato was watchful of the treasury because he had been individually vested with the responsibility of watching over it.

The monarchy was the flaw of the whole system. It allowed flatterers to gain prominence without respect to their actual virtues.

The Emperor was the primary feature of the whole Confucian system. And you'll need to support your assertion that the monarchy was a flaw in the system.

Judean Zealot

November 9th, 2015, 01:37 PM

Cato was watchful of the treasury because he had been individually vested with the responsibility of watching over it.

I quote from Plutarch:

However, not even after he had laid down the quaestorship did Cato leave the treasury destitute of his watchful care, but slaves of his were there every day copying the transactions, and he himself paid five talents for books containing accounts of the public business from the times of Sulla down to his own quaestorship, and always had them in hand.

The Emperor was the primary feature of the whole Confucian system. And you'll need to support your assertion that the monarchy was a flaw in the system.

Well, the chronic instability that destroyed the Tang Dynasty (under whom imperial exams were universally instituted) was the result of the phenomenon of the Jiedushi (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiedushi), who were military governors created to delegate the emperor's responsibilities (which were to many for just one man, a problem that wouldn't have occurred in a well tiered Republic of optimates.

Arkansasguy

November 9th, 2015, 02:37 PM

I quote from Plutarch:

However, not even after he had laid down the quaestorship did Cato leave the treasury destitute of his watchful care, but slaves of his were there every day copying the transactions, and he himself paid five talents for books containing accounts of the public business from the times of Sulla down to his own quaestorship, and always had them in hand.

Yes, he felt he had a duty to the treasury even afterwards. I fail to see how that contradicts what I said.

Well, the chronic instability that destroyed the Tang Dynasty (under whom imperial exams were universally instituted) was the result of the phenomenon of the Jiedushi (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiedushi), who were military governors created to delegate the emperor's responsibilities (which were to many for just one man, a problem that wouldn't have occurred in a well tiered Republic of optimates.

Of course responsibilities must be delegated. That is true of a monarchy as well as a meritocracy, and I don't see how it's an argument against monarchy.

Judean Zealot

November 9th, 2015, 02:58 PM

Yes, he felt he had a duty to the treasury even afterwards. I fail to see how that contradicts what I said.

What follows afterwards:

For it was neither for the sake of reputation, nor to gain riches, nor accidentally and by chance, like some others, that he threw himself into the management of civic affairs, but he chose a public career as the proper task for a good man, and thought that he ought to be more attentive to the common interests than the bee to its honey. And so he was careful to have the affairs of the provinces and decrees and trials and the most important measures sent to him by his connections and friends in every place.

Of course responsibilities must be delegated. That is true of a monarchy as well as a meritocracy, and I don't see how it's an argument against monarchy.
The problem of the Jiedoshi was the extreme amount of authority they were given. This degree of authority was only necessary because of the essentially one man show at the top.

Contrast them to a military governorship during the healthy days of the Roman Republic- on account of the size of the Senate, even military governors were accountable to SPQR.

Vlerchan

November 9th, 2015, 05:25 PM

I had intended to do some large write-up in response to Paraxiom's and Judean Zealot's request. With the debate that preceded in mind I'm going wait some time.

Hope that's OK.

In order to get promoted in the executive one must boast of one's own virtues (in this case virtue means academic prowess), which tends to promote the proud and arrogant.
You would need to be using quite an extended definition of 'boast' to ensnare the people I have in mind. I intend for government to be that of accredited social scientists. These are chosen not based on application for the role but recognised application to a field. I also feel that if social science is one thing it is humbling because it tends to be in a constant state of flux with theories in constant replace of theories.

I have a feeling that there's an equivalence of the pursuit of academic distinction [education] with arrogance though. I don't accept this for one thing. But regardless I'll take arrogance in place of a sub-standard job whenever.

---

Like last time I'll also refer to business management and raise the point that if heriditarian governance was superior it wouldn't have been outcompeted meritocratic governance at the top of the income-scale.

In general though firms flounder on succession.

This article contributes to the growing empirical literature on family firms by studying the impact of the founder-chief executive officer (CEO) succession in a sample of Italian firms. We contrast firms that continue to be managed within the family by the heirs to the founders with firms in which the management is passed on to outsiders. Family successions, that is, successions by the founder's heirs, are further analyzed by assessing the impact of the sectoral intensity of competition on the post-succession performance. This analysis also addresses the endogeneity in the timing of the CEO succession by controlling for a pure mean-reversion effect in the firm's performance. We find that the maintenance of management within the family has a negative impact on the firm's performance, and this effect is largely borne by the good performers, especially in the more competitive sectors. These results indicate that there is no inherent superiority of the family-firm structure and emphasize the importance of conducting an analysis of governance in a variety of institutional settings.

Cucculelli, M. and Micucci, G. (2008) 'Family Succession and Firm Performance: Evidence from Italian Family Firms', Bank of Italy Temi di Discussione (Working Paper) No. 680. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1160220)

Here's the largest review of all time. It was published in the QJE which is were all the most major research goes.

This paper uses a unique dataset from Denmark to investigate the impact of family characteristics in corporate decision making and the consequences of these decisions on firm performance. We focus on the decision to appoint either a family or external chief executive officer (CEO). The paper uses variation in CEO succession decisions that result from the gender of a departing CEO's firstborn child. This is a plausible instrumental variable (IV), as male first-child firms are more likely to pass on control to a family CEO than are female first-child firms, but the gender of the first child is unlikely to affect firms' outcomes. We find that family successions have a large negative causal impact on firm performance: operating profitability on assets falls by at least four percentage points around CEO transitions. Our IV estimates are significantly larger than those obtained using ordinary least squares. Furthermore, we show that family-CEO underperformance is particularly large in fast-growing industries, industries with highly skilled labor force, and relatively large firms. Overall, our empirical results demonstrate that professional, nonfamily CEOs provide extremely valuable services to the organizations they head.

Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K. M., Pérez-Gonzáles, F. and Wolfenson, D. (2007) Inside the Family firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance, The Quarterly Journal of Economic, 122(2), 647-691. (http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/122/2/647.abstract)

So give me arrogance. Please.

While reducing suffrage in executive matters to the educated will help a little, it ultimately will have a minute effect, as masses of people are like parallel resistors, no matter how intelligent they are, they'll be stupid as a group.
I have no idea where this is coming from. The FED - and BoE for that matter - took strong and decisive stances preceding the crash and it's (in?)arguable contributed the largest rescuing their respective economies. The FED for that matter is an institution that in order to make decisions requires the consensus of all it's members - and to top it off it's governance accounts for regional interests.

If you want to understand what I believe ideal institutions can, should, and do act like then I'd recommend reading the FED's minutes.

You seem to think that you can teach people wisdom.
Please outline the mechanism for the spontaneous emergence [?] of wisdom then. Thank you.

---

I'm also going to leave the rest to Judean Zealot. He seems to be doing a smashing job without input of mine.

And then a room with say 200 PhDs arguing about a subject with divergent schools of thought i.e Keynesian economists screaming at screeching Friedman schoolers.
It would be ideal to me that there is just five economists on the panel.

People also seem to overestimate the amount of divergence amongst economists. For a heads up the [neo-]Keynesians and Monetarists hung up fight-gloves 30 years ago and became New Keynesians. Differences have closed amongst economists more-so since then. I get the feeling that the back-and-forths of the macroeconomic blogosphere grant an impression that there's more infighting than is the case.

It doesn't help that trade economists like Krugman make a deliberate effort to stir shit.

Arkansasguy

November 9th, 2015, 07:35 PM

The problem of the Jiedoshi was the extreme amount of authority they were given. This degree of authority was only necessary because of the essentially one man show at the top.

Contrast them to a military governorship during the healthy days of the Roman Republic- on account of the size of the Senate, even military governors were accountable to SPQR.

So in both the Roman Republic and the Tang Dynasty, overly powerful bureaucrats brought down the regime?

You would need to be using quite an extended definition of 'boast' to ensnare the people I have in mind. I intend for government to be that of accredited social scientists. These are chosen not based on application for the role but recognised application to a field.

Please explain exactly how these leaders would be chosen, and who would choose them.

I also feel that if social science is one thing it is humbling because it tends to be in a constant state of flux with theories in constant replace of theories.

Quite the contrary, while some disciplines might be humbling, because they require one to accept the teachings of those who have come before, sociology, in which anyone can propose his own theory, and it be just as valid as any other, would have the opposite effect, promoting those whose opinions are most far-fetched and nonsensical.

I have a feeling that there's an equivalence of the pursuit of academic distinction [education] with arrogance though. I don't accept this for one thing. But regardless I'll take arrogance in place of a sub-standard job whenever.

The pursuit of power via convincing others of one's skills tends to inculcate arrogance.

Like last time I'll also refer to business management and raise the point that if heriditarian governance was superior it wouldn't have been outcompeted meritocratic governance at the top of the income-scale.

In general though firms flounder on succession.

This article contributes to the growing empirical literature on family firms by studying the impact of the founder-chief executive officer (CEO) succession in a sample of Italian firms. We contrast firms that continue to be managed within the family by the heirs to the founders with firms in which the management is passed on to outsiders. Family successions, that is, successions by the founder's heirs, are further analyzed by assessing the impact of the sectoral intensity of competition on the post-succession performance. This analysis also addresses the endogeneity in the timing of the CEO succession by controlling for a pure mean-reversion effect in the firm's performance. We find that the maintenance of management within the family has a negative impact on the firm's performance, and this effect is largely borne by the good performers, especially in the more competitive sectors. These results indicate that there is no inherent superiority of the family-firm structure and emphasize the importance of conducting an analysis of governance in a variety of institutional settings.

Cucculelli, M. and Micucci, G. (2008) 'Family Succession and Firm Performance: Evidence from Italian Family Firms', Bank of Italy Temi di Discussione (Working Paper) No. 680. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1160220)

Here's the largest review of all time. It was published in the QJE which is were all the most major research goes.

This paper uses a unique dataset from Denmark to investigate the impact of family characteristics in corporate decision making and the consequences of these decisions on firm performance. We focus on the decision to appoint either a family or external chief executive officer (CEO). The paper uses variation in CEO succession decisions that result from the gender of a departing CEO's firstborn child. This is a plausible instrumental variable (IV), as male first-child firms are more likely to pass on control to a family CEO than are female first-child firms, but the gender of the first child is unlikely to affect firms' outcomes. We find that family successions have a large negative causal impact on firm performance: operating profitability on assets falls by at least four percentage points around CEO transitions. Our IV estimates are significantly larger than those obtained using ordinary least squares. Furthermore, we show that family-CEO underperformance is particularly large in fast-growing industries, industries with highly skilled labor force, and relatively large firms. Overall, our empirical results demonstrate that professional, nonfamily CEOs provide extremely valuable services to the organizations they head.

Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K. M., Pérez-Gonzáles, F. and Wolfenson, D. (2007) Inside the Family firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance, The Quarterly Journal of Economic, 122(2), 647-691. (http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/122/2/647.abstract)

So give me arrogance. Please.

Well of course meritocracy out-performs heredity in a meritocratic system, just as hereditary estates faired well when the system supported them. Such observations only show that the modern economy is more favorable to meritocracy, not that meritocracy is objectively better. You seem to be using a false neutral.[/QUOTE]

Judean Zealot

November 9th, 2015, 07:41 PM

So in both the Roman Republic and the Tang Dynasty, overly powerful bureaucrats brought down the regime?

Yes. In the case of the Republic, said bureaucrats had that opportunity as a result of a general corruption and apathy of the electorate, who were given suffrage based on economic measures and heredity rather than virtue.

In the case of the Tang, the bureaucrats had the opportunity due to the inability of one man alone to demand answers from everyone.

Arkansasguy

November 9th, 2015, 08:41 PM

Yes. In the case of the Republic, said bureaucrats had that opportunity as a result of a general corruption and apathy of the electorate, who were given suffrage based on economic measures and heredity rather than virtue.

Actually the old Roman social classes had largely decayed, and in any case all classes had suffrage. Though surely you agree that the prime of the Republic was earlier, when the patrician-plebeian distinction was stronger?

In the case of the Tang, the bureaucrats had the opportunity due to the inability of one man alone to demand answers from everyone.

And he allowed bureaucratic power to become to concentrated. Given that the system worked fine most of the time, despite the Emperor still being absolute, is it not perhaps the condition of the bureaucracy that was the problem?

Judean Zealot

November 9th, 2015, 09:00 PM

Actually the old Roman social classes had largely decayed, and in any case all classes had suffrage. Though surely you agree that the prime of the Republic was earlier, when the patrician-plebeian distinction was stronger?

You're mistaken in that, the proletariat (who, to the best of my knowledge were the majority of the city) never had the suffrage. So much attention is focused on the patrician-plebeian conflicts that even historians tend to forget the proles.

The decline had little to do with the plebeian gains, as the corruptions were very often carried out by the Patricians, such as Caesar, while, ironically, Cato was of Plebeian origin. Plutarch ascribes the collapse of the Republic to the growing apathy of the populace to the affairs of state, which allowed mavericks such as Caesar to accrue formidable political and military power.

And he allowed bureaucratic power to become to concentrated. Given that the system worked fine most of the time, despite the Emperor still being absolute, is it not perhaps the condition of the bureaucracy that was the problem?
The concentration of bureaucratic power necessarily arises from a single monarch, on account of his inability to manage affairs.

The unrest caused by the Jiedushi was actually chronic, and slowly chipped away at the imperial power, until the final blow of a series of agrarian revolutions.

Jiedushi notwithstanding, imperial affairs under the Tang were pretty dismal, with patricide and fraternicide being practically the natural way of moving ahead. The only thing that kept the empire going were the honest bureaucrats chosen via the examination system.

Arkansasguy

November 9th, 2015, 11:00 PM

You're mistaken in that, the proletariat (who, to the best of my knowledge were the majority of the city) never had the suffrage. So much attention is focused on the patrician-plebeian conflicts that even historians tend to forget the proles.

Really? I'd never heard of that. Do you have anything I could read about the Roman proletariat, I couldn't find much Google searching.

The decline had little to do with the plebeian gains, as the corruptions were very often carried out by the Patricians, such as Caesar, while, ironically, Cato was of Plebeian origin. Plutarch ascribes the collapse of the Republic to the growing apathy of the populace to the affairs of state, which allowed mavericks such as Caesar to accrue formidable political and military power.

Caesar was known for appealing to the masses. And given that one of the ways he and his ilk manipulated the Senate was by packing it with plebeians, it hardly seems an unconnected matter.

The concentration of bureaucratic power necessarily arises from a single monarch, on account of his inability to manage affairs.

The unrest caused by the Jiedushi was actually chronic, and slowly chipped away at the imperial power, until the final blow of a series of agrarian revolutions.

Jiedushi notwithstanding, imperial affairs under the Tang were pretty dismal, with patricide and fraternicide being practically the natural way of moving ahead. The only thing that kept the empire going were the honest bureaucrats chosen via the examination system.

I admit to not knowing much about the Tang, but surely you do not think that patrician was frequent in every monarchy?

Vlerchan

November 10th, 2015, 04:27 AM

Please explain exactly how these leaders would be chosen, and who would choose them.
It would be the product of sortition and that would be determined through the use of a computer programme.

The pool to select from would be all those that have graduated from PhD programmes. In the fields I'm referring to that tends to be 6 - 8 Yrs or active research culminating in the production of a substantial work that is held to be of academic distinction. There's no need for me to dictate terms in regards to graduation though since market forces bend institutions towards a competent graduate programme because otherwise demand for a place in the institution would fall.

No-one volunteers for the roll.

[..] while some disciplines might be humbling, because they require one to accept the teachings of those who have come before [..]
I'm currently engaged in a law degree. The entire field is obsessed with finding means to ignore precedent and to distinguish their case from it. Precedents are under constant critique in the journals.

I find there's nothing humbling in the practice.

[...] sociology, in which anyone can propose his own theory, and it be just as valid as any other [..]
That's not correct at all. In social sciences one can pose a hypothesis. But in social science what gets published and well-regarded are the rigorous mathmathical formulations of these hypothesis, theories, and then research demonstrating their empirical backing. This research is in a constant state of critique and replacement. I can offer examples as required.

---

Social sciences also extend far outside sociology.

and it be just as valid as any other promoting those whose opinions are most far-fetched and nonsensical.
Please note the distinct lack of - for example - austrians teaching in top economics departments.

Your imaginings of how academia in the social sciences work is just completely off-point here.

The pursuit of power via convincing others of one's skills tends to inculcate arrogance.
Please present verifiable empirical evidence supporting this claim. Thank you.

Well of course meritocracy out-performs heredity in a meritocratic system, just as hereditary estates faired well when the system supported them.
There's no of course about it. If heriditarian governance had inherent qualities that place is ahead of meritiocratic governance then it would precede that firms attempts to swap out to the ostensible better skilled would be futile. It's not though. The fact that the research occurs in a meritocratic framework just means that we can place the actors relative to the other.

You mean the systems that didn't open them up to the competition of those that might be better than them. I'm not sure if that can be said to be meaningful at all.

Such observations only show that the modern economy is more favorable to meritocracy, not that meritocracy is objectively better.
No it doesn't. It's not reporting the success of firms in the absolute.

It's reporting the success or failure post-succession, i.e., the added value of a CEO of a certain background.

Judean Zealot

November 10th, 2015, 05:44 AM

Really? I'd never heard of that. Do you have anything I could read about the Roman proletariat, I couldn't find much Google searching.

The Constitution of the Roman Republic by Andrew Lintott (http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Roman-Republic-Andrew-Lintott/dp/0199261083) is considered a good piece of work on Republican Constitution. Here's (http://h2g2.com/entry/A29057240) another, less academic source for you.

Caesar was known for appealing to the masses. And given that one of the ways he and his ilk manipulated the Senate was by packing it with plebeians, it hardly seems an unconnected matter.

That second sentence of yours needs reference. Even Suetonius writes that Caesar gained a strong support group in the Senate by "appointing more Patricians". The support of the masses was the mob and the physical force by which he threatened and cowed opponents such as Cicero (also a plebeian). Both Suetonius and Plutarch write of the many times he used force to cow his opponents, including the one time when he had Cato dragged out of the Senate by armed men and thrown in prison (it didn't work, and Cato was released), or when his men chased his co-consul, Bibulus, out of the forum in order to pass his Agrarian reforms (it did work, and Bibulus remained shut up at home for the rest of his consulship). There is literally no connection as far as I have read between Caesar's belonging to the populares and the support he marshaled from the mob of proletarii. Again, both Cato and Cicero, his two greatest opponents, were plebeians.

I admit to not knowing much about the Tang, but surely you do not think that patrician was frequent in every monarchy?

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Arkansasguy

November 10th, 2015, 06:47 PM

It would be the product of sortition and that would be determined through the use of a computer programme.

Please elaborate.

I'm currently engaged in a law degree. The entire field is obsessed with finding means to ignore precedent and to distinguish their case from it. Precedents are under constant critique in the journals.

I find there's nothing humbling in the practice.

I didn't say there was, just that if any of them were humbling, it wouldn't be sociology.

That's not correct at all. In social sciences one can pose a hypothesis. But in social science what gets published and well-regarded are the rigorous mathmathical formulations of these hypothesis, theories, and then research demonstrating their empirical backing. This research is in a constant state of critique and replacement. I can offer examples as required.

You're focusing too much on the math of it. I'll agree that sociologists employ sound mathematics. The problem comes in the interpretation of data.

There's no of course about it. If heriditarian governance had inherent qualities that place is ahead of meritiocratic governance then it would precede that firms attempts to swap out to the ostensible better skilled would be futile. It's not though. The fact that the research occurs in a meritocratic framework just means that we can place the actors relative to the other.

You mean the systems that didn't open them up to the competition of those that might be better than them. I'm not sure if that can be said to be meaningful at all.

You're still assuming a false neutral. Of course systems which promote meritocracy tend to cause meritocracy to do better. I don't accept that as a neutral system any more than you'd accept feudalism as neutral.

The Constitution of the Roman Republic by Andrew Lintott (http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Roman-Republic-Andrew-Lintott/dp/0199261083) is considered a good piece of work on Republican Constitution. Here's (http://h2g2.com/entry/A29057240) another, less academic source for you.

Thanks. I did not know about that. But in any case, my statement that the social distinction between patricians and plebeians had broken down, and the patricians had lost a lot of their political power, remains valid.

Even Suetonius writes that Caesar gained a strong support group in the Senate by "appointing more Patricians".

Which of his works was that in?

There is literally no connection as far as I have read between Caesar's belonging to the populares and the support he marshaled from the mob of proletarii.

There's no connection between his being a populare and his getting support from the proletarii? Are you sure, or did you mistype?

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Darn autocorrect. I was typing on an iPad and apparently it decided "patricide" should be "patrician".

Judean Zealot

November 10th, 2015, 07:14 PM

Thanks. I did not know about that. But in any case, my statement that the social distinction between patricians and plebeians had broken down, and the patricians had lost a lot of their political power, remains valid. Valid? Yes. Relevant? No.

Which of his works was that in?

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html) (paragraph 41 of the linked chapter). The masses' support was gained through panem et circensam and shows of force. They were two parallel and campaigns, unrelated in anything but their common goal- the overthrow of the Republic.

There's no connection between his being a populare and his getting support from the proletarii? Are you sure, or did you mistype?

I am sure. The populares were only interested in the equestrian orders already represented, not the proletarii. Caesar's handouts to the proletarii were entirely his own.

Darn autocorrect. I was typing on an iPad and apparently it decided "patricide" should be "patrician".

Patricide usually wasn't a course frequently taken, due to it's extreme stigma, but fraternicide was tremendously common. I mean, just look at the War of the Roses.

Arkansasguy

November 10th, 2015, 10:46 PM

The Lives of the Twelve Caesars (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html) (paragraph 41 of the linked chapter).

Are you sure you're reading that right? Caesar created new patrician families from formerly plebeian ones. I don't think he's saying he packed the Senate with patricians.

[/QUOTE]Patricide usually wasn't a course frequently taken, due to it's extreme stigma, but fraternicide was tremendously common. I mean, just look at the War of the Roses.[/QUOTE]

Every system has occasional civil wars.

Judean Zealot

November 11th, 2015, 04:29 AM

Are you sure you're reading that right? Caesar created new patrician families from formerly plebeian ones. I don't think he's saying he packed the Senate with patricians.

You can't make patrician families. By definition, Patricians were those noble who hailed back all the way to the overthrow of the Tarquins (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Tarquinius_Superbus). Caesar never tried making plebeians patricians- that would be as laughable as redefining marriage or gender.

Every system has occasional civil wars.

Although civil wars aren't that usual, monarchies are almost always in a state of interfamilial intrigue- you may wish to read the above linked Suetonius for a picture of Imperial Rome's intrigues and murders. As much as you dislike it, The Federalist Papers bring many of their own contemporary examples- sufficient to demonstrate the prevalence of intrigue and murder.

Vlerchan

November 11th, 2015, 04:52 AM

Please elaborate.
There would be a pool of qualified individuals. Each individual would be given a number. Then a metaphorical dice would be rolled and the person that comes up would be allocated a space on their relevant board.

The problem comes in the interpretation of data.
I would appreciate if you could highlight at least one recent article in a top10 publication so that we have something substantial to discuss.

---

On considering the positions available though I don't believe there's room for sociologists. But I'm going to continue with this argument just because I started it.

Of course systems which promote meritocracy tend to cause meritocracy to do better.
You're acting like it's obvious that the cause of heriditarian deficiencies in this case is exogenous. But the fact that these deficiencies are enlarged in-face of common hurdles such as when operating within "fast-growing industries, industries with highly skilled labor force, and relatively large firms" would indicate that at least some significant part is endogenous.

I would appreciate if - it being so obvious - the underlining mechanism might be outlined. I'd also again emphasise the fact that the papers consider the added-value of a heriditarian or meritocratic addition. This also holds when we account for the firms performance prior to the succession and consider the added value of the addition relative to it.

---

I'll also add that I intend for this government to compete for capital investment and a diplomatic presence within the meritocratic international capitalist framework so having the argued inherent-losers as head of it has become less appealing than usual.

I don't accept that as a neutral system any more than you'd accept feudalism as neutral.
Yes. I'm not going to accept feudalism as a neutral arbitrator on the grounds that it's quite explicit in imposing punitive measures on meritocrats so heriditarians can maintain their statues.

phuckphace

November 11th, 2015, 10:16 AM

I've been keeping out of this thread thus far since a lot of this is way over my head, but if you've ever watched a historical documentary like Game of Thrones you're aware that "every time a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin" so if you like hereditary succession then you better get used to ending up with a mad king who tries to burn down everything

Arkansasguy

November 11th, 2015, 11:06 AM

You can't make patrician families. By definition, Patricians were those noble who hailed back all the way to the overthrow of the Tarquins (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Tarquinius_Superbus). Caesar never tried making plebeians patricians- that would be as laughable as redefining marriage or gender.

Umm, you are wrong. Caesar raised several plebeian families to patrician status. As did his successors.

https://books.google.com/books?id=QlQJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=caesar+raised+plebeian+families+to+the+status+of+patrician&source=bl&ots=Gx18-CWpKJ&sig=fjF_5vNKPHraZbJNaBBmDHqOcds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMItrbziNyIyQIVAngmCh2dmgJj#v=onepage&q&f=false

Although civil wars aren't that usual, monarchies are almost always in a state of interfamilial intrigue- you may wish to read the above linked Suetonius for a picture of Imperial Rome's intrigues and murders. As much as you dislike it, The Federalist Papers bring many of their own contemporary examples- sufficient to demonstrate the prevalence of intrigue and murder.

Every system has intrigue.

There would be a pool of qualified individuals. Each individual would be given a number. Then a metaphorical dice would be rolled and the person that comes up would be allocated a space on their relevant board.

Ok. The randomness of it would help prevent some of the problems I've mentioned, but it's still inferior to monarchy because the rulers are not trained from birth for their state in life.

You're acting like it's obvious that the cause of heriditarian deficiencies in this case is exogenous. But the fact that these deficiencies are enlarged in-face of common hurdles such as when operating within "fast-growing industries, industries with highly skilled labor force, and relatively large firms" would indicate that at least some significant part is endogenous.

I would appreciate if - it being so obvious - the underlining mechanism might be outlined. I'd also again emphasise the fact that the papers consider the added-value of a heriditarian or meritocratic addition. This also holds when we account for the firms performance prior to the succession and consider the added value of the addition relative to it.

A system with unlimited possibility for accumulation of wealth will tend to promote those who are best skilled at accumulating it. I'm not sure what about that needs explained.

Yes. I'm not going to accept feudalism as a neutral arbitrator on the grounds that it's quite explicit in imposing punitive measures on meritocrats so heriditarians can maintain their statues.

Exactly. And I'm not going to accept capitalism as a neutral arbitrator, on the grounds that it promotes fluidity of the upper class, which is detrimental to large hereditary estates.

I've been keeping out of this thread thus far since a lot of this is way over my head, but if you've ever watched a historical documentary like Game of Thrones you're aware that "every time a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin" so if you like hereditary succession then you better get used to ending up with a mad king who tries to burn down everything

Yet they managed to go over one thousand years without everything being burned down, and when it was burned down it was because of revolutionaries.

Vlerchan

November 11th, 2015, 11:36 AM

[...] but it's still inferior to monarchy because the rulers are not trained from birth for their state in life.
These people are experts in their fields. It doesn't seem relevant that their governance is not a product of god-borne predestination or what-not.

A system with unlimited possibility for accumulation of wealth will tend to promote those who are best skilled at accumulating it.
The point of being a CEO is to organise inputs in such a manner that profits - i.e. wealth accumulation - is maximised. In what manner does capitalism resulting in the best accumulating the most wealth result in heriditarian governance being at a disadvantage.

And I'm not going to accept capitalism as a neutral arbitrator, on the grounds that it promotes fluidity of the upper class, which is detrimental to large hereditary estates.
i.e. It creates a situation where it's possible for your team to lose.

---

There's no reason that capitalism necessitates that heriditarian-governed firms will even be at a disadvantage which is the reason I'm calling it neutral.

[...] but if you've ever watched a historical documentary like Game of Thrones you're aware that "every time a Targaryen is born, the gods flip a coin" so if you like hereditary succession then you better get used to ending up with a mad king who tries to burn down everything
That's liberal free-speech for you.

Judean Zealot

November 11th, 2015, 01:57 PM

Umm, you are wrong. Caesar raised several plebeian families to patrician status. As did his successors.

https://books.google.com/books?id=QlQJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA876&lpg=PA876&dq=caesar+raised+plebeian+families+to+the+status+of+patrician&source=bl&ots=Gx18-CWpKJ&sig=fjF_5vNKPHraZbJNaBBmDHqOcds&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMItrbziNyIyQIVAngmCh2dmgJj#v=onepage&q&f=false

No, I am not wrong. While you are right that after destroying the Republic Caesar illegally did such things (and I should've clarified that I was referring to the time when he was challenging the Republic), he never tried doing so while he had to answer to the Senate (pre civil war).That which you've posted was a move Caesar took after the Republic was destroyed and he was dictator, and was meant to replenish the Senate after the Civil Wars. This move was after his opponents were either dead (Cato, Pompey, Bibulus) or surrendered (Cicero, Brutus). That had nothing to do with the fall of the Republic. The inverted Lex Cassia that Caesar employed to allow him to do such a thing was passed by himself in his position as dictator, and was absolutely unheard of while the Republic stood.

To summarize, no. Caesar did not bring down the Republic through promoting Plebeians to the Patricians, nor did he attempt to do so, as that was both impossible and absurd at the time.

I keep on reminding you- Caesar's greatest opponents were Plebeians.

Every system has intrigue.

Not to the degree of a monarchy.

Arkansasguy

November 12th, 2015, 12:52 AM

These people are experts in their fields. It doesn't seem relevant that their governance is not a product of god-borne predestination or what-not.

Kings are also experts in governance, since they are trained in that job from birth.

The point of being a CEO is to organise inputs in such a manner that profits - i.e. wealth accumulation - is maximised. In what manner does capitalism resulting in the best accumulating the most wealth result in heriditarian governance being at a disadvantage.

Hereditary estates are by nature built around preserving stable wealth. A system, like capitalism, which is about amassing wealth and moving it around, is inherently damaging to hereditary estates.

i.e. It creates a situation where it's possible for your team to lose.

And feudalism makes it possible for yours to lose.

There's no reason that capitalism necessitates that heriditarian-governed firms will even be at a disadvantage which is the reason I'm calling it neutral.

This is most obviously absurd on account of the fact that it has consistently done so, in addition to the reasons I've given.

No, I am not wrong. While you are right that after destroying the Republic Caesar illegally did such things (and I should've clarified that I was referring to the time when he was challenging the Republic), he never tried doing so while he had to answer to the Senate (pre civil war).That which you've posted was a move Caesar took after the Republic was destroyed and he was dictator, and was meant to replenish the Senate after the Civil Wars. This move was after his opponents were either dead (Cato, Pompey, Bibulus) or surrendered (Cicero, Brutus). That had nothing to do with the fall of the Republic. The inverted Lex Cassia that Caesar employed to allow him to do such a thing was passed by himself in his position as dictator, and was absolutely unheard of while the Republic stood.

To summarize, no. Caesar did not bring down the Republic through promoting Plebeians to the Patricians, nor did he attempt to do so, as that was both impossible and absurd at the time.

I keep on reminding you- Caesar's greatest opponents were Plebeians.

The point was that Caesar's program was one of decimating the Roman social classes. That was his shtick.

Not to the degree of a monarchy.

Do you realize that the current system involves a change of the head of state every eight years?

Vlerchan

November 12th, 2015, 02:29 AM

Kings are also experts in governance, since they are trained in that job from birth.
If this for some reason undermines the expertise of other people I'll need to be informed.

Hereditary estates are by nature built around preserving stable wealth. A system, like capitalism, which is about amassing wealth and moving it around, is inherently damaging to hereditary estates.
Ok. This isn't relevant to the facts of the papers.

And feudalism makes it possible for yours to lose.
It sets out to essentialise it. Thats the difference.

This is most obviously absurd on account of the fact that it has consistently done so, in addition to the reasons I've given.
It creating possibilities for loss is not the same as essentialising it. It still doesn't give one side or another competitive advantage.

I would appreciate if instead of just calling claims absurd I was given actuals substantial counters that it's possible to respond to.

Judean Zealot

November 12th, 2015, 06:38 AM

The point was that Caesar's program was one of decimating the Roman social classes. That was his shtick.

That wasn't his program until after the fall of the Republic, and even then his point was not the abolition of the patrician class per se, but rather to flood the Senate with his own creations, to stifle any challenge.

But we digress from the original point, which was that the ill fate of the Republic had little to do with Plebeian gains, when we consider the Plebeians who fought to uphold it and the patrician who destroyed it.

Do you realize that the current system involves a change of the head of state every eight years?

One of it's tremendous flaws. Mine, however, does not.

Arkansasguy

November 14th, 2015, 08:05 AM

That wasn't his program until after the fall of the Republic, and even then his point was not the abolition of the patrician class per se, but rather to flood the Senate with his own creations, to stifle any challenge.

But we digress from the original point, which was that the ill fate of the Republic had little to do with Plebeian gains, when we consider the Plebeians who fought to uphold it and the patrician who destroyed it.

He was a populace even before he became dictator. And that there were right-minded plebeians and wrong minded patricians doesn't change the ideologies involved.

One of it's tremendous flaws. Mine, however, does not.[/QUOTE]

phuckphace

November 14th, 2015, 09:12 AM

that feel when JZ knows more goyisch history than any goy I know

Vlerchan

December 9th, 2015, 04:01 PM

I decided I'd get this line of enquiry back up and running.

When reason ceases to drive the intellect and emotion takes over you can end up anywhere.
Not insofar as individuals are products of their social environments. Between the subject and her nation a reciprocal relationship can be seen to exist whereas the nation constructs the individual and the individual in turn reproduces the nation. This reproduction is distorted with respect to her historical and material conditions and that prompts organic development. Nonetheless destination is - as such - bounded.

I also see an issue insofar that placing 'reasonable' as being objective in terms of human behaviours seems difficult. It is the required prime occupation of all civilisations nonetheless.

---

I'm also not sure to what extent I believe in the first argument. This is an area I'm still unsure of. But I'm going to bounce ideas around until things start making sense.

I also don't believe in mind-body dualism which makes it difficult to approach the rest of the arguments. I'm flesh and a bunch of neural processes.

Judean Zealot

December 10th, 2015, 09:34 AM

Not insofar as individuals are products of their social environments. Between the subject and her nation a reciprocal relationship can be seen to exist whereas the nation constructs the individual and the individual in turn reproduces the nation. This reproduction is distorted with respect to her historical and material conditions and that prompts organic development. Nonetheless destination is - as such - bounded.

I'm not going to argue with any of this. When I say 'anywhere' I am using a rhetorical device. I grant you that the possibilities are bounded by sociological conditions but only trivially so- such as that which we find in the case of the Weimar Republic. We see a reproduction by a civilised and egalitarian society of a brutal regime inundated with senseless murder.

I also see an issue insofar that placing 'reasonable' as being objective in terms of human behaviours seems difficult. It is the required prime occupation of all civilisations nonetheless.

I think we can widely define universal reason as that which protects against short term interests undermining the public welfare in the long run.

I'm also not sure to what extent I believe in the first argument. This is an area I'm still unsure of. But I'm going to bounce ideas around until things start making sense.

I also don't believe in mind-body dualism which makes it difficult to approach the rest of the arguments. I'm flesh and a bunch of neural processes.

I'm going to try something interesting here, and see if I can operate from your non dualist angle. I would begin by asserting that I can, as we see very often people ruining their lives for very fleeting passions, while the restraining force against that is the neural activity, which does seem to compute long term interest in the absence of overwhelming sensual stimuli. I would argue that that is what is necessary for governance- the ability to restrain ourselves in the present for the sake of the future.

Vlerchan

December 12th, 2015, 10:07 AM

Such as that which we find in the case of the Weimar Republic. We see a reproduction by a civilised and egalitarian society of a brutal regime inundated with senseless murder.
It's suspect that Weimar had the culture to maintain its democratic institutions. It lacked a democratic tradition and even amongst moderates support for institutions were weak. The values that preceded Weimar never died - consider the ascension of Hindenburg (1925 - 1934): a reservoir of pre-Weimar values [who later would sign off on the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act]. There was a number of parties built on an explicit anti-democratic platform besides. It's also worth noting that the generation that perpetrated the numerous uprisings of it's opening half-decade were the same generation that elected Hitler into government.

The one might consider the role of pre-Weimar values in academia. The war and it's consequences held an important place in the national mindset and it's arguable that humanities took on a more authoritarian tone. If I remember correct there was in particular a profound revolution of thought within the Classics whereas the authoritarian and eugenicist ideals of Plato - re: The Republic: translated: Der Staat - came to the forefront.

It's worth pointing out then that the national-socialists didn't have majoritian support on their ascension. It won the election with 33% of the vote. Hitler's ascension was built on the compliance of a broad-base of German conservatism - Conservative Revolutionaries and Militarists and Traditionalists and those amongst the meeker kinds - [and then a broader spectrum of anti-Semites]. This was a class that disliked Hitler's uncouth methods - for example: his reliance on paramilitaries - but the bankruptcies of the liberal-democratic order dominated these concerns.

It's worth considering whether the National Socialists were also a product of a tradition of reason. That's something I've begun to consider. I'm not aware of speeches of there's espousing romanticist inclinations and there race-based arguments where uttered from a faux-biological standpoint. I'm further sceptical that totalitarianism can be justified on romanticist-grounds: It seems to involve the presumption of a Rousseaun General Will whereas the national-socialists viewed themselves as crown-interpretors and enablers.

I'm not sure here though. I'm not too clued in to the intrinsics of national-socialist thought.

---

I've also been considering Gramscian extensions of the proposed argument whereas the elites erect cultural hegemonies in-line with their interests. This in-turn instils a false conciousness into the masses who in-turn legitimise the elites and their cultural hegemonies.

I think we can widely define universal reason as that which protects against short term interests undermining the public welfare in the long run.
Except this is still subject to gross arbitrariness if we squint hard-enough.
There is no reason to presume that sort of time-preference is preferable. The Cyrenaics didn't. It can also be deduced that most people don't insofar as interest exists on savings. This wouldn't occur unless consumers placed a greater value on their consumption in the present than the future.
Public welfare in the future goes undefined. I'll take it to extremes to save time: There's no inherent value to be found in our future existence.
Of course 'there are no truth-values' discredits itself. Though I've argued before here that this doesn't extend to meta-ethical narrative that don't refer to themselves.

---

The issue is that nihilism then reduces life to mere aesthetic. That doesn't seem to lead to a lot of good to me.

I would begin by asserting that I can, as we see very often people ruining their lives for very fleeting passions[.]
I agree this is true insofar as it occurs to us at an individual level.

[...] while the restraining force against that is the neural activity, which does seem to compute long term interest in the absence of overwhelming sensual stimuli.
Our urges are still referential to neurological process. I don't see less thought being put into these as prompting inherent devaluation. Consider professional versus amateur investors whereas the experienced individual can be expected to make better decisions with less time allocated to the decision-making process. I realise that this argument is intended to be applied to stimuli such as sex and drugs - and whatnot - but the point I'm making is that it doesn't seem to hold in the general case.

This seems to be taking an approach reminiscent of Freudian psychoanalysis whereas the id is our instinct that our ego mediates with reference to some super-ego. I'll need to read into whether separating our brains and its functions in this manner is valid as I'm for the most part ignorant of neuroscience.

I would argue that that is what is necessary for governance- the ability to restrain ourselves in the present for the sake of the future.
For reference I agree with this. Though it raises the question of which future.

Judean Zealot

December 15th, 2015, 05:48 AM

It's suspect that Weimar had the culture to maintain its democratic institutions. It lacked a democratic tradition and even amongst moderates support for institutions were weak. The values that preceded Weimar never died - consider the ascension of Hindenburg (1925 - 1934): a reservoir of pre-Weimar values [who later would sign off on the Reichstag Fire Decree and Enabling Act]. There was a number of parties built on an explicit anti-democratic platform besides. It's also worth noting that the generation that perpetrated the numerous uprisings of it's opening half-decade were the same generation that elected Hitler into government.

You're conflating the attitudes of the powerful and the attitudes of the middle class. The government remained a bastion of Prussian militarism, that is undeniable. Yet the middle classes had been growing progressively more egalitarian and cultured since the beginning of German enlightenment 200 years before. It is the attitude of the people that I have used as an example that an emotion based culture (as opposed to my proposed intellectual based bourgeoisie) can rapidly degenerate to just about anywhere given a turbulent period.

The one might consider the role of pre-Weimar values in academia. The war and it's consequences held an important place in the national mindset and it's arguable that humanities took on a more authoritarian tone. If I remember correct there was in particular a profound revolution of thought within the Classics whereas the authoritarian and eugenicist ideals of Plato - re: The Republic: translated: Der Staat - came to the forefront.

They definitely did, but without the Wagner/Himmler (romantic) image of the Teutonic warrior in shining armour narrative Germany would've transformed into a much more healthy form of Fascism- one without the noxious claim of racial superiority and thus, no lebensraum or endlösung. I blame the romantics for this shift. While the Nazis attempted to present their ideological tenets as 'science', it's source was irrational pride, indignation, and chauvinism.

I've also been considering Gramscian extensions of the proposed argument whereas the elites erect cultural hegemonies in-line with their interests. This in-turn instils a false conciousness into the masses who in-turn legitimise the elites and their cultural hegemonies

And this bothers you because? As a utilitarian, this is hardly a cause for concern.

The issue is that nihilism then reduces life to mere aesthetic. That doesn't seem to lead to a lot of good to me.

Again, the utilitarian in you ought to do that which will ensure the stability of the nation for the future, an interest of ours both for our own old age, as well as the happiness of our children, both of which are of personal interest to most people.

Our urges are still referential to neurological process. I don't see less thought being put into these as prompting inherent devaluation. Consider professional versus amateur investors whereas the experienced individual can be expected to make better decisions with less time allocated to the decision-making process. I realise that this argument is intended to be applied to stimuli such as sex and drugs - and whatnot - but the point I'm making is that it doesn't seem to hold in the general case.

This seems to be taking an approach reminiscent of Freudian psychoanalysis whereas the id is our instinct that our ego mediates with reference to some super-ego. I'll need to read into whether separating our brains and its functions in this manner is valid as I'm for the most part ignorant of neuroscience.

I am influenced a lot by Freud in my (limited) ideas on psychology, but I wouldn't go so far as to place the id in a position essential to the ego, as does Freud.

Vlerchan

December 19th, 2015, 07:46 AM

You're conflating the attitudes of the powerful and the attitudes of the middle class. The government remained a bastion of Prussian militarism, that is undeniable.
I'll be honest and let it be known that I've no real idea what social attitudes of the middle class in Weimer were outside of electoral records. Those seems to indicate that their was support for old Prussian values - as Hindenberg embodied - or at least consistent affirmation that those values boded well in government. That it might be the latter is in total support of the point I'm making.

Nonetheless I would still see Elite convergence of quite some significance.

Yet the middle classes had been growing progressively more egalitarian and cultured since the beginning of German enlightenment 200 years before.
I don't see the Enlightenment as penetrating German culture to too large an extent until French occupation until the formation of the Rhine Confederation. But the Enlightenment culture was absorbed through the lens of an occupied nation. It formed with adversarial undertones. It also more or less outright rejects the French tradition of rationalism - a trend which had existed prior: re: Herder and to a lesser extent Kant. But occupation was the period where German nationalism would be born - and that counter-rationalists like Fichte would author.

Nonetheless I agree that at this point German nationalism was liberal and benign. It would remain so the entire unification movement. Unification and the ascension of Bismark is where I see divergence occurring. Here German nationalism adopted a more conservative and Prussian tone: The Bismarkian regime gave rise to a more assertive nationalism amongst it's middle-class.

I'm not claiming that there's continuance from Bismark to Hitler but the germs of Hitlerian nationalism persisted in German political-culture beforehand.

I blame the romantics for this shift.
I'm not claiming that romantics aren't at cause. The romantics are. What I'm claiming is that there's no break with previous political-culture.

And this bothers you because? As a utilitarian, this is hardly a cause for concern.
Oh it doesn't. Nothing wrong with Elites [- as long as they agree with me].

Again, the utilitarian in you ought to do that which will ensure the stability of the nation for the future, an interest of ours both for our own old age, as well as the happiness of our children, both of which are of personal interest to most people.
Sure. But if we take the argued-nihilistic stance and examine mankind as a purely aesthetic phenomena then value is found in the movement - the performance - rather than the consequence. [Though I attempt to sit utilitarianism - though I have as of late begun to adopt a more Rawlsian perspective - beneath a absurdist architecture that recognises nihilism in a bid to counteract that.]

Judean Zealot

December 19th, 2015, 05:11 PM

I'm not claiming that romantics aren't at cause. The romantics are. What I'm claiming is that there's no break with previous political-culture.

If you look back at how we got here, it was regarding why I don't view the romantic arts as a qualifier for governance. I just don't think that the Prussian culture significantly changes the playing ground when compared to the negative aspects of any nation's political culture (especially when viewed together with the tolerance that exemplified pre Nazi Germany). I feel like every national consciousness has it's own id, and romanticism is one of the most effective ways to get that dark aspect out of control.

Oh it doesn't. Nothing wrong with Elites [- as long as they agree with me].

After my own heart. :D

Sure. But if we take the argued-nihilistic stance and examine mankind as a purely aesthetic phenomena then value is found in the movement - the performance - rather than the consequence. [Though I attempt to sit utilitarianism - though I have as of late begun to adopt a more Rawlsian perspective - beneath a absurdist architecture that recognises nihilism in a bid to counteract that.

But surely the movement has to have a goal at it's end, no? While the gain is through the here and now, the here and now must be directed towards the goal.

Vlerchan

December 19th, 2015, 05:46 PM

If you look back at how we got here, it was regarding why I don't view the romantic arts as a qualifier for governance.
The argument was though that romanticism could rapidly divert a nation whilst I'm arguing that in the case of the German's it wasn't the case that a diversion occurred. Without a doubt romantics contributed towards an increased fervour amongst the German people but it was to a cause that one would see as a reasonable extension of their political culture.

The main issue of contention I've attempted to deal with is that romanticism is only 'trivially' bounded.

[...] tolerance that exemplified pre Nazi Germany [...]
I'd actually be quite interested in a look at the literature here. If there's also literature on the jump to anti-egalitarianism I'd be interested there too.

I feel like every national consciousness has it's own id, and romanticism is one of the most effective ways to get that dark aspect out of control.
That's interesting. Would you mind explaining how comparative development of national conciousness would occur?

But surely the movement has to have a goal at it's end, no?
Surely. But that doesn't mean the end-goal is important for any reason other than it animates events preceding it.

Judean Zealot

December 19th, 2015, 06:14 PM

The argument was though that romanticism could rapidly divert a nation whilst I'm arguing that in the case of the German's it wasn't the case that a diversion occurred. Without a doubt romantics contributed towards an increased fervour amongst the German people but it was to a cause that one would see as a reasonable extension of their political culture.

I'm saying that it is merely 'trivially', on account of those xenophobic sentiments really being the underpinning of the state, and thus creating a situation wherein there is the omnipresent threat of those sentiments breaking forth through a crisis.

The main issue of contention I've attempted to deal with is that romanticism is only 'trivially' bounded.

I'd actually be quite interested in a look at the literature here. If there's also literature on the jump to anti-egalitarianism I'd be interested there too.

I am using German Jewry as my template, because that's who I really know about. We can presumably link German attitudes to Jews to that towards other minorities. Here's (http://m.leobaeck.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/1/163.extract) a good piece of work on the subject. You also have major German intellectuals and philosophers, such as Hegel, who quite vocally supported emancipation for German Jews and protected Jews during the Hep Hep Riots. The Germans Jews were accepted into German society on a scale far beyond that of any other country in the world at that time. The only ones who are competition for acceptance of Jews would be the Trotskyites.

That's interesting. Would you mind explaining how comparative development of national conciousness would occur?

In short, by way of the essentially chauvinist basis on which the state apparatus is built. I'm not saying that statism is wrong, but we ought to recognise that this necessary institution has it's side effects as well.

Surely. But that doesn't mean the end-goal is important for any reason other than it animates events preceding it.

Fair enough. One still has to work towards the future, though, even if that's only for the gratification of the present.

Vlerchan

December 26th, 2015, 10:01 AM

I'm saying that it is merely 'trivially', on account of those xenophobic sentiments really being the underpinning of the state, and thus creating a situation wherein there is the omnipresent threat of those sentiments breaking forth through a crisis.
Would you mind rephrasing this? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting this correctly.

The Germans Jews were accepted into German society on a scale far beyond that of any other country in the world at that time.
Unfortunately I can't read past the first page of the link provided. If you can would you be able to quote the key points of the text? Thank you.

I also discovered this piece (http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Holocaust/stone.pdf) on the evolution of antisemetism in Weimer. It's brief but somewhat informative.

Today, most studies agree that although a hardcore of radical antisemites existed within the party, most members avoided engaging in antisemitic activity. Millions of Nazi voters did not cast their vote for the party because they were antisemites. They were prepared to accept the Nazi Party’s 1920 programme, including the antisemitic paragraph, only if the party offered them bread, jobs and hope for the future.

ibid.

That's the main finding. It notes (p. 13) that antisemetism was a major preoccupation amongst students. But nonetheless (p. 17) "antisemitism did not play a major role in the rise of Nazism before 1933".

I'm also sceptical that the level of antisemetism is a good analogue of egalitarianism. The understanding I have is that the Jews were quite well-assimilated Germans. The major differences were constructions.

Judean Zealot

December 26th, 2015, 10:21 AM

Would you mind rephrasing this? I just want to make sure I'm interpreting this correctly.

The very institution of nation or state provides the framework which can lead to the sort of intra-ethnic or intra-national conflict I'm concerned about. If not fused with a humanist element, nationalism can and will foster an unhealthy chauvinism.

Unfortunately I can't read past the first page of the link provided. If you can would you be able to quote the key points of the text? Thank you.

Unfortunately, I cannot complete it, as I couldn't find it complete either. I read it in full probably around a year back in a library.

I also discovered this piece (http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Holocaust/stone.pdf) on the evolution of antisemetism in Weimer. It's brief but somewhat informative.

Today, most studies agree that although a hardcore of radical antisemites existed within the party, most members avoided engaging in antisemitic activity. Millions of Nazi voters did not cast their vote for the party because they were antisemites. They were prepared to accept the Nazi Party’s 1920 programme, including the antisemitic paragraph, only if the party offered them bread, jobs and hope for the future.

ibid.

That's the main finding. It notes (p. 13) that antisemetism was a major preoccupation amongst students. But nonetheless (p. 17) "antisemitism did not play a major role in the rise of Nazism before 1933".

I'm also sceptical that the level of antisemetism is a good analogue of egalitarianism. The understanding I have is that the Jews were quite well-assimilated Germans. The major differences were constructions.

I'm not sure why we're talking past each other in this discussion. At which point of the Nazi Party's history did anti-semitism (and anti-slavic sentiment) become mainstream is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make, which is that romanticism fuelled a dramatic change in the German psyche, which in turn fuelled an undeniable harmful regime and attitude.

I am opposed to romantic nationalism because it breeds this sort of attitude, and again, the fact that a previously integrated segment of the German population was subsequently disenfranchised and exterminated only strengthens my position that your "socio-political boundaries" are not much to rely on.

Vlerchan

December 26th, 2015, 11:21 AM

If [the nation-state is] not fused with a humanist element, nationalism can and will foster an unhealthy chauvinism.
I agree here. However I see hope for a romantic movement existing beneath the rule of an Enlightened elite that can act to temper all excesses - i.e. what I propose.

Perhaps were we depart here is that I see value in the spirit and dynamism of historical romantic movements. This is the case insofar as it introduces vigour and purpose into the lives of participants.

I'm not sure why we're talking past each other in this discussion.
I should have stated that I'm not seeking to necessarily disagree at this point. I cited that last text because it more or less substantiates your claim that Weimer society was by-and-large accepting of Jewishness.

[...] the fact that a previously integrated segment of the German population was subsequently disenfranchised and exterminated only strengthens my position that your "socio-political boundaries" are not much to rely on.
It's curious though that the antisemetism begun after the ascension of Hitler. To me that begs the question of whether the power of his antisemetic cadre was expanded - their presence than legitimised - rather than antisemetism itself taking on a greater focus amongst the average German. If it's the former case then romanticism can't be to blame can it: or at least it's demonstrating quite inconsistent results.

I'm presuming you're running off the negation of this, so I'd be happy to see the evidence to the fact.

---

For clarification - to decrease misunderstandings - I'm not disagreeing as much as attempting to tease out evidence.

Judean Zealot

December 26th, 2015, 11:47 AM

I agree here. However I see hope for a romantic movement existing beneath the rule of an Enlightened elite that can act to temper all excesses - i.e. what I propose.

Perhaps were we depart here is that I see value in the spirit and dynamism of historical romantic movements. This is the case insofar as it introduces vigour and purpose into the lives of participants.

I don't disagree with you about the benefits of a controlled national romanticism. I'm just wary of the manner in which it has frequently led to foolish and counterproductive actions.

I suppose romanticism in general ought to be funnelled towards national goals, but it must be watched very closely and vigilantly. The last thing any state needs is an organised group of militant romanticists.

I should have stated that I'm not seeking to necessarily disagree at this point. I cited that last text because it more or less substantiates your claim that Weimer society was by-and-large accepting of Jewishness.

Okay, I see how this conversation went now. :D

It's curious though that the antisemetism begun after the ascension of Hitler. To me that begs the question of whether the power of his antisemetic cadre was expanded - their presence than legitimised - rather than antisemetism itself taking on a greater focus amongst the average German. If it's the former case then romanticism can't be to blame can it: or at least it's demonstrating quite inconsistent results.

It would seem that the antisemitism was to a large extent fuelled by the boycotts and antisemitic legislation passed in 1934. But we cannot forget what fuelled the leading cadre of Nazism in those early days: Hitler, Himmler, Goering, the Strassers - the Wagnerian/Nietzschean Teutonic übermensch.

Thus the chain: Romanticism + National Trouble --> a dangerous group of chauvinists --> Power --> Spread of ideals to the masses.

Vlerchan

December 27th, 2015, 02:09 PM

Okay, I see how this conversation went now.
Never worry, there's always a method to my madness.

It would seem that the antisemitism was to a large extent fuelled by the boycotts and antisemitic legislation passed in 1934.
Through what mechanism? For most people viewing an injustice doesn't make them more inclined to involve themselves with that injustice.

Thus the chain: Romanticism + National Trouble --> a dangerous group of chauvinists --> Power --> Spread of ideals to the masses.
In that chain that the Germans elected Hitler on the basis of non-romanticist ideals and then the Nazis used their position to indoctrinate people towards their (romanticist) antisemitism - an active attempt to alter the political-culture I hold fundamental to the electoral process.

It might be worth pointing out that as far as I've read the Jews weren't opposed on romanticist terms but rather referenced as an existential threat: classed as enemy-civilians as a result of posed affiliations with capitalism and socialism and pacifism. That's from reading a limited amount of national socialist source material - I would imagine you'd know more - but the impression I got remains that the propaganda in this regards was far from romanticist.

I can understand the argument though that romanticist inclinations made them more susceptible to the fine rhetoric that accompanied these claims.

Judean Zealot

January 5th, 2016, 05:27 PM

Through what mechanism? For most people viewing an injustice doesn't make them more inclined to involve themselves with that injustice.

Long term exposure to rhetoric and social pressure will almost always result in gradual acceptance: see Spanish jewry in the 15th century.

In that chain that the Germans elected Hitler on the basis of non-romanticist ideals and then the Nazis used their position to indoctrinate people towards their (romanticist) antisemitism - an active attempt to alter the political-culture I hold fundamental to the electoral process.
... Thus demonstrating that the said political culture is an insufficient bulwark against whatever madness rises against it.

It might be worth pointing out that as far as I've read the Jews weren't opposed on romanticist terms but rather referenced as an existential threat: classed as enemy-civilians as a result of posed affiliations with capitalism and socialism and pacifism. That's from reading a limited amount of national socialist source material - I would imagine you'd know more - but the impression I got remains that the propaganda in this regards was far from romanticist.

I can understand the argument though that romanticist inclinations made them more susceptible to the fine rhetoric that accompanied these claims.

Generally speaking, the rhetoric rolled the two together: Judeo-Bolshevism was seen as the natural outcome of a race of parasitical untermenschen. A strong example of this would be the Goebbels film Der Ewige Jude (it's on YouTube, but there's no way you'd be able to get through the first 5 minutes. So yes, the romanticist racial rhetoric very much enabled the accompanying socio-political narrative.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 10:17 AM

phuckphace

Have you ever considered an authoritarian republic as an ideal, or just flat out despotism?

phuckphace

January 7th, 2016, 10:34 AM

phuckphace

Have you ever considered an authoritarian republic as an ideal, or just flat out despotism?

yes, and I'm still not completely opposed to the idea, it's just that I'm hyper-distrustful of republicanism because it's 2016. the ideals of an isolationist, socially conservative ethnostate are of course in direct opposition to the internationalist NWO that has us surrounded on all four sides - I find that the hoi polloi is simply too prone to manipulation to make it workable.

for example there's one ethnostate in particular that plans to use DNA testing to screen immigration applicants, built a wall, drops the undesirables into internment camps and deports them back to Sweden and Africa. I want the same thing here, but unless there's a despot who can crush the almost universal, internal and external opposition to America pursing its own national interest in this vein, it won't happen.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 10:38 AM

yes, and I'm still not completely opposed to the idea, it's just that I'm hyper-distrustful of republicanism because it's 2016. the ideals of an isolationist, socially conservative ethnostate are of course in direct opposition to the internationalist NWO that has us surrounded on all four sides - I find that the hoi polloi is simply too prone to manipulation to make it workable.

for example there's one ethnostate in particular that plans to use DNA testing to screen immigration applicants, built a wall, drops the undesirables into internment camps and deports them back to Sweden and Africa. I want the same thing here, but unless there's a despot who can crush the almost universal, internal and external opposition to America pursing its own national interest in this vein, it won't happen.

But doesn't my version of an aristocratic republic greatly diminish that issue? I hardly have to remind you of the dangers of despotism.

Remember, Robespierre operated in a republic. Of course, he eventually lost his head, and that was unfortunate, but it needn't happen with military support. Had ole Maximillien had his own SS he would've crushed the Thermidorians.

phuckphace

January 7th, 2016, 10:53 AM

But doesn't my version of an aristocratic republic greatly diminish that issue? I hardly have to remind you of the dangers of despotism.

I'm sure it would be somewhat diminished, but dat NWO tho - its reach is staggering and it's got way more money than we do. sounds like a colossal undertaking - remaining on the defensive at all times lest the Fremdmoral begin leaking through chinks in the dike.

Remember, Robespierre operated in a republic. Of course, he eventually lost his head, and that was unfortunate, but it needn't happen with military support. Had ole Maximillien had his own SS he would've crushed the Thermidorians.

he also operated well before 2016, though. these days it's fairly simple to influence huge numbers of people (for worse or better) in ways that didn't exist in the old days. it's also the case that power and money is no longer constrained by borders.

now, some folks think my reasoning here is "transistors are an Illuminati conspiracy to mindcontrol the sheeple" which isn't exactly the case. for me there's a big dilemma when it comes to the question of how to maintain the advantages of the technological revolution, i.e medical technology and the higher quality of life that comes with it, vs. its negatives, like the ability to download 20GB of phat asses in UltraHD or some Marxian professor's treatise on the 2000 reasons why nationalism is the most evil thing ever conceived. I don't know if anyone has figured this out yet.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 11:02 AM

I'm sure it would be somewhat diminished, but dat NWO tho - its reach is staggering and it's got way more money than we do. sounds like a colossal undertaking - remaining on the defensive at all times lest the Fremdmoral begin leaking through chinks in the dike.

Don't fool yourself, the constant vigilance a meritocracy necessitates is in no way diminished by a despotism. If anything, the lack of (potential) civilian participation will only hurry the growth of subversive elements among the people.

he also operated well before 2016, though. these days it's fairly simple to influence huge numbers of people (for worse or better) in ways that didn't exist in the old days. it's also the case that power and money is no longer constrained by borders.

now, some folks think my reasoning here is "transistors are an Illuminati conspiracy to mindcontrol the sheeple" which isn't exactly the case. for me there's a big dilemma when it comes to the question of how to maintain the advantages of the technological revolution, i.e medical technology and the higher quality of life that comes with it, vs. its negatives, like the ability to download 20GB of phat asses in UltraHD or some Marxian professor's treatise on the 2000 reasons why nationalism is the most evil thing ever conceived. I don't know if anyone has figured this out yet.

There is only one way: education. 5 years of repression and solid control over the education system is all that is necessary to consolidate control.

phuckphace

January 7th, 2016, 11:29 AM

Don't fool yourself, the constant vigilance a meritocracy necessitates is in no way diminished by a despotism.

I was vague there - I was saying it would be a colossal undertaking under despotism - of a kind that I wouldn't think would even be possible under any non-totalitarian arrangement, through lack of will or something else, I don't know.

If anything, the lack of (potential) civilian participation will only hurry the growth of subversive elements among the people.

not if I kill them first (I'm joking).

There is only one way: education. 5 years of repression and solid control over the education system is all that is necessary to consolidate control.

agreed, this has been a major part of my plan from the beginning.

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 11:33 AM

I was vague there - I was saying it would be a colossal undertaking under despotism - of a kind that I wouldn't think would even be possible under any non-totalitarian arrangement, through lack of will or something else, I don't know.

I don't know. I hate despotism and democracy with equal passion. How would you secure the continuation of a despotism?

phuckphace

January 7th, 2016, 11:42 AM

I don't know. I hate despotism and democracy with equal passion. How would you secure the continuation of a despotism?

that's a huge downside, I freely admit. from reading your posts ITT and elsewhere I've already been warming up to the idea of a meritocracy (as authoritarian as possible please & ty) but, forgive my cynicism here, I've concluded that nothing will last too long until the relentless spread of grey-goo internationalism collapses. it's like they looked at Western societies enjoying more-or-less proud and prosperous nation-first arrangements and thought "how can we fuck with that?"

Judean Zealot

January 7th, 2016, 11:55 AM

that's a huge downside, I freely admit. from reading your posts ITT and elsewhere I've already been warming up to the idea of a meritocracy (as authoritarian as possible please & ty) but, forgive my cynicism here, I've concluded that nothing will last too long until the relentless spread of grey-goo internationalism collapses. it's like they looked at Western societies enjoying more-or-less proud and prosperous nation-first arrangements and thought "how can we fuck with that?"

It depends on what 'internationalism' refers to. On the one hand, people must recognise the legitimacy of both the state and the nation, but humanism remains integral if you don't wish to turn into Nazi Germany.

Edit: it was also more like they looked at an entire generation of western boys shot, gassed, hacked, and blown to death for absolutely no bloody reason in the first world war, and thought "how can we fuck with that?"

I dislike internationalism, but it began as an idea to fix a real problem, which humanism must heal.

Vlerchan

January 8th, 2016, 07:44 PM

ong term exposure to rhetoric and social pressure will almost always result in gradual acceptance: see Spanish jewry in the 15th century [...]

[...] Thus demonstrating that the said political culture is an insufficient bulwark against whatever madness rises against it.
Oh. I never meant to argue that political culture is an unassailable barrier to that opposed to it. It can be altered - esp. in the long-term.

I also find 'rise against' is misleading. The Nazi government rose into a position where it was possible to dominate it.

---

However at the same time I still haven't been assured that genuine antisemetism was prevalent amongst the masses during Hitler's time in government. That we might have identified a mechanism - "the antisemitism was to a large extent fuelled by the boycotts and antisemitic legislation passed in 1934" - doesn't entail a result.

Is the polls that you might be aware of that document attitudes towards the Jews in post-Nazi Germany? They'd be interesting for sure.

I find that the hoi polloi is simply too prone to manipulation to make it workable.
I would have presumed that there would need to be a significant amount of the hoi polloi invested in the idea to ensure that the counter-revolution was successful in the first place.

I realise that liberals might rally thereafter but surely that's where the authoritarianism comes in.

---

I also find that it's transnationalism that's more the issue than internationalism when I imagine attempting to implement your ideals.