America under one Ruler...

[Snydergate]

I am probably not the only person who thinks that the American Government is just bad, not bad as in evil. But bad as in a good idea but terribly executed. Democracy worked great for the ancient Greeks, but nowadays Democracy is not very useful in my mind, except for certain circumstanes. The President has no real power at all, he is a puppet created by hundreds of Congressmen to make us feel safe. I think that America needs to expell the Rule of One Hundred and give rise to the Rule of One. One man/woman in charge, not necessarily a Dictator, but something like it. One man in charge who makes the decisions, sure it may not be a nice man, however even the most ruthless leader can lead his country to greatness. Rome was ruled by single men for hundreds of years and look how great the Empire became, the same could be said for England and most Medieval Kingdoms. One General leading an army is better than ten Generals. What are your thoughts on this?

[SethfromMI]

what do you think will happen if only one person is in charge? corruption. many of the rulers of Rome were very corrupt rulers. America is far form perfect, but honestly one person should not rule a country with absolute power

[Kahn]

I am probably not the only person who thinks that the American Government is just bad, not bad as in evil. But bad as in a good idea but terribly executed.

What would you propose as an alternative? This Union has endured, and prospered, for almost 239 years. What more could we possibly ask for?

Democracy worked great for the ancient Greeks, but nowadays Democracy is not very useful in my mind, except for certain circumstanes.

What are the circumstances in your mind, in which democracy is more appropriate than concentrated rule? What are the circumstances in your mind in which concentrated rule is more appropriate than democracy?

Lest I have to remind you, we are a Republic. The sovereignty is in the group and not the individual. This distinction is of great importance.

The President has no real power at all, he is a puppet created by hundreds of Congressmen to make us feel safe.

You're just plain wrong here. The President is the highest single authority in the states, and as such, other nations look to him as the head of the country, and the person to talk to. Congress will usually back up the president's Foreign Policy goals without too much fighting, traditionally. However, Congress does not have to ratify any treaties the President signs, and Congress can also cut off the President from his funding.

For defense, a similar dynamic exists. The President is the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Congress sets the budget.

I think that America needs to expell the Rule of One Hundred and give rise to the Rule of One. One man/woman in charge, not necessarily a Dictator, but something like it.

What do you suggest, aside from ripping power out of the hands of the many and handing it to a single Man, no questions asked? How do we limit power on such a figure? What would their responsibilities be and how could we keep them in check?

One man in charge who makes the decisions, sure it may not be a nice man, however even the most ruthless leader can lead his country to greatness. Rome was ruled by single men for hundreds of years and look how great the Empire became, the same could be said for England and most Medieval Kingdoms. One General leading an army is better than ten Generals.

It seems to me you're romanticizing history, for for every benevolent ruler you speak of, there are two dastardly, repugnant tyrants. Rome fell. The British Empire fell. The medieval period was a time marred by warfare, disease, and death. We make epics out of stories set in these times, and it muddies our perception of what it must've been like to live during such times.

What are your thoughts on this?

My only thought is that I couldn't possibly hand over my natural rights as easily as you seemingly are willing to.

[Arkansasguy]

I am probably not the only person who thinks that the American Government is just bad, not bad as in evil. But bad as in a good idea but terribly executed. Democracy worked great for the ancient Greeks, but nowadays Democracy is not very useful in my mind, except for certain circumstanes. The President has no real power at all, he is a puppet created by hundreds of Congressmen to make us feel safe. I think that America needs to expell the Rule of One Hundred and give rise to the Rule of One. One man/woman in charge, not necessarily a Dictator, but something like it. One man in charge who makes the decisions, sure it may not be a nice man, however even the most ruthless leader can lead his country to greatness. Rome was ruled by single men for hundreds of years and look how great the Empire became, the same could be said for England and most Medieval Kingdoms. One General leading an army is better than ten Generals. What are your thoughts on this?

See feudalism.

The system you are describing would be infinitely better than our own. Having a monarch is the ideal form of government.

One point I'd disagree with you on is that America's system was a good idea but badly executed. America's system was a failure from its first principles. The sort of democracy the Greeks had is only workable in a small country like a city state. While there have been large republics that have done well in history, all such republics had a nobility of some sort. Having a nobility is actually more important for good governance than having a king.

[Snydergate]

See feudalism.

The system you are describing would be infinitely better than our own. Having a monarch is the ideal form of government.

One point I'd disagree with you on is that America's system was a good idea but badly executed. America's system was a failure from its first principles. The sort of democracy the Greeks had is only workable in a small country like a city state. While there have been large republics that have done well in history, all such republics had a nobility of some sort. Having a nobility is actually more important for good governance than having a king.

Yeah Feudalism, thats what I was thinking about. I just couldn't remember the term off of the top of my head

[Vlerchan]

I think Snydergate's problem lies with Checks & Balances. I'd suggest he reads into states with quite empowered executives - eg: England, Ireland, etc. - before denouncing democratic rule.

Capitalism is too entrenched for Feudalism to make a return regardless.

[Arkansasguy]

I think Snydergate's problem lies with Checks & Balances. I'd suggest he reads into states with quite empowered executives - eg: England, Ireland, etc. - before denouncing democratic rule.

Capitalism is too entrenched for Feudalism to make a return regardless.

If they're sufficiently determined, bad men can abuse any system.

And the solution is to abolish capitalism and replace it with traditional economics.

[Vlerchan]

If they're sufficiently determined, bad men can abuse any system.
I have no idea what this had to do with what I said.

And the solution is to abolish capitalism and replace it with traditional economics.
Setting aside the issue of how undesirable I figure this - I don't consider it possible:

Capitalism grew from Feudalism's inherent contradictions: technological advancement allowed people to increasingly shift resources from production of goods for use towards production of goods for sale, and with that a bourgeoise class rose to rival and then dominate the noble stock (EPPPP) and that dynamic isn't going to disappear second-time-round.

Not to mention convincing people to embrace impoverishment etc. which a return to traditional economics would certainly entail I'd call optimistic at the most generous.

[Arkansasguy]

I have no idea what this had to do with what I said.


Setting aside the issue of how undesirable I figure this - I don't consider it possible:

Capitalism grew from Feudalism's inherent contradictions: technological advancement allowed people to increasingly shift resources from production of goods for use towards production of goods for sale, and with that a bourgeoise class rose to rival and then dominate the noble stock (EPPPP) and that dynamic isn't going to disappear second-time-round.

Not to mention convincing people to embrace impoverishment etc. which a return to traditional economics would certainly entail I'd call optimistic at the most generous.

You seem to be forgetting a very obvious point. Goods for sale are goods for use.

There's nothing anti-feudal about the existence of merchants, as long as they are prevented from becoming too wealthy and powerful.

[Capto]

Please don't see feudalism.

Feudalism in place of our modern bureaucracy is a terrible idea and one that would simply cause too many headaches for whatever fantasy benefit it may provide.

I have nothing against benevolent autarchy, but the continuous misinterpretation on what a feudal society is and what feudalism entails is forever an annoyance.

[Vlerchan]

You seem to be forgetting a very obvious point. Goods for sale are goods for use.
No. The two terms refer to two different things.

Goods for use are produced for immediate consumption.
Goods for sale are produced for economic profit.

Nothing requires the latter goods be consumed either. An example of this is farmers burning crops to maintain high prices within the context of production quotas.

There's nothing anti-feudal about the existence of merchants, as long as they are prevented from becoming too wealthy and powerful.
Yes. The problem I was referring to was the bourgeoise growing to hold too high a proportion of national wealth. I'm not sure how that can be stopped.

Please note further than as the situation stands at the moment the bourgeoise hold this too high proportion of national wealth several-fold. So that's problematic to begin with.

[Arkansasguy]

No. The two terms refer to two different things.

Goods for use are produced for immediate consumption.
Goods for sale are produced for economic profit.

Nothing requires the latter goods be consumed either. An example of this is farmers burning crops to maintain high prices within the context of production quotas.

Even if the latter goods are destroyed to maintain prices, the ultimate cause for sale is still use, as in such cases the destroying person hopes to maintain prices of sale to others who will use.

Yes. The problem I was referring to was the bourgeoise growing to hold too high a proportion of national wealth. I'm not sure how that can be stopped.

Seems simple to me. Require merchants dealing with the general public to be residents of the locality. Prevents accumulation of national wealth by bourgeoise individuals.

Please note further than as the situation stands at the moment the bourgeoise hold this too high proportion of national wealth several-fold. So that's problematic to begin with.

One solution would be to allow the current bourgeoise to buy into a nobility. Or you could simply pass the law I proposed above, and the bourgeoise fortunes would eventually dissipate. I think it would be preferable to do the first, and allow the second to apply to any who wouldn't or couldn't join the nobility.

[Thunderstorm]

No, the US isn't perfect. However, something must be working if we've gone from 10% unemployment to 5% in 8 years. Therefore, we don't need a "ruler".

We don't have pure democracy, we technically have a Constitutional Republic. It works. Yes, we currently have a lame duck president who is uncooperative with congress, but they balance each other. Plus, we have a largely liberal judiciary branch, which is responsible for much of the reforms in recent years. The closest we got to pure democracy was during the FDR regime in which democratic FDR, with the help of his largely democratic congress, accomplished many reforms in his first four years. Our capitalism is far from a free-market economy but at the perfect place. The government will intervene in a time of recession or depression and become laissez-faire in a time of prosperity. That's exactly what America was based on, a government by the people, for the people, when needed.

[SethfromMI]

just keep in mind, guys like Hitler and Stalin practically had unlimited power in running their countries. North Korea with kim jong un. tell me how wonderful North Korea is right now?

[Arkansasguy]

Please don't see feudalism.

Feudalism in place of our modern bureaucracy is a terrible idea and one that would simply cause too many headaches for whatever fantasy benefit it may provide.

I have nothing against benevolent autarchy, but the continuous misinterpretation on what a feudal society is and what feudalism entails is forever an annoyance.

Feudalism was a wonderful system.

just keep in mind, guys like Hitler and Stalin practically had unlimited power in running their countries. North Korea with kim jong un. tell me how wonderful North Korea is right now?

Which shows how bad it is when the left runs things . . .

[riverboy]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[SethfromMI]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

such a true statement my good sir. who was it that said that?I know i should know, but it has slipped my mind

[Arkansasguy]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

So God is corrupt?

[riverboy]

such a true statement my good sir. who was it that said that?I know i should know, but it has slipped my mind

Not sure who said it.

[Capto]

Feudalism was a wonderful system.


You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

[riverboy]

So God is corrupt?

That is a good question if you want to bring God into this. God can kill but man should not so does that make God corrupt? Is the devil good if he makes man kill an evil man. I think only the individual can answer that.

[Arkansasguy]

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you say so.

That is a good question if you want to bring God into this. God can kill but man should not so does that make God corrupt? Is the devil good if he makes man kill an evil man. I think only the individual can answer that.

God can those who are guilty before him, as all men are. By the same reasoning, the state can kill those who are guilty before it of capital offenses.

Killing an evil man intentionally would be justified if in accordance with due process of law.

[riverboy]

I don't want to get off the main post but I think you answered your question.

[Arkansasguy]

I don't want to get off the main post but I think you answered your question.

How did I answer it?

[SethfromMI]

look if you want to go to a country where one ruler runs the entire country so badly enough, go to North Korea

[Arkansasguy]

look if you want to go to a country where one ruler runs the entire country so badly enough, go to North Korea

That's not at all what reactionaries like myself have in mind.

[Vlerchan]

Even if the latter goods are destroyed to maintain prices, the ultimate cause for sale is still use, as in such cases the destroying person hopes to maintain prices of sale to others who will use.
OK. But there's still an important distinction:

The latter good's production results in its producer earning a profit which sets of the process of capital accumulation (etc.). This is what allows the capitalist to expand production and her share of national wealth.

Which is why we are having the discussion running simultaneous.

Seems simple to me. Require merchants dealing with the general public to be residents of the locality. Prevents accumulation of national wealth by bourgeoise individuals.
I think that's an ingenious idea for your purposes. I'm not sure how long it would remain intact once legislated. But ignoring that it does seem to get around the problem I suggested. A few questions:

How large will localities be on average?
Will firms be allowed to compete with the feudal plantations?
Will firms be allowed to export?
Will firms be allowed to set up local subsidiaries?

I may have more when it's not 6am and I'm not getting ready for college.

---

E1: I should add that I do think I'm underestimating the change that might be brought about by the sheer number of small producers in an individual kingdom.

E2: I should also add that despite the above praise I still think this idea would wreck economies - but then I'm of the opinion that creating functioning economies in the sense considered in general isn't the aim here so what's the matter? I'd be sure emigrate in a heartbeat.

One solution would be to allow the current bourgeoise to buy into a nobility.
Pragmatic I guess. But I think most of the 1% at least would benefit more from your Feudal utopia remaining a dream: wealth production is a lot easier under capitalism.

To me it also makes a joke of the idea of the noble stock to start allowing bourgeoise degenerates in.

It also raises the question of what then happens to their assets?

---

E3: Please note I'm ignoring the moral issues I have with this scheme in this response.

Or you could simply pass the law I proposed above, and the bourgeoise fortunes would eventually dissipate.
Presuming this law will pass with the Bourgeoise at the height of their historic power stretches this thought experiment further than I'm willing to take it.

Regardless:

If this were to happen I would imagine the wealth would dissipate because it was all pulled out of the state en-masse. That - and it would lie ruined in now-malinvestments designed to allow firms compete at a non-local level.

[Arkansasguy]

[QUOTE=Vlerchan;3059159]OK. But there's still an important distinction:

The latter good's production results in its producer earning a profit which sets of the process of capital accumulation (etc.). This is what allows the capitalist to expand production and her share of national wealth.

Which is why we are having the discussion running simultaneous.

The point though was that economic transactions are driven by the need for goods for use. Plus there's the fact that a person who never used goods would quickly find themselves incapable of making money.

I think that's an ingenious idea for your purposes. I'm not sure how long it would remain intact once legislated. But ignoring that it does seem to get around the problem I suggested. A few questions:

How large will localities be on average?

Cities.

Will firms be allowed to compete with the feudal plantations?

If the owner is a resident of the locality.

Will firms be allowed to export?

Sure, why not.

Will firms be allowed to set up local subsidiaries?

What do you mean?

Pragmatic I guess. But I think most of the 1% at least would benefit more from your Feudal utopia remaining a dream: wealth production is a lot easier under capitalism.

I'm not addressing how the political will to make these changes could be acquired, that's practically impossible. It's pragmatic because it's the most straight forward way to establish a nobility, although if there was a better way apparent whenever these hypothetical changes occured, that should be taken.

To me it also makes a joke of the idea of the noble stock to start allowing bourgeoise degenerates in.

The basis for aristocracy is not that nobles are inherently better people then commoners, it's that they fulfill an important function by occupying a higher office.

It also raises the question of what then happens to their assets?

They'd retain them, but they would have duties to the public in terms of the use of their lands.

Presuming this law will pass with the Bourgeoise at the height of their historic power stretches this thought experiment further than I'm willing to take it.

Regardless:

If this were to happen I would imagine the wealth would dissipate because it was all pulled out of the state en-masse. That - and it would lie ruined in now-malinvestments designed to allow firms compete at a non-local level.

Of course, it's not politically possible to pass such measures.

[Vlerchan]

The point though was that economic transactions are driven by the need for goods for use. Plus there's the fact that a person who never used goods would quickly find themselves incapable of making money.
OK. I'll agree to move on.

The fact that the conversation running below this is occurring means the point I was attempting to make has been accepted whether you realise it or not.

Cities.
Lots of our cities have populations about the same size as the nations about the time of Feudalisms last overthrown.

Seems problematic to me.

If the owner is a resident of the locality.
I'm worried that profit-orientated capitalist might out compete our noble serfs.

Like last time.

Sure, why not.
I would be worried it would allow a greater scope for capital accumulation - the foundations for another bourgeoise revolution.

What do you mean?
I might have a friend register within a different local and operate her firm there.

We would benefit from a number of economies of scale.

---

I also feel the need to raise to further points:

What's to be done with natural monopolies?
What's to be done with activities requiring large scale coordination?
Not all locals can produce all goods - eg: oil. Since the laws make it impossible to trade cross-local how is this intended to work?

The basis for aristocracy is not that nobles are inherently better people then commoners, it's that they fulfill an important function by occupying a higher office.
If it doesn't matter who occupies the position then it might be better to select at random from PhD graduates.

They'd retain them, but they would have duties to the public in terms of the use of their lands.
Its not 1850. Most wealth is not in the form of land.

According to Piketty (2013) in the US <5% happens to be.

---

Please note I gathered that from a (hard) book source. I'll go onto my PC later and find the graph if needed.

Of course, it's not politically possible to pass such measures.
I'm saying that it's not politically possible because a strong Bourgeoise class exists.

Unless the Bourgeoise class spontaneously disappears then I believe it will always be not politically possible - or possible, period.

[Kahn]

Any notion of reverting back to such a system as Feudalism is heinous and backwards. I honestly cannot fathom how one could prefer a society built on the foundations of feudal justice over our current constitutional republic. You've really got to look through the rose colored glasses to propose that as a superior alternative to the current power structure.

[Arkansasguy]

Lots of our cities have populations about the same size as the nations about the time of Feudalisms last overthrown.

Seems problematic to me.

I don't see how the population would be a problem.

I'm worried that profit-orientated capitalist might out compete our noble serfs.

Like last time.

Thus the requirement he be local, which you admitted would work.

I might have a friend register within a different local and operate her firm there.

We would benefit from a number of economies of scale.

Why would she give you a share of her profits?

[QUOYE]I also feel the need to raise to further points:

What's to be done with natural monopolies?[/QUOTE]

Could you give an example?

What's to be done with activities requiring large scale coordination?

Could you give an example?

Not all locals can produce all goods - eg: oil. Since the laws make it impossible to trade cross-local how is this intended to work?

The laws would make it impossible to sell to the general public outside one's locality. Selling to merchants in other localities would be fine.

If it doesn't matter who occupies the position then it might be better to select at random from PhD graduates.

It wouldn't really matter, since it would be hereditary.


Its not 1850. Most wealth is not in the form of land.

According to Piketty (2013) in the US <5% happens to be.

---

Please note I gathered that from a (hard) book source. I'll go onto my PC later and find the graph if needed.

What other types do you have in mind?

I'm saying that it's not politically possible because a strong Bourgeoise class exists.

Unless the Bourgeoise class spontaneously disappears then I believe it will always be not politically possible - or possible, period.

I tend to think most rich people would support conservative policies if by some miracle they came to replace liberal policies as the accepted view. People generally form their positions based on what's acceptable, not what's rational, because they don't want to be thought ignorant.

Here's a good example of this line of thinking, it doesn't involve a single argument, it's just name-calling, which is what the masses respond to:

Any notion of reverting back to such a system as Feudalism is heinous and backwards. I honestly cannot fathom how one could prefer a society built on the foundations of feudal justice over our current constitutional republic. You've really got to look through the rose colored glasses to propose that as a superior alternative to the current power structure.

[Vlerchan]

I don't see how the population would be a problem.
Bigger market.

Thus the requirement he be local, which you admitted would work.
Please note that in the post where I claimed it might work I was referring to wealth not concentrating around the Bourgouse class.

At this point in time I was unsure whether they would be allowed to compete directly with the Noble stock. I am now sure they are:

I like to reformulate my opinion on the basis of new information.

Why would she give you a share of her profits?
She wouldn't share profits. She would share costs.

Because we'd be ordering in bulk these costs would be reduced.

---

E1: This is incorrect. I forgot what I was talking about. She'd be an employee.

Though now that I realise it's possible to sell to merchants this scenario becomes unnecessary and so irrelevant.

Could you give an example [of natural monopolies]?
Utilities.
Railways.
Air traffic control.
Etc.

Could you give an example [activities involving large scale co-ordination]?
Railways.

The laws would make it impossible to sell to the general public outside one's locality. Selling to merchants in other localities would be fine.
In other words factories would be a reality under Feudalism.

Which brings us back to our original problem.

---

E2: I feel I need to explain. The wholesaler sells indirectly to the general public contained within multiple locals. Its like the proposed law never existed.

I would imagine these wholesalers would then set-up local registered fronts within locals and form a distribution chain. Seems the obvious next move.

It wouldn't really matter, since it would be hereditary.
You have to start somewhere.

What other types do you have in mind?
Financial assets: Stocks and Bonds and Derivatives (etc.).
Non-financial assets: Fine Art and Real Estate and Precious Metals (etc).

These are the two big ones.

I tend to think most rich people would support conservative policies if by some miracle they came to replace liberal policies as the accepted view.
I'm talking about the Bourgeoise being reluctant to let go of Capitalism.

People generally form their positions based on what's acceptable, not what's rational, because they don't want to be thought ignorant.
Of course I'm pretty sure we disagree on every conceivable position.

I don't think either of us are incorrect about our moral views though within the context of what we want to achieve.

[Kahn]

Here's a good example of this line of thinking, it doesn't involve a single argument, it's just name-calling: Any notion of reverting back to such a system as Feudalism is heinous and backwards. I honestly cannot fathom how one could prefer a society built on the foundations of feudal justice over our current constitutional republic. You've really got to look through the rose colored glasses to propose that as a superior alternative to the current power structure.

While I'll grant you my comment certainly wasn't positive in tone, there was no name-calling, just a stark disbelief at what you're proposing be in the best interest of the American people.

I broke the OP down point by point and have yet to receive a response. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3058539&postcount=3) I have more than enough time to sit and read your rationalizations. So, feel free to rationalize. I'll take all the ad hominem out of my post and ask you a set of questions.

In what way(s) would a feudal society be more efficient than the current societal structure? Since I'm clearly ignorant as to the intracicies and functions of your prefered social arrangement, how does the structure of the feudal society differ from that of our current circumstance? How does it work? What are it's greatest benefits, and why does the current status quo prevent us from gaining said benefits? What are it's greatest detriments, and why do you feel these won't afflict us given the present state of things? What measures would have to be taken to institute such a system across all fifty states?

[Left Now]

Sounds more like "Tyranny of King Washington" to me....

[Stronk Serb]

I agree that some sort of autocrat must be there, but with a Vox Populus branch which would act like the Roman tribunes who could overrule newly passed legislation if it goes against the interests of the people.

[TomTougher]

I am probably not the only person who thinks that the American Government is just bad, not bad as in evil. But bad as in a good idea but terribly executed. Democracy worked great for the ancient Greeks, but nowadays Democracy is not very useful in my mind, except for certain circumstanes. The President has no real power at all, he is a puppet created by hundreds of Congressmen to make us feel safe. I think that America needs to expell the Rule of One Hundred and give rise to the Rule of One. One man/woman in charge, not necessarily a Dictator, but something like it. One man in charge who makes the decisions, sure it may not be a nice man, however even the most ruthless leader can lead his country to greatness. Rome was ruled by single men for hundreds of years and look how great the Empire became, the same could be said for England and most Medieval Kingdoms. One General leading an army is better than ten Generals. What are your thoughts on this?

As for your idea of one man in charge, that's what Bush was or at least that's how he tried to be. He had Congress eating out of his hand and as far as he was concerned, he was a dictator. I don't think he did much good for the country.

[Arkansasguy]

Bigger market.

But the costs of goods will still be roughly the same throughout the city.

Please note that in the post where I claimed it might work I was referring to wealth not concentrating around the Bourgouse class.

At this point in time I was unsure whether they would be allowed to compete directly with the Noble stock. I am now sure they are:

I like to reformulate my opinion on the basis of new information.

Now that I think about it, what do you mean by competing with the nobles? The nobles would be landed, thus their primary product would be food from the land. Prices would be set by guilds in cities, or by the lord in rural areas. I suppose there could be "competition" between merchants and farmers, but I don't see how this would lead to the concentration of wealth.

Utilities.
Railways.
Air traffic control.
Etc.

Guilds.

Railways.

This is interesting. Perhaps a super local association of guilds.

In other words factories would be a reality under Feudalism.

Which brings us back to our original problem.

---

E2: I feel I need to explain. The wholesaler sells indirectly to the general public contained within multiple locals. Its like the proposed law never existed.

I would imagine these wholesalers would then set-up local registered fronts within locals and form a distribution chain. Seems the obvious next move.

I should explain. In each locality there will be price controls. So I suppose you could say they'd indirectly sell to the general public, but without being able to manipulate prices, they couldn't thereby build up huge amounts of wealth.

Financial assets: Stocks and Bonds and Derivatives (etc.).
Non-financial assets: Fine Art and Real Estate and Precious Metals (etc).

These are the two big ones.

The first terminate in something else.
Real estate is land. Fine art and precious metals are valuable, but are in no way necessities.

I'm talking about the Bourgeoise being reluctant to let go of Capitalism.

They're willing to accept socialism, why not conservatism?

Of course I'm pretty sure we disagree on every conceivable position.

I don't think either of us are incorrect about our moral views though within the context of what we want to achieve.

I wasn't talking about you.

While I'll grant you my comment certainly wasn't positive in tone, there was no name-calling, just a stark disbelief at what you're proposing be in the best interest of the American people.

Correct. You didn't call me names, you just mocked and belittled my position.

In what way(s) would a feudal society be more efficient than the current societal structure?

In a feudal society social structures would be more personal. Society would be more religious. The job of governance would be undertaken primarily by people to are by state of life noble. Society would be more patriarchal. The list goes on.

Since I'm clearly ignorant as to the intracicies and functions of your prefered social arrangement, how does the structure of the feudal society differ from that of our current circumstance? How does it work?

There would be a king, and below him lords of varying rank, who would hold power. Individual cities might have charters from the king or lower noble granting them a municipal government. The Church would be powerful and esteemed.

What are it's greatest benefits, and why does the current status quo prevent us from gaining said benefits?

Social structures being more personal, which is not possible in our extremely impersonal system. Religion would be more widespread. In our system the people are absurdly considered sovereign.

What are it's greatest detriments, and why do you feel these won't afflict us given the present state of things?

I suppose the greatest detriment is that it might be easy to abuse power.

]What measures would have to be taken to institute such a system across all fifty states?

Creation of a monarchy. Establishment of a noble class. Establishment of an official religion. Abolition of capitalism. Rejection of liberalism.

[SethfromMI]

I honestly can't see how you think this is a good ideal, with countless examples in history and even modern day which shows one man in charge does not work out in the end

[Arkansasguy]

I honestly can't see how you think this is a good ideal, with countless examples in history and even modern day which shows one man in charge does not work out in the end

Such as?

[SethfromMI]

Such as?

Hiter, Stalin, Kim Jong Un, Mao, any of those guys ring a bell? Nero? Caligula?

[Arkansasguy]

Hiter, Stalin, Kim Jong Un, Mao, any of those guys ring a bell? Nero? Caligula?

I don't advocate fascism or communism.

[SethfromMI]

I don't advocate fascism or communism.

those are prime examples of what can happen when one person is in charge of everything. when one person has absolute power, they can do whatever they want. I don't know what you are expecting from a one ruler over everything

[Arkansasguy]

those are prime examples of what can happen when one person is in charge of everything. when one person has absolute power, they can do whatever they want. I don't know what you are expecting from a one ruler over everything

Since you're obstinately engaging in straw-men, I might as well.

Those are examples of what happens when leftists hold power. Therefore you're a Communist.

[SethfromMI]

Since you're obstinately engaging in straw-men, I might as well.

Those are examples of what happens when leftists hold power. Therefore you're a Communist.

so what do you think is going to happen when one man holds all the power Sherlock? we are going to all hold hands around the camp fire singing roasting marshmallows and drinking koolaid ?

[Snydergate]

Hiter, Stalin, Kim Jong Un, Mao, any of those guys ring a bell? Nero? Caligula?

Caligula was hilarious you have to admit, I respect any man who makes his own horse a senetor

[SethfromMI]

Caligula was hilarious you have to admit, I respect any man who makes his own horse a senetor

haha true. mentally unstable, but funny

[Arkansasguy]

so what do you think is going to happen when one man holds all the power Sherlock? we are going to all hold hands around the camp fire singing roasting marshmallows and drinking koolaid ?

What happens depends on the type of government. Monarchial government will have a rather different effect than Communist government.

[SethfromMI]

What happens depends on the type of government. Monarchial government will have a rather different effect than Communist government.

So the reason why the American broke off from England was because they loved the King so much?

[Kahn]

Correct. You didn't call me names, you just mocked and belittled my position.

To be fair your position is rather primitive, despite being well articulated.

In a feudal society social structures would be more personal.

How? I'd like a concrete answer, not an assumption.

Society would be more religious.

How so, especially when one considers the mulititude of religions that are practiced within the confines of our borders?

The job of governance would be undertaken primarily by people who are by state of life noble.

How is one determined to be noble? The task of governance surely won't be hereditary?

Society would be more patriarchal.

So the governing class will be strictly men?

There would be a king,

This is just ludicrous, and the Framers of this nation would agree.

"But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain...let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING." - Thomas Paine

and below him lords of varying rank, who would hold power.

And I'm sure it's the King's duty to choose his closest lords, and their duty to choose theirs, and so on so forth? What entices these figures to choose the best main available for the task and not their closest associate who will aid them in garnering power?

Individual cities might have charters from the king or lower noble granting them a municipal government.

That's kind, until a King who disagrees with the idea of self-governance takes away all municipalities.

The Church would be powerful and esteemed.

What Church? Another assumption. What would make the Church so esteemed and powerful?

Social structures being more personal, which is not possible in our extremely impersonal system.

A redundant comment, you stated exactly the same thing above. How would societal structures be more personal, or more preferable? What is it about the current system that makes it "extremely impersonal?"

Religion would be more widespread.

Another assumption. What about the militant atheist movement, or the fundamentalist Christian or Islamic who doesn't agree with your "Church?" Are they simple inconsequential?

In our system the people are absurdly considered sovereign.

You should learn the difference between a democracy and the American Republic. (https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)

There are democratic elements in our government, but we are a Republic. I agree with the idea that we have natural rights. I would like to know why you consider this absurd.

I suppose the greatest detriment is that it might be easy to abuse power.

Like every system of government, I'm afraid. However, I feel it would be much easier to abuse power in your preferred system, than mine, unless you have a society living under the rule of a Philosopher King for eternity.

Creation of a monarchy. Establishment of a noble class. Establishment of an official religion. Abolition of capitalism. Rejection of liberalism.

This simply will never happen in the United States and, as I said before, I cannot fathom how anybody would prefer such a system over our constitutional republic. How would your system defend minority individual rights?

"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them." - An American citizen circa. 1787

[phuckphace]

"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them." - An American citizen circa. 1787

:lol3: and look at it now, it's a millionaires club that exists to rubber stamp every proposal passed to them by corporate lobbies.

I like how the powdered wigs went to such a great effort to make the American government less like imperial Rome and somehow it still turned out 10 times as decadent as Rome ever was, even without a monarch.

[Kahn]

:lol3: and look at it now, it's a millionaires club that exists to rubber stamp every proposal passed to them by corporate lobbies.

I like how the powdered wigs went to such a great effort to make the American government less like imperial Rome and somehow it still turned out 10 times as decadent as Rome ever was, even without a monarch.

I agree with you. I believe the Framers did not envision our government operating the way it does now, with hundreds (if not thousands of lobbyists) lobbying for the support of Congressmen and Congresswomen, judges, Presidents. The lobbyists are more influential than our governments constituents, arguably. But to propose a feudal system is preferable to the current status quo?

Would you really sacrifice your natural rights so easily?

[Arkansasguy]

So the reason why the American broke off from England was because they loved the King so much?

No, we broke off from England because we didn't like paying taxes.

To be fair your position is rather primitive, despite being well articulated.

Yes, it is.

How? I'd like a concrete answer, not an assumption.

Being locally subject to a lord rather than an impersonal entity like a county, would be an example.

How so, especially when one considers the mulititude of religions that are practiced within the confines of our borders?

A multitude of religions shows that religion is unimportant to a society.

How is one determined to be noble? The task of governance surely won't be hereditary?

Of course noble status and high office would be hereditary. That is the best way to pass on office.

So the governing class will be strictly men?

The noble class would obviously include both men and women, but offices would generally be held by men, perhaps with an occasional exception.

This is just ludicrous, and the Framers of this nation would agree.

"But where says some is the King of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Britain...let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING." - Thomas Paine

This example goes to support what I said earlier, that the most accepted arguments today do not rely on logic but on denouncing the contrary position as unacceptable.

And I'm sure it's the King's duty to choose his closest lords, and their duty to choose theirs, and so on so forth? What entices these figures to choose the best main available for the task and not their closest associate who will aid them in garnering power?

This is the benefit of hereditary office, less posturing for power.

That's kind, until a King who disagrees with the idea of self-governance takes away all municipalities.

I don't see what motive he'd have to do that.

What Church? Another assumption.

Preferably Catholic but nearly any would be better than secularism.

A redundant comment, you stated exactly the same thing above. How would societal structures be more personal, or more preferable? What is it about the current system that makes it "extremely impersonal?"

Feudal political loyalties are to persons. Modern political loyalties are to impersonal entities.

Another assumption. What about the militant atheist movement, or the fundamentalist Christian or Islamic who doesn't agree with your "Church?"

What about them?

You should learn the difference between a democracy and the American Republic. (https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm)


What relevance does this have?

Like every system of government, I'm afraid. However, I feel it would be much easier to abuse power in your preferred system, than mine, unless you have a society living under the rule of a Philosopher King for eternity.

Exactly.

This simply will never happen in the United States and, as I said before, I cannot fathom how anybody would prefer such a system over our constitutional republic.

"As our president bears no resemblance to a king so we shall see the Senate has no similitude to nobles. First, not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are not precarious. For by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices, and they will have none of the peculiar qualities and vices of those men who possess power merely because their father held it before them." - An American citizen circa. 1787

Are Senators aren't chosen for their virtue and wisdom.

This is the basic problem with meritocracy, that it's a pipe dream.

[SethfromMI]

No, we broke off from England because we didn't like paying taxes.



Yes, it is.



Being locally subject to a lord rather than an impersonal entity like a county, would be an example.



A multitude of religions shows that religion is unimportant to a society.



Of course noble status and high office would be hereditary. That is the best way to pass on office.



The noble class would obviously include both men and women, but offices would generally be held by men, perhaps with an occasional exception.



This example goes to support what I said earlier, that the most accepted arguments today do not rely on logic but on denouncing the contrary position as unacceptable.



This is the benefit of hereditary office, less posturing for power.



I don't see what motive he'd have to do that.



Preferably Catholic but nearly any would be better than secularism.



Feudal political loyalties are to persons. Modern political loyalties are to impersonal entities.



What about them?




What relevance does this have?



Exactly.



Are Senators aren't chosen for their virtue and wisdom.

This is the basic problem with meritocracy, that it's a pipe dream.
we didn't like paying taxes because the King of England was corrupt wand was taxing us without giving us any representation.

[phuckphace]

I agree with you. I believe the Framers did not envision our government operating the way it does now, with hundreds (if not thousands of lobbyists) lobbying for the support of Congressmen and Congresswomen, judges, Presidents. The lobbyists are more influential than our governments constituents, arguably. But to propose a feudal system is preferable to the current status quo?

I'm not arguing for a feudal system like Arkansasguy's. I just think advocating for democracy in opposition to autocracy is a waste of time if it's going to end up giving us the same shit in a different package, even though it is always advertised by its pushers as the greatest and most foolproof arrangement there ever was or will be. spoiler alert: another epic fail.

Would you really sacrifice your natural rights so easily?

natural rights don't exist outside the fanciful imaginations of philosophers. I would think that the primary concern of someone seeking to build the ideal society would be social capital, instead they obsess over liberties and rights until the point where we end up with all kinds of rights and liberties but little else. you can't eat rights.

[Kahn]

Being locally subject to a lord rather than an impersonal entity like a county, would be an example.

Describe a typical interaction between the common serf and the Lord they're subject to.

A multitude of religions shows that religion is unimportant to a society.

To the society at large, perhaps. To the individual, you have no place in determining what is and isn't of importance.

Of course noble status and high office would be hereditary. That is the best way to pass on office.

What makes a hereditary line of rulers "the best way to pass on office?" What determines that?


The noble class would obviously include both men and women, but offices would generally be held by men, perhaps with an occasional exception.

I see, so despite half of the population being women, they're delegated to roles that are deemed appropriate for their skills, unless they can prove ample ability?

This example goes to support what I said earlier, that the most accepted arguments today do not rely on logic but on denouncing the contrary position as unacceptable.

I'm relying on historical precedent, you're relying on what you see through the rose colored glasses.

This is the benefit of hereditary office, less posturing for power.

Surely! The hereditary line of Pharaohs in Egypt, Emperors in Rome, and Kings in England proved everlasting with little to no civil unrest, correct?

I don't see what motive he'd have to do that.

You cannot imagine a situation in which a King with absolute authority would desire to take away municipal rule from a self-governing city? That must be perplexing.

Preferably Catholic but nearly any would be better than secularism.

You prefer Catholicism, but believe nearly any religion would be better as a focal religion than secularism. What about those constiuents who would prefer, say, secularism? Or those ~4 million Americans who happen to be Muslim? How would you tread these waters?

Feudal political loyalties are to persons. Modern political loyalties are to impersonal entities.

So, feudal political loyalties will be based strictly on personal relationship and nobody would seek to accumulate status or profit through whatever means necessary because... feudal political loyalties are to persons.

Right.



What about them?

How would you address their grievances?

What relevance does this have?

I recommend it.



Exactly.

Yes, exactly.

Are Senators aren't chosen for their virtue and wisdom.

No, they're not, but you should see that these are true American ideals. And to think that we should get rid of them because you prefer a blatantly more primitive system is alarming, to me.

This is the basic problem with meritocracy, that it's a pipe dream.

It is I'm afraid, but your dream of a feudal society moreso, friend.

[Arkansasguy]

we didn't like paying taxes because the King of England was corrupt wand was taxing us without giving us any representation.

The King wasn't corrupt. And we had no right to representation.

[Kahn]

I'm not arguing for a feudal system like Arkansasguy's. I just think advocating for democracy in opposition to autocracy is a waste of time if it's going to end up giving us the same shit in a different package, even though it is always advertised by its pushers as the greatest and most foolproof arrangement there ever was or will be. spoiler alert: another epic fail.

Unfortunately, I do not believe it is the most foolproof arrangement there ever was or will be, so you spoiled nothing for me. I agree that it has become the "same shit in a different package." But if we seek to reform, we should do it within our current institutions, not by casting aside everything we've built up.

natural rights don't exist outside the fanciful imaginations of philosophers. I would think that the primary concern of someone seeking to build the ideal society would be social capital, instead they obsess over liberties and rights until the point where we end up with all kinds of rights and liberties but little else. you can't eat rights.

I disagree with the idea that natural rights don't exist, but I agree with the sentiment that you cannot eat them to stave off starvation and in the most trying times, they will be of no use to you.

[Arkansasguy]

Describe a typical interaction between the common serf and the Lord they're subject to.

Complaining of a grievance I suppose would be one example.

To the society at large, perhaps. To the individual, you have no place in determining what is and isn't of importance.

I am of course referring to the society at large.

What makes a hereditary line of rulers "the best way to pass on office?" What determines that?

1. That it's more natural.

2. That it's less prone to dispute over legitimacy.

I see, so despite half of the population being women, they're delegated to roles that are deemed appropriate for their skills, unless they can prove ample ability?

Much more than half of the population is excluded from ruling, in any system. And I didn't mean "occasional exception" in a meritocratic sense. I meant more like if a king had daughters but no sons type of situation.

I'm relying on historical precedent, you're relying on what you see through the rose colored glasses.

The part of your post I was responding to had nothing to do with historical precedent. It was simple denunciation.

Surely! The hereditary line of Pharaohs in Egypt, Emperors in Rome, and Kings in England proved everlasting with little to no civil unrest, correct?

They certainly had far less political fighting than we do today (see permanent campaign and all).

You cannot imagine a situation in which a King with absolute authority would desire to take away municipal rule from a self-governing city? That must be perplexing.

When I referred to municipal rule, I didn't mean self-governing, I meant more along the lines of that the municipal authority would be directly subject to the authority granting the charter (so if the king granted it, they would be not subject to any other lords).

You prefer Catholicism, but believe nearly any religion would be better as a focal religion than secularism. What about those constiuents who would prefer, say, secularism? Or those ~4 million Americans who happen to be Muslim? How would you tread these waters?

They can privately prefer whatever they want, but a just state suppresses public error.

(Keep in mind that the majority of the country would have to belong to a certain religion for this to be feasible).

So, feudal political loyalties will be based strictly on personal relationship and nobody would seek to accumulate status or profit through whatever means necessary because... feudal political loyalties are to persons.

Right.

No, it's less prone to that, not immune.



How would you address their grievances?

Depends on the type of grievance.

No, they're not, but you should see that these are true American ideals. And to think that we should get rid of them because you prefer a blatantly more primitive system is alarming, to me.

These ideals are a pipe dream. Having a society where everyone could produce food by will alone would be pretty nice, but it's not wise to try to organize actual societies around crazy ideas like that.

It is I'm afraid, but your dream of a feudal society moreso, friend.

No, feudalism actually worked.

[Kahn]

No, feudalism actually worked.

Well, I can see now that this is why you believe that feudalism can work again. Because its worked before, centuries ago, in which there was an entirely different worldview, geopolitical atmosphere, scientific understanding, human population, economic capability, technological capability, and human capability. It doesn't matter that, with the current status quo (that had been established by men whose ideas you consider to be pipe dreams) our nation has enjoyed a period of prosperity that cannot be compared to any other throughout human history; because feudalism worked more than half a century ago, it must still have merit in today's world, and you will remain steadfast in that belief.

Thank you for the thought provoking argument. I vehemently disagree with your position on what is best for the American people. Needless to say I've never met anyone with a position as unique as yours, so I'm looking forward to your thoughts on other matters.

I agree to disagree because the hypotheticals are getting to be a little much and I feel there are too many assumptions, too little concrete fact, being thrust about

[Vlerchan]

Well yous have been busy.

But the costs of goods will still be roughly the same throughout the city.
Perhaps. But the problem is that the cities size would be conductive to the growth of a strong Bourgeoise class.

Now that I think about it, what do you mean by competing with the nobles?
Both would produce the same thing and sell to the same people.

I had presumed that more than just agricultural produce would be produced on Noble stock's land. This is because you can produce enough agricultural produce for us all with reliance on ~5% of the population. This leaves a lot of non-serfs.

Prices would be set by guilds in cities, or by the lord in rural areas.
Do you mean a maximum price would be set? Or a maximum and minimum price would be set?

How prevalent are guilds going to be too?

---

I also think this policy seems disastrous for an economic perspective.

I can explained if desired.

[Natural monopolies:] Guilds.
Within the context of the activities I listed I imagine Guilds would just be a euphemism for Trade Unions.

Employees in this area are not skilled artisans and work in conjunction.

In each locality there will be price controls.
Getting back to the above I need to know the nature of these price controls before I can critique them.

I also need to know how prevalent the Guilds would be.

So I suppose you could say they'd indirectly sell to the general public, but without being able to manipulate prices, they couldn't thereby build up huge amounts of wealth.
I will address this point when I understand the nature of the price controls and guilds.

I would imagine that setting prices for the millions of goods on the market would be an intensive process to say the least.

---

What your suggesting is also seeming more and more like decentralised Lange-Lerner 'Market' Socialism.

The first terminate in something else.
You will need to explain this.

Real estate is land. Fine art and precious metals are valuable, but are in no way necessities.
Real Estate is not Land. Real Estate rests on Land though. This is a key difference.

I wasn't making claims that these things were necessities. I was making claims that they were common stores of wealth.

They're willing to accept socialism, why not conservatism?
The Bourgeoise accept Welfarism. This is because Welfarism results in:

The pacification of working class people. It works to maintain the law and order their position is contingent on.
It also creates a more mobile working class. At a macro level this results in more efficient labour allocation and so higher levels of economic profit on avg.

So there's good reason.

---

I wasn't talking about you.
It seemed like you were rejecting pluralism.

[Arkansasguy]

Perhaps. But the problem is that the cities size would be conductive to the growth of a strong Bourgeoise class.

How so? Please explain.

Both would produce the same thing and sell to the same people.

I had presumed that more than just agricultural produce would be produced on Noble stock's land. This is because you can produce enough agricultural produce for us all with reliance on ~5% of the population. This leaves a lot of non-serfs.

There would be some artisans and the like on noble lands, but areas where non-farmers were the majority would be under municipal government.

So most people in areas owned by nobles wouldn't be in need of buying food.

Do you mean a maximum price would be set? Or a maximum and minimum price would be set?

How prevalent are guilds going to be too?

---

I also think this policy seems disastrous for an economic perspective.

I can explained if desired.

Both. Guilds would exist in every city.

Within the context of the activities I listed I imagine Guilds would just be a euphemism for Trade Unions.

Employees in this area are not skilled artisans and work in conjunction.

Conductors and electricians are skilled workers. But yes, electrical companies would basically be run by the guild itself, and ditto for railway maintenance and direction, although individual conductors could still own and operate their own trains.

Getting back to the above I need to know the nature of these price controls before I can critique them.

I also need to know how prevalent the Guilds would be.

Answered.

I will address this point when I understand the nature of the price controls and guilds.

I would imagine that setting prices for the millions of goods on the market would be an intensive process to say the least.

---

What your suggesting is also seeming more and more like decentralised Lange-Lerner 'Market' Socialism.

Prices would be set locally.

My system is not socialist because the individual businesses would still be private.

You will need to explain this.

Stocks, bonds, and derivatives all are valuable because they denote a right to some other form of wealth (e.g. The assets of a company)

Real Estate is not Land. Real Estate rests on Land though. This is a key difference.

I wasn't making claims that these things were necessities. I was making claims that they were common stores of wealth.

Real estate is practically indistinguishable, as it cannot be sol separate from the land.

But they aren't a necessary part of the economy, like food.

The Bourgeoise accept Welfarism. This is because Welfarism results in:

The pacification of working class people. It works to maintain the law and order their position is contingent on.
It also creates a more mobile working class. At a macro level this results in more efficient labour allocation and so higher levels of economic profit on avg.

So there's good reason.

---

It pacifiers people because it's the socially accepted view. The same would apply if conservatism were the socially accepted view.

It seemed like you were rejecting pluralism.

I do reject pluralism.

[Vlerchan]

How so? Please explain.
If I am selling to more people then I can better spread my fixed costs.
If I can better spread my fixed costs I can produce products for less.
If I can produce my products for less I can make a greater economic profit
If I can make a greater economic product then there's more scope for capital accumulation.

Rinse and repeat. Except with each repeat the capitalist is earning greater returns.

There would be some artisans and the like on noble lands, but areas where non-farmers were the majority would be under municipal government.
Ok. The point I was making was that you are going to have a lot of people who's life would be better off if the set-up didn't exist.

Like ~90% of the population.

Both.
It can't be both. Regardless I'll just explain what would happen with reference to all forms of price setting:

If a maximum price existed below the equilibrium price then there would be shortages because there would not be enough profit in the market to entice entrepreneurs to produce for it. If the maximum price exists above equilibrium price then nothing changes.

If a minimum price exists above the equilibrium price then there would be surpluses because there would not be the effective demand in the market to allocate to. It would favour the cultivation of an underground economy. If the minimum price exists below the equilibrium price then nothing changes.

A singe set price would have the effect of one of the above depending on whether it was situated above or below the equilibrium price. What occurs is outlined above.

---

It's notable that if the price is set above the equilibrium price then the process outlined in the first part of this post still occurs. Except it's more profitable for capitalists.

Guilds would exist in every city.
Sorry. I meant what industries would the guilds exist in?

Prices would be set locally.
Ok. This doesn't address the point I was attempting to make.

The point I was making was that there is a lot of prices to set for.

My system is not socialist because the individual businesses would still be private.
This is what was more or less considered under the Lange-Lerner model.

Stocks, bonds, and derivatives all are valuable because they denote a right to some other form of wealth (e.g. The assets of a company)
Ok. The point I was making is that they are the most common store of wealth.

Of course if what you want to come to power ever came to power I don't doubt that wealth would transferred elsewhere. Probably outside your economy.

Real estate is practically indistinguishable, as it cannot be sol separate from the land.
Except you just want the land beneath the Real Estate for your plantations and the Real Estate is where most of the value is stored.

So it's an important differentiation considering your desires.

But they aren't a necessary part of the economy, like food.
I have no idea why you think this is important.

It pacifiers people because it's the socially accepted view.
I'm not seeing the sense in this.

It pacifies people because people don't need to murder and steal for their next meal.

The same would apply if conservatism were the socially accepted view.
Except the Bourgeois wouldn't be able to benefit from it.

Unlike Welfarism.

---

I do reject pluralism.
Ok. So you do think I'm irrational.

I'm creating an irrelevant tangent to this discussion though. So I'll stop responding this this point from here on.

---

I would think that the primary concern of someone seeking to build the ideal society would be social capital[.]
I don't see the point in social capital for the sake of social capital.

If you want to restrict me from being able to control my life so you can call your society perfect then I think it's time I moved out.

[Arkansasguy]

If I am selling to more people then I can better spread my fixed costs.
If I can better spread my fixed costs I can produce products for less.
If I can produce my products for less I can make a greater economic profit
If I can make a greater economic product then there's more scope for capital accumulation.

Rinse and repeat. Except with each repeat the capitalist is earning greater returns.

Price controls tailored to the local economy would prevent this.

Ok. The point I was making was that you are going to have a lot of people who's life would be better off if the set-up didn't exist.

Like ~90% of the population.

How so?

It can't be both. Regardless I'll just explain what would happen with reference to all forms of price setting:

If a maximum price existed below the equilibrium price then there would be shortages because there would not be enough profit in the market to entice entrepreneurs to produce for it. If the maximum price exists above equilibrium price then nothing changes.

If a minimum price exists above the equilibrium price then there would be surpluses because there would not be the effective demand in the market to allocate to. It would favour the cultivation of an underground economy. If the minimum price exists below the equilibrium price then nothing changes.

A singe set price would have the effect of one of the above depending on whether it was situated above or below the equilibrium price. What occurs is outlined above.

---

It's notable that if the price is set above the equilibrium price then the process outlined in the first part of this post still occurs. Except it's more profitable for capitalists.

Which is why price fixing would be local, so that it could be set at the correct price.

Sorry. I meant what industries would the guilds exist in?

Any industry principally reliant on skilled labor.

And there would be merchant guilds.

Ok. This doesn't address the point I was attempting to make.

The point I was making was that there is a lot of prices to set for.

I suppose there could be categorical price controls, and in some cases there could be a range of lawful prices. It would depend on particular conditions.

This is what was more or less considered under the Lange-Lerner model.

I'm not familiar with it, sorry.

Ok. The point I was making is that they are the most common store of wealth.

Of course if what you want to come to power ever came to power I don't doubt that wealth would transferred elsewhere. Probably outside your economy.

They're really a form of ownership of other things, which was my point. As a simple example, if I own stock in this piece of land inc., it doesn't matter where the physical stock is as much as it matters where the land is.

Except you just want the land beneath the Real Estate for your plantations and the Real Estate is where most of the value is stored.

So it's an important differentiation considering your desires.

There aren't food shortages here, so there's no need to expand the amount of farmland.

I have no idea why you think this is important.

But they can't be used to hold the economy hostage, like food or power.

I'm not seeing the sense in this.

It pacifies people because people don't need to murder and steal for their next meal.


Except the Bourgeois wouldn't be able to benefit from it.

Unlike Welfarism.

---

People didn't have to murder and steal before welfare.

Ok. So you do think I'm irrational.

I'm creating an irrelevant tangent to this discussion though. So I'll stop responding this this point from here on.

---

Yes but I wasn't referring to you as being the specific type of irrational I mentioned.

I don't see the point in social capital for the sake of social capital.

If you want to restrict me from being able to control my life so you can call your society perfect then I think it's time I moved out.

Having a properly functioning social system helps people be in accordance with human nature and right reason.

[Vlerchan]

Price controls tailored to the local economy would prevent this.
It wouldn't.

I described what turns price controls could take in the last post.

How so?
Because they wouldn't have to put up with harmful market distortions designed to stop them from usurping the Nobel stock.

Which is why price fixing would be local, so that it could be set at the correct price.
I'm not sure if you read what you just responded to.

Regardless of price there isn't going to be a good outcome for your system.

Any industry principally reliant on skilled labor.

And there would be merchant guilds.
Most industries require collaboration between multiple types of skilled peoples. Does this affect you?

Modern production also relies on lots of unskilled people.

---

I hope you also realise that this artificial inflation of prices is going to make a lot of people unemployed above the natural rate.

There's only so much demand in the system.

I suppose there could be categorical price controls, and in some cases there could be a range of lawful prices. It would depend on particular conditions.
Ok. Still sounds quite optimistic to me.

They're really a form of ownership of other things, which was my point.
It's not ownership of things. It's ownership of things to be.

If I own a government bond then I own to-be-produced-and-collected wealth.
If I own a share in Land inc. then I own to-be-produced wealth.
If I own a tranche in a CDO or MBS then I own to-be-produced wealth.

If the wealth already existed then these things wouldn't be dealt because there is no need to take on such liabilities.

I didn't get into the technicalities earlier because I don't see where this is going. I still don't.

So an explanation would be nice.

But they can't be used to hold the economy hostage, like food or power.
It can be transferred into this. But I'm not seeing your point.

I made the claim that wealth is mainly stored outside land. I'm not seeing anything contesting that.

---

Please note that food commodities and oil are a store of wealth too.

Though not as lucrative so not as popular.

People didn't have to murder and steal before welfare.
Communism was quite a popular ideology in countries before Welfarism became the norm.

Please note the millions of people murdered and stolen from in China and Russia among elsewhere.

Edit. I skipped these points by accident.

There aren't food shortages here, so there's no need to expand the amount of farmland.
You mentioned earlier that the people who bought into the Noble stock would have their lands put to use.

It does seem like you didn't mean that at all now.

The land being put to use would be that of the Farmers in the Mid West because the American Bourgeoise are not that invested in land.

I'm not familiar with it, sorry.
It was an unimportant musing on my part. It's not a bother.

[Arkansasguy]

It wouldn't.

I described what turns price controls could take in the last post.

Sure it would. Price controls could make it so that they couldn't earn an excess profit.

Because they wouldn't have to put up with harmful market distortions designed to stop them from usurping the Nobel stock.

How would these restrictions be harmful to the populace?

I'm not sure if you read what you just responded to.

Regardless of price there isn't going to be a good outcome for your system.

You claimed it wouldn't work because having a set price below or above the right price would be bad. I'm saying the price should be set at the right price.

Most industries require collaboration between multiple types of skilled peoples. Does this affect you?

Modern production also relies on lots of unskilled people.

Could you give me a specific example to address?

---

I hope you also realise that this artificial inflation of prices is going to make a lot of people unemployed above the natural rate.

There's only so much demand in the system.

What do you mean?

It's not ownership of things. It's ownership of things to be.

If I own a government bond then I own to-be-produced-and-collected wealth.
If I own a share in Land inc. then I own to-be-produced wealth.
If I own a tranche in a CDO or MBS then I own to-be-produced wealth.

If the wealth already existed then these things wouldn't be dealt because there is no need to take on such liabilities.

I didn't get into the technicalities earlier because I don't see where this is going. I still don't.

So an explanation would be nice.

Regardless, such assets terminate in other types of goods, so they can only be removed from an economy insofar as the goods they terminate in can be so removed.

It can be transferred into this. But I'm not seeing your point.

I made the claim that wealth is mainly stored outside land. I'm not seeing anything contesting that.

---

Please note that food commodities and oil are a store of wealth too.

Though not as lucrative so not as popular.

The point is that such goods are not as important to the economy, thus they don't need to be regulated as much.

Communism was quite a popular ideology in countries before Welfarism became the norm.

Please note the millions of people murdered and stolen from in China and Russia among elsewhere.

I was talking about here.

You mentioned earlier that the people who bought into the Noble stock would have their lands put to use.

It does seem like you didn't mean that at all now.

The land being put to use would be that of the Farmers in the Mid West because the American Bourgeoise are not that invested in land.[/QUOTE]

I did mean it. Perhaps farmers should be selected to become nobility instead.

[Vlerchan]

Sure it would. Price controls could make it so that they couldn't earn an excess profit.
Ok. I'm going to introduce some terms here.

Short-run period refers to a time-frame where at least one factor of production are unable to change.
Long-run period refers to a time-frame where all factors of production are able to change.
Factors of production refer to the Land and Labour and Capital required in production.

---

Being kind and presuming monopolistic or imperfect competition.

In the short-run firms earn supernomal profits. This can be seen in the below graphical. Average Revenue (AR) exists at a level above Average Costs (AR), see point A and point B. The space between them is the extent of supernormal profit being earned by that firm. It happens like this because there's more demand for the goods being produce than firms can supply at that moment in time.

Firms reinvest this supernormal profit in the process I refer to as capital accumulation.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business%20economics%20graphs/Monopolistic-competition-in-the-short-run.png

In the long-run firms earn normal profits. This can be seen in the below graphical. Average Revenue (AR) exists at the same point as Average Costs (AC), profit being factored into AC. It happens like this because the supernormal profits entice new firms into the market, which produce more and lower the price and so profit levels.

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business%20economics%20graphs/Monopolistic-competition-in-long-run.png

It would be perfect if economies worked in the linear-format I outlined. However as can probably be judged from the terms short-run and long-run this does not happen. What I outlined is is accepted in economics to happen - just in a much more disjointed manner and not linear at all.

It continues like this as we go through the rinse-and-repeat capital accumulation process.

---

In order to eliminate supernormal profits you can set a maximum price below the equilibrium - at the point where firms earn normal profit as in the long-run. However it also creates a situation where there's not enough money in the market for all firms to be able to cover their fixed costs - not to mention the firms that will substitute to more profitable alternatives. It results in a situation looking like this:

http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/0/039bab1e6f1ef2a65b5f4c8ddc66073a/ceiling.gif

The price will be at the level set as a result of the price ceiling. But as a result of this firms won't supply beyond Pceiling. This results in shortages -and long queues in pursuit of the rationed good. Not mentioned in that graph is the fact that it will also make engagement of underground/black markets seem an attractive prospect - and this is where the people who miss out will go.

I would suggest reading the discussion of price controls in this article to supplement the above. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html)

---

It's also notable that setting a maximum price below the equilibrium price goes against the interests of Guild members. In setting a maximum price below the equilibrium guild members both reduce the amount of payment that is possible to take home and also puts their own jobs at risk.

I've never heard of an institution designed to facilitate collective bargaining supporting something like this - ever.

How would these restrictions be harmful to the populace?
Let's start with the wide-spread shortages that workers will need to face.
There's also the case that wages are capped at how efficient firms run, which will be stunted by closing off extra-local competition.

So you are looking at a poorer populace with shortages. We'd have vigils to Adam Smith set-up within the first week.

You claimed it wouldn't work because having a set price below or above the right price would be bad. I'm saying the price should be set at the right price.
The 'right' price is the equilibrium price.

It's where the markets tend towards already naturally.

It's also where that capital accumulation process I outlined is ripe for occurring.

Could you give me a specific example to address?
Most business offices have legal, accounting, marketing, management, and on. graduates employed.
Most oil firms have management, legal, accounting, chemistry, engineering, geoscience, an on. graduates employed.

I'm presuming you don't want examples of industries that employ hosts of unskilled labour.

What do you mean?
If you raise prices above the equilibrium rate then not as many people are going to be able to afford it.
If not as many people are going to be able to afford it then surpluses exist.
This results in firms cutting production to a level where surplus' don't occur.
This involves making people redundant.

Except in order to make sure a strong Bourgeoise class doesn't emerge you're going to have to do the opposite. So this actually isn't as relevant as I thought it would be.

Regardless, such assets terminate in other types of goods, so they can only be removed from an economy insofar as the goods they terminate in can be so removed.
These assets are in-effect bets. There value is constructed in the market and doesn't exist beyond that.

The wealth can also be removed through flurried investors selling as fast as they can in-face of what you propose and running down the value - supply > demand.

The point is that such goods are not as important to the economy, thus they don't need to be regulated as much.
Global markets for all this stuff exists so it can be turned to liquid quite quick.

I was talking about here.
Left-anarchism and Communism where quite big during the late 1800s in the US. You also had a lot of radical trade unionism headed by people fearful of losing their jobs.

But let's look at the empirical evidence:

The Great Depression of the 1930s led contemporaries to worry that people hit by hard times would turn to crime in their efforts to survive. Franklin Roosevelt argued that the unprecedented and massive expansion in relief efforts "struck at the roots of crime" by providing subsistence income to needy families. After constructing a panel data set for 81 large American cities for the years 1930 through 1940, we estimate the impact of relief spending by all levels of government on crime rates. The analysis suggests that a ten percent increase in relief spending during the 1930s lowered property crime by roughly 1.5 percent. By limiting the amount of free time for relief recipients, work relief was more effective than direct relief in reducing crime. More generally, our results indicate that social insurance, which tends to be understudied in economic analyses of crime, should be more explicitly and more carefully incorporated into the analysis of temporal and spatial variations in criminal activity.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12825

In other words Welfarism reduced crime.

I did mean it. Perhaps farmers should be selected to become nobility instead.
Of course then the Bourgeoise still existing becomes a problem.

---

[Soundtrack] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lBKbwTbF4o)

[Arkansasguy]

Ok. I'm going to introduce some terms here.

Short-run period refers to a time-frame where at least one factor of production are unable to change.
Long-run period refers to a time-frame where all factors of production are able to change.
Factors of production refer to the Land and Labour and Capital required in production.

---

Being kind and presuming monopolistic or imperfect competition.

In the short-run firms earn supernomal profits. This can be seen in the below graphical. Average Revenue (AR) exists at a level above Average Costs (AR), see point A and point B. The space between them is the extent of supernormal profit being earned by that firm. It happens like this because there's more demand for the goods being produce than firms can supply at that moment in time.

Firms reinvest this supernormal profit in the process I refer to as capital accumulation.

image (http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business%20economics%20graphs/Monopolistic-competition-in-the-short-run.png)

In the long-run firms earn normal profits. This can be seen in the below graphical. Average Revenue (AR) exists at the same point as Average Costs (AC), profit being factored into AC. It happens like this because the supernormal profits entice new firms into the market, which produce more and lower the price and so profit levels.

image (http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business%20economics%20graphs/Monopolistic-competition-in-long-run.png)

It would be perfect if economies worked in the linear-format I outlined. However as can probably be judged from the terms short-run and long-run this does not happen. What I outlined is is accepted in economics to happen - just in a much more disjointed manner and not linear at all.

It continues like this as we go through the rinse-and-repeat capital accumulation process.

---

In order to eliminate supernormal profits you can set a maximum price below the equilibrium - at the point where firms earn normal profit as in the long-run. However it also creates a situation where there's not enough money in the market for all firms to be able to cover their fixed costs - not to mention the firms that will substitute to more profitable alternatives. It results in a situation looking like this:

image (http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/0/039bab1e6f1ef2a65b5f4c8ddc66073a/ceiling.gif)

The price will be at the level set as a result of the price ceiling. But as a result of this firms won't supply beyond Pceiling. This results in shortages -and long queues in pursuit of the rationed good. Not mentioned in that graph is the fact that it will also make engagement of underground/black markets seem an attractive prospect - and this is where the people who miss out will go.

I would suggest reading the discussion of price controls in this article to supplement the above. (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html)

---

It's also notable that setting a maximum price below the equilibrium price goes against the interests of Guild members. In setting a maximum price below the equilibrium guild members both reduce the amount of payment that is possible to take home and also puts their own jobs at risk.

I've never heard of an institution designed to facilitate collective bargaining supporting something like this - ever.

I'll need to do some study before responding to this. I'll respond to it later.

Let's start with the wide-spread shortages that workers will need to face.
There's also the case that wages are capped at how efficient firms run, which will be stunted by closing off extra-local competition.

So you are looking at a poorer populace with shortages. We'd have vigils to Adam Smith set-up within the first week.

How will that reduce efficiency?

The 'right' price is the equilibrium price.

It's where the markets tend towards already naturally.

It's also where that capital accumulation process I outlined is ripe for occurring.

The right price is that which covers the cost of production including labor.

Most business offices have legal, accounting, marketing, management, and on. graduates employed.
Most oil firms have management, legal, accounting, chemistry, engineering, geoscience, an on. graduates employed.

I'm presuming you don't want examples of industries that employ hosts of unskilled labour.

A guild would disallow its members from advertising, and there's no need for specialized management for small businesses.

If a particular business needs to hire an expert of some sort, they can do so, either as an employee or by contract. Ditto for unskilled workers.

These assets are in-effect bets. There value is constructed in the market and doesn't exist beyond that.

The wealth can also be removed through flurried investors selling as fast as they can in-face of what you propose and running down the value - supply > demand.

I had thought by removed you meant taken out of the country. Was this interpretation incorrect?

Global markets for all this stuff exists so it can be turned to liquid quite quick.

The same things I said us also true of cash.

Of course then the Bourgeoise still existing becomes a problem.

---

[Soundtrack] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lBKbwTbF4o)

Their wealth will dissipate due to the laws regarding trade.

[Vlerchan]

I'll need to do some study before responding to this. I'll respond to it later.
Ok. If you want I can locate some graduate level economics textbooks hosted on the web and mark the relevant chapters to read.

How will that reduce efficiency?
Reduced levels of specialisation.

Local and regional economies tend to specialise along lines of comparative advantage (http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html). This is for multiple reasons that I can explain if required. You're restricting the specialisation process through closing off extra-local competition and that results in a loss of efficiency.

Not to mention that small firms tend to have higher costs of production because the same economies of scale are not being benefited from. There's a reason that markets tend towards concentration amongst a few firms.

The right price is that which covers the cost of production including labor.
I presume you mean the long-run average costs averaged across the industry. That's the price I imagined setting it at in the long response offered in the last post. It would produce shortages.

However I would imagine that guild members would overvalue their labour. This would leave your price setting ineffectual.

A guild would disallow its members from advertising[.]
Will the capitalist be allowed to?

[A]nd there's no need for specialized management for small businesses.
All the natural monopolies I mentioned would need to be run as big firms or else there produce would be quite expensive (by definition).

---

On that note I forgot to mention that putting them under guild ownership you will be creating a private monopoly. There's a number of problems inherent to this. First is the supernormal profits that can be earned in both the short- and long-run. Second is the power guilds will gain through running these private monopolies, especially the utilities.

If a particular business needs to hire an expert of some sort, they can do so, either as an employee or by contract. Ditto for unskilled workers.
What makes these firms different to the ones run by capitalists then?

I had thought by removed you meant taken out of the country. Was this interpretation incorrect?
I would imagine the surviving wealth would be burrowed abroad.

I've held since the start though that financial assets held within the US would devalue quite quickly. This would probably culminate in a severe recession.

The same things I said us also true of cash.
Ok. But I'm sure you realise the multiple ways cash can be then used to harm your set-up.

Their wealth will dissipate due to the laws regarding trade.
Then we get back to what I said earlier about the Bourgeoise being at the heights of their power, etc., etc., and so we have come full circle without agreement.

[Kahn]

Ok. If you want I can locate some graduate level economics textbooks hosted on the web and mark the relevant chapters to read.

I'm not a part of your discussion but I've been lurking the thread throughout its entirety and would be grateful if you posted the reading material.

[Arkansasguy]

Reduced levels of specialisation.

Local and regional economies tend to specialise along lines of comparative advantage (http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html). This is for multiple reasons that I can explain if required. You're restricting the specialisation process through closing off extra-local competition and that results in a loss of efficiency.

Not to mention that small firms tend to have higher costs of production because the same economies of scale are not being benefited from. There's a reason that markets tend towards concentration amongst a few firms.

Explain how cutting off outside competition reduces specialization.

I presume you mean the long-run average costs averaged across the industry. That's the price I imagined setting it at in the long response offered in the last post. It would produce shortages.

However I would imagine that guild members would overvalue their labour. This would leave your price setting ineffectual.

How would it produce shortages?

Will the capitalist be allowed to?

To do business one would need to be a guild member, so no.

All the natural monopolies I mentioned would need to be run as big firms or else there produce would be quite expensive (by definition).

---

On that note I forgot to mention that putting them under guild ownership you will be creating a private monopoly. There's a number of problems inherent to this. First is the supernormal profits that can be earned in both the short- and long-run. Second is the power guilds will gain through running these private monopolies, especially the utilities.

Natural monopolies like power could be run by the guilds, no need for specialized management. Individual electricians would still operate their own businesses.

And guilds would be semi-public organizations. If they abused their power the city could take action against them.

What makes these firms different to the ones run by capitalists then?

Lack of juridical personality, price controls, managed by the owner, etc.

Ok. But I'm sure you realise the multiple ways cash can be then used to harm your set-up.

Sure, but those avenues would all be regulated.

[Sugaree]

America's government is not based on straight democracy. It is a Republic with principles based around democracy. That's why we are supposed to be referred to as a Democratic Republic and not as a Democracy. Just because you get to vote does not make it a Democracy through and through.

Secondly, the American system of government - three branches, each having equal amounts of power as a way to check the power of the other branches and balance the power - is not a failed experiment as far as I'm concerned. From how I see it, this is not a perfect system of government, but it is something that, in theory, is most efficient. However, once you start introducing elements of bureaucracy into it, the system is then ruined. The American system of government is simple: let the government handle government business and let citizens handle business not under government jurisdiction.

When judicial activism started becoming prevalent in America in the 20th century, where rulings from federal judges started legislating from the bench OUTSIDE of their power to do so, bureaucracy was simply the next logical step. The government now is inflated well beyond what it should reasonably be because of the thought that government can help in every area of life when, simply put, it can't. This is why free markets are touted by conservatives, not just as an economic platform, but also as a social platform. Get the government out of everything that does not concern judicial, legislative, or executive business.

Having the United States under one ruler is going against the foundations set by the Continental Congress during the making of the Constitution. You must have a government of the people, by the people, for the people in order to have the United States work.

[Arkansasguy]

You must have a government of the people, by the people, for the people in order to have the United States work.

Why?

[Vlerchan]

I'm not a part of your discussion but I've been lurking the thread throughout its entirety and would be grateful if you posted the reading material.
Ok. Here's an older edition of what's recommended for economics undergraduates where I attend:

John Sloman, Alison Wride, and Dean Garratt (2004) 'Economics' (http://hubhoob.com/Books/nu_ltst/economic/General%20and%20analysis/Sloman%20J.%20Economics%20%286ed.,%20PH%20FT,%202006%29%28ISBN%200273705121%29%2 8853s%29_GG_.pdf)

I haven't read this issue - and to be honest I barely read the 8th edition since I decided I wasn't going to dish-out 100euro for a book I'd already studied the contents of - but the text seems helpful from the skimming I did of the relevant. I'm going to bold the sections that should be read first because they are directly related to my earlier post, the un-bolded act as reference material.

Part B: Foundations of Microeconomics.

2.1 Demand, p. 34 - 38
2.2 Supply, p. 39 - 42
2.3 Price and output determination, p. 43 - 47

3.1 The control of prices, p. 70 - 72

5.1 The short-run theory of production, p. 120 - 125
5.2 Costs in the short run, p. 126 - 130
5.3 The long-run theory of production, p. 131 - 139
5.4 Costs in the long run, p. 140 - 143
5.5 Revenue, p. 144 - 148
5.6 Profit maximisation, p. 149 - 155

7.1 Monopolistic competition, p. 178 - 181

There's probably a fair bit of not hugely relevant material contained in there. I trust you to make the judgements as to whether or not something is worth reading.

Explain how cutting off outside competition reduces specialization.
It creates an environment where regardless of how inefficient local industries are these local industries can still survive.

That's literally the exact opposite to an environment fostering specialisation.

How would it produce shortages?
I explained this in the long post with all the graphs.

Natural monopolies like power could be run by the guilds, no need for specialized management.[
I would imagine most people who head large firms would disagree.

Individual electricians would still operate their own businesses.

Ok. But these people aren't considered to work within the context of a natural monopoly.

If you mean electricity producers, then you're going to be producing some incredibly expensive electricity at an individual level.

And guilds would be semi-public organizations. If they abused their power the city could take action against them.
If the people in charge of the electric grids want to go on strike because of something-or-other and this going on strike would cause a local or several to grind to a halt is this considered an abuse of power?

What if the regional supplier of a good like oil decided to limit the sale of it's produce to all but one local in order to bid prices up would this be considered an abuse of power?

---

I should add that these are things I thought of on the spot.

The people whose livelihoods depend on this stuff will probably be more ingenious.

Lack of juridical personality, price controls, managed by the owner, etc.
Legal personality is something that corporations have. It's not a standard of all capitalist firms.
In the system you want to create all producers are going to be restricted by price-controls.
Management of non-owners is another thing that is not a standard of capitalist firms.

Sure, but those avenues would all be regulated.
Bribes tend to be traditionally unregulated.

There's also investment in Capitalist industries though you seem to want to create an environment where nothing creates returns, so perhaps you are correct and the funds might just be invested in competing economies instead.

---

I also question how research and development is tended to in an environment where there's specific care taken to eliminate the funds making this possible.

Do you just expect to piggyback off the development of the people who won't adopt your model?

[Sugaree]

Why?

If you believe in the core principles lined out in the Declaration of Independence, a government orchestrated by the people that works for the benefit of the people is simply common sense. I'm not sure what you're proposing other than just giving the entire rule of law to one person.

[phuckphace]

rule of law

which is illusionary anyway

[Arkansasguy]

It creates an environment where regardless of how inefficient local industries are these local industries can still survive.

That's literally the exact opposite to an environment fostering specialisation.

This assumes that survival is all they would be desiring.

I explained this in the long post with all the graphs.

You're still going on the assumption that the prices would be set wrongly.

If the people in charge of the electric grids want to go on strike because of something-or-other and this going on strike would cause a local or several to grind to a halt is this considered an abuse of power?

What if the regional supplier of a good like oil decided to limit the sale of it's produce to all but one local in order to bid prices up would this be considered an abuse of power?

---

I should add that these are things I thought of on the spot.

The people whose livelihoods depend on this stuff will probably be more ingenious.

Yes that would be considered abuse of power.

I also question how research and development is tended to in an environment where there's specific care taken to eliminate the funds making this possible.

Do you just expect to piggyback off the development of the people who won't adopt your model?

What kind of research?

If you believe in the core principles lined out in the Declaration of Independence, a government orchestrated by the people that works for the benefit of the people is simply common sense. I'm not sure what you're proposing other than just giving the entire rule of law to one person.

I don't believe in those principles.

I'm proposing feudalism. A much more reasonable system than giving responsibility for the common good to millions of people.

[Vlerchan]

This assumes that survival is all they would be desiring.
Yes. It presumed that the guild members want to keep their jobs.

I don't think this is unreasonable.

You're still going on the assumption that the prices would be set wrongly.
I've outlined all the relevant reasoning for why I'm not across a number of posts now.

---

Edit. Here's a simple way to think about it. In monopolistic competition the reason the supernormal profits exist in the short-run is there exists shortages and that high price can be charged. In the long-run new firms are attracted into the market by supernormal profits and the shortages are eliminated and the price and profit levels go down. If you have to eliminate supernormal profits through price controls then shortages are going to exist by definition of what monopolistic competition entails.

Does that make more sense?

Yes that would be considered abuse of power.
How would you enforce against it though.

You're creating a situation in which if you enforce against them then everyone loses out anyway.

What kind of research?
Pharma.
Tech.
Robotics.
Etc.

Like the usual.

[Microcosm]

This change you're talking about, although it is convenient and effective, is impractical at this point. On such a scale of government as ours and given how far we have come, it is not a practical change. The system we have, although not preferable, does work and it does keep things in order. I do believe there are changes that can be made(in fact, there are tons), but, in my opinion, a nobility of some sorts would be hugely disagreed upon by the populace. It's also kind of like taking a step backwards. There are so many advantages to democracy. It just needs to be a bit more modernized maybe. A government of this scale under one ruler is largely impractical and there would no doubt be corrupted leaders that would bring us down.

[CRH99]

to say the president doesnt have power just shows how ignorant you are, there is this thing called EXECUTIVE ORDER in which the president can do essentially whatever the flip he wants if he phrases it correctly, and you say that he is a puppet of congress, however congress isnt united at all, it is in constant competition with itself, just like the needs of the people and in no position to be controlling the presidents every move. it has been proven over and over that having an absolute monarch just doesnt work. Corruption 101. you also make claim to the greatest empires on earth while ruled by monarchies, i would also like you to note that these societies collapsed in on themselves once the absolute leader could not maintain control. rome was sacked and burnt to the ground, in britain they abolished almost all of the kings power, and democracy has stood the test of time better than any other type of government so far. since the beginning of America, multiple authoritarian nations have risen, and almost all have fallen, yet most democratic institutions still stand, the ones that dont were overtaken by militaries, not internal collapse. government has to be representative of the will of the people, and cannot possibly be represented by one man alone.

[SethfromMI]

to say the president doesnt have power just shows how ignorant you are, there is this thing called EXECUTIVE ORDER in which the president can do essentially whatever the flip he wants if he phrases it correctly, and you say that he is a puppet of congress, however congress isnt united at all, it is in constant competition with itself, just like the needs of the people and in no position to be controlling the presidents every move. it has been proven over and over that having an absolute monarch just doesnt work. Corruption 101. you also make claim to the greatest empires on earth while ruled by monarchies, i would also like you to note that these societies collapsed in on themselves once the absolute leader could not maintain control. rome was sacked and burnt to the ground, in britain they abolished almost all of the kings power, and democracy has stood the test of time better than any other type of government so far. since the beginning of America, multiple authoritarian nations have risen, and almost all have fallen, yet most democratic institutions still stand, the ones that dont were overtaken by militaries, not internal collapse. government has to be representative of the will of the people, and cannot possibly be represented by one man alone.

this. sadly our government doesn't represent us and there is more and more fear Obama will issue his executive orders to make sure his agenda happens

[CRH99]

this. sadly our government doesn't represent us and there is more and more fear Obama will issue his executive orders to make sure his agenda happens

well the people choose the government, so they are are choices and therefore represent us, but i will not deny that some kind of suck butt. and since obama cannot be reelected he has no need to make himself look good to run again, just push for what he wants.