Dealing with ultra-libertarian idiocy?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Thinks about the Blue/Green revolt under the Byzantine government...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Who the fuck cares? Even if Louis XVI started reforms, his predecessors had created the conditions for revolution long before he took the throne. And no, comparing France and Russia is not disingenuous, as both are primary examples of the sort of abuse and corruption inherent in monarchy and plutocracy. Don't like it? Tough shit.

The Romanovs had more the character of the old Roman dictatorship; hell, they weren't even really Romanovs by that point, considering who Catherine II was really sleeping with, and the parade of counter-coups and endless marches on the palace which marked the 17th and 18th centuries. France is a valid example, though I believe I've addressed those points with the fact that there is no real evidence of these mechanistic "conditions", rather than the spur of the moment result of a general reaction against change combined with the severe debt of the monarchy after the revolutionary war simply led to insurrections which the Army proved tactically unable to contain in Paris, and therefore, to the overthrow of the government by main force.

[Patrick Degan]

Who the fuck cares? Even if Louis XVI started reforms, his predecessors had created the conditions for revolution long before he took the throne. And no, comparing France and Russia is not disingenuous, as both are primary examples of the sort of abuse and corruption inherent in monarchy and plutocracy. Don't like it? Tough shit.

The Romanovs had more the character of the old Roman dictatorship; hell, they weren't even really Romanovs by that point, considering who Catherine II was really sleeping with, and the parade of counter-coups and endless marches on the palace which marked the 17th and 18th centuries. France is a valid example, though I believe I've addressed those points with the fact that there is no real evidence of these mechanistic "conditions", rather than the spur of the moment result of a general reaction against change combined with the severe debt of the monarchy after the revolutionary war simply led to insurrections which the Army proved tactically unable to contain in Paris, and therefore, to the overthrow of the government by main force.

And this defeats the main observation... how, exactly?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And this defeats the main observation... how, exactly?

The "conditions" for the revolution were not in and of themselves sufficient to collapse the government, and therefore were solvable socio-political issues rather than a condemnation of the whole manner of governance.

[Adrian Laguna]

Also, technological limitations rendered popular uprisings rather difficult.

I'd think uprisings would have been in many ways easier with an ancient tech base. With ancient tech any dude with a big knife was a viable combatant (if not a particularly good one). Nowadays a rebellion would have got get access to considerably more sophisticated equipment to stand much of a chance against the forces sent to surpress them.

You are thinking conventionally, when you put guerrillas and asymmetrical warfare into the equation, things change. Partisans with rifles are much more dangerous to an army armed with rifles than several times their number with swords are to an army armed with swords. Melee weapons by nature force decisive battles sooner or later, meanwhile fire arms can turn the suppression campaign into a lengthy and tedious attritional affair.

[Patrick Degan]

And this defeats the main observation... how, exactly?

The "conditions" for the revolution were not in and of themselves sufficient to collapse the government, and therefore were solvable socio-political issues rather than a condemnation of the whole manner of governance.

In combination, they most certainly were sufficient to bring down the government, and the whole manner of monarchy is up for condemnation because it is a very inflexible institution precisely for the reasons you so love it: reliance on tradition and a fixed group of rulers inheriting the throne. That always results in fossilisation, and even if a "reform" king finally manages to ascend, it is often far too late for him to reverse decades or even centuries of misrule by his predecessors.. I'm sorry if the way things actually played out in the real world doesn't suit your theories, but there it is.

[Terralthra]

A very strong revisionist argument can be made that pre-Revolution France was actually advancing into a very efficient country under Louis XVI's direction, and that the revolution itself was more in opposition to this than anything else, in its initial form, being seized later by demagogues tied with a quasi-Rousseauist ideology.

Oh, you're just trying to revise the definition of failure. One of the most critical tasks of government, if not the most critical, is that of maintaining internal harmony; even if a government is (arguably) advancing to a state of great efficiency in one arena, it's still a dismal failure if it allows popular dissent to rise to the level of revolution. Another example one could bring up would be the American Revolution, wherein the British government was actually doing rather a good job of rationalizing the status of the American colonies with respect to the Empire, but in the end it still added up to a colossal blunder because the result was the outright loss of the 13 colonies due to their insensitivity to local political conditions.

You can't say that the People are stupid because they overthrow "good" governments, anymore than you can say the wind is stupid because it blew the wrong way during your regatta. Popular discontent and violent disturbances of the peace are fundamental conditions, which it is the duty of a government to minimize. Insisting on the superiority of Western-style traditionalist monarchies doesn't make much sense in a world where all the real exemplars have been replaced by other forms of government, and countering that it was just a case of events conspiring against the poor feudal governments is a waste of breath, because that's what events do. They conspire against you. How effectively a form of government deals with events shows how good a government it is, if it fails to the point that it is overthrown and replaced, then it is a failed system, counter-factual analysis be damned.

As Elizabeth I observed, "I do not like wars; they are uncertain." You cannot say that a system of government is invalid because it collapsed due to the thunder of the cannonade. Even the most brilliant of individuals can be undone by luck and circumstance when the guns begin to fire, and that's as true is violent revolutions as in wars, and let's make it clear that pretty much every one of the traditional monarchies of Europe which fell, fell because of military defeat, and for no other demonstratable reason. The French military even had numerous chances to suppress the insurrections which led to the revolution, let alone the circumstances of WW1 which scarcely bear repeating.

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. That or you are deliberately misconstruing it. A government under which the citizenry grows restless enough to hold an armed and violent rebellion is one that has failed. Period. The fact that the revolution's outcome is uncertain is totally irrelevant. When shots were fired and there was battle in the streets of Paris, the government had monumentally failed. How efficient the industrial and governmental machine was is at best tangential to the point at hand.

[Junghalli]

The "conditions" for the revolution were not in and of themselves sufficient to collapse the government, and therefore were solvable socio-political issues rather than a condemnation of the whole manner of governance.

And yet you seem to sing a rather different tune about the much less severe societal problems experienced by the modern US.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't think you're understanding what he's saying. That or you are deliberately misconstruing it. A government under which the citizenry grows restless enough to hold an armed and violent rebellion is one that has failed. Period. The fact that the revolution's outcome is uncertain is totally irrelevant. When shots were fired and there was battle in the streets of Paris, the government had monumentally failed. How efficient the industrial and governmental machine was is at best tangential to the point at hand.

I simply disagree with that, and see periodic insurrections as an unavoidable occurrence in the life of a state. They only become matters of import when they succeed. The assertion that a government has "failed" by allowing a revolution to take place implicitly suggests that the government should have such a total control over its country as to render revolution impossible, which is, itself, impossible with modern technology, let alone in the 18th century.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The "conditions" for the revolution were not in and of themselves sufficient to collapse the government, and therefore were solvable socio-political issues rather than a condemnation of the whole manner of governance.

And yet you seem to sing a rather different tune about the much less severe societal problems experienced by the modern US.

Well, of course. Monarchist governments were cyclical and stable, whereas the American capitalist system is based on endless expansion, which is impossible when resources are limited, as they most assuredly are when we're limited to a single planet, or solar system, which will certainly be the case of all human governments indefinitely unless FTL drive is developed, a rather unlikely prospect. In short, the modern capitalist government is set up to fail, and the cracks are beginning to appear, because it relies on infinite growth to survive and keep everyone happy, and infinite growth is impossible. Therefore the system must fail.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In combination, they most certainly were sufficient to bring down the government, and the whole manner of monarchy is up for condemnation because it is a very inflexible institution precisely for the reasons you so love it: reliance on tradition and a fixed group of rulers inheriting the throne. That always results in fossilisation, and even if a "reform" king finally manages to ascend, it is often far too late for him to reverse decades or even centuries of misrule by his predecessors.. I'm sorry if the way things actually played out in the real world doesn't suit your theories, but there it is.

A few good generals would have preserved the monarchy, so I again would say that doesn't invalidate my theories. Battlefield failure is never a precondition. The revolt could have been suppressed by main force, just as it succeeded only by main force, in the same way that Austro-Hungary did not collapse because of its government, but because entente forces breached its defensive entrenchments along the Isonzo.

[Civil War Man]

I simply disagree with that, and see periodic insurrections as an unavoidable occurrence in the life of a state. They only become matters of import when they succeed. The assertion that a government has "failed" by allowing a revolution to take place implicitly suggests that the government should have such a total control over its country as to render revolution impossible, which is, itself, impossible with modern technology, let alone in the 18th century.

To paraphrase The Prince, a ruler holds onto power by being feared and being loved. They must be feared to prevent a coup from opportunist officials and ministers, and they must be loved to prevent a rebellion from the populace.

The assertation that a government has failed by allowing a revolution actually suggests that the government failed in winning over the hearts and minds of its own citizens, since if they were content with their current station, they would have no need to rebel. You know, the whole thing with bread and circuses.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

To paraphrase The Prince, a ruler holds onto power by being feared and being loved. They must be feared to prevent a coup from opportunist officials and ministers, and they must be loved to prevent a rebellion from the populace.

The assertation that a government has failed by allowing a revolution actually suggests that the government failed in winning over the hearts and minds of its own citizens, since if they were content with their current station, they would have no need to rebel. You know, the whole thing with bread and circuses.

Some elements of society will be simply intractable to civil discussion and agreement, that's all I'm suggesting. Certainly the situation with slavery in the United States developed in that way. No compromise was possible; only the thunder of the guns could decide the issue.

[Junghalli]

Well, of course. Monarchist governments were cyclical and stable, whereas the American capitalist system is based on endless expansion, which is impossible when resources are limited, as they most assuredly are when we're limited to a single planet, or solar system, which will certainly be the case of all human governments indefinitely unless FTL drive is developed, a rather unlikely prospect. In short, the modern capitalist government is set up to fail, and the cracks are beginning to appear, because it relies on infinite growth to survive and keep everyone happy, and infinite growth is impossible. Therefore the system must fail.

You fail to demonstrate how the example you brought up (the Katrina debacle) is representative of this phenomenon, as opposed to simple government negligence (a situation quite familiar under authoritarian dictatorships like monarchies, as dictators inherently have far less incentive to care about what happens to the plebs than democratically elected leaders do).

Also, it's a rather huge false dillemma to think that the only way to remedy problems like this would be to go back to a hereditary dictatorship.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You fail to demonstrate how the example you brought up (the Katrina debacle) is representative of this phenomenon, as opposed to simple government negligence (a situation quite familiar under authoritarian dictatorships like monarchies, as dictators inherently have far less incentive to care about what happens to the plebs than democratically elected leaders do).

Also, it's a rather huge false dillemma to think that the only way to remedy problems like this would be to go back to a hereditary dictatorship.

Calling a monarchy a dictatorship is highly disingenuous, as monarchies do, in fact, have extensive limits on their power, whereas dictators, who rule by force of arms entirely, do not.

The Katrina debacle, at any rate, is indicative of the matter because,

1. Only in a profit-based society where income was the sole objective would the levees have been underbuilt in such a fashion. You can bet it was done by contractors, big businesses, seeking to save a buck, even if the levee boards were complicit.
2. The gulf coast should never have been developed to such an extent in the first place; we should be actively moving people out of it because of global warming; and,
3. The rebuilding is even more an example of criminal negligence. Trying to make everything the way it was in the face of climate change is an example of the awesome arrogance of capitalist culture which presupposes than enough money can overcome any challenge. A rational solution would have been to rebuild New Orleans upstream on higher ground, the same with most of the coastal towns of the gulf.

[Junghalli]

Calling a monarchy a dictatorship is highly disingenuous, as monarchies do, in fact, have extensive limits on their power, whereas dictators, who rule by force of arms entirely, do not.

A monarchy is at heart nothing more than a dictatorship that survives longer than the dictator's lifespan.

Under a traditional feudal system the chief limit on the monarch's power is that he can't piss off the other lords too much. While this is better than nothing, it means precious little to the commoners, who can still be pretty much freely shafted. Constitutional monarchies are a distinct step up in that they actually allow the people a way to protect their own interests beyond violent revolution, but I fail to see why a politician caste is desirable at all.

Only in a profit-based society where income was the sole objective would the levees have been underbuilt in such a fashion. You can bet it was done by contractors, big businesses, seeking to save a buck, even if the levee boards were complicit.

True, a Duke of Louisiana might have been less negligent since his profits would have been directly buggered by New Orleans being flooded, where as this isn't as true for a private contractor. However, thinking that a Duke of Louisiana is the only way to have this not happen is an enormous false dilemma.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

True, a Duke of Louisiana might have been less negligent since his profits would have been directly buggered by New Orleans being flooded, where as this isn't as true for a private contractor. However, thinking that a Duke of Louisiana is the only way to have this not happen is an enormous false dilemma.

No, it's just the way I personally prefer, when viewed as a single instance. I am not sure other solutions are as thoroughly systematic, however, as opposed to rather being specific to that single issue.

[Junghalli]

No, it's just the way I personally prefer, when viewed as a single instance. I am not sure other solutions are as thoroughly systematic, however, as opposed to rather being specific to that single issue.

If it comes right down to it would much rather prefer to fix the current system piecemeal than to have a "systematic fix" of installing an entrenched self-interested oligarchy over ourselves. That impresses me as a classic example of a cure that's worse than the disease.

[Civil War Man]

Some elements of society will be simply intractable to civil discussion and agreement, that's all I'm suggesting. Certainly the situation with slavery in the United States developed in that way. No compromise was possible; only the thunder of the guns could decide the issue.

The problem with popular revolutions, though, is that they are popular revolutions. If the government is able to keep the populace in general happy, the elements that are intractable to civil discussion get relegated to the fringes of the society. In that case, the most harm these fringe elements can really accomplish are acts of terrorism or assassination, which more often than not would cause the rest of the population to reject them further. It is when the government fails in this job, and dissent starts to grow in the mainstream areas of the citizenry, that the intractable elements of society start to gain enough momentum that leads to a popular rebellion.

In the instance of slavery in the US, that was a failure by the US government. It was a failure to address a highly divisive issue that over time developed into a large rift between two large segments of the nation. However, more than guns was necessary, because in order to survive the US government had to do more than suppress the rebellious segments of the nation. It had to eliminate what incited those rebellious segments to revolt. That included emancipation and suffrage for the former slaves, as well as the Civil Rights movement 100 years later.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Some elements of society will be simply intractable to civil discussion and agreement, that's all I'm suggesting. Certainly the situation with slavery in the United States developed in that way. No compromise was possible; only the thunder of the guns could decide the issue.

The problem with popular revolutions, though, is that they are popular revolutions. If the government is able to keep the populace in general happy, the elements that are intractable to civil discussion get relegated to the fringes of the society. In that case, the most harm these fringe elements can really accomplish are acts of terrorism or assassination, which more often than not would cause the rest of the population to reject them further. It is when the government fails in this job, and dissent starts to grow in the mainstream areas of the citizenry, that the intractable elements of society start to gain enough momentum that leads to a popular rebellion.

In the instance of slavery in the US, that was a failure by the US government. It was a failure to address a highly divisive issue that over time developed into a large rift between two large segments of the nation. However, more than guns was necessary, because in order to survive the US government had to do more than suppress the rebellious segments of the nation. It had to eliminate what incited those rebellious segments to revolt. That included emancipation and suffrage for the former slaves, as well as the Civil Rights movement 100 years later.

That was in no sense eliminating what caused them to revolt. It was, in fact, implementing the policies that caused them to revolt in such a decisive fashion that they could not resist. It was running pell-mell over the "popular" desires and smashing them with troops, cannons, and bayonet.

[Junghalli]

Interesting enough the Civil War makes a semi-decent counterexample to the notion that a democracy would be unable to maintain a multi-ethnic state. While it wasn't an ethnic conflict, it demonstrates that democracies are quite capable of settling deeply rooted factional conflicts by force of arms if necessary.

The successful integration of Hawaii (essentially a conquered province) into the United States is another counterexample.

[K. A. Pital]

Monarchist governments were cyclical and stable

No, they were not (as evidenced by years of tremors and fall of Empires after deaths of Czars and Kings), and monarchism does not exclude capitalism, agressive capitalism, or imperialism.

The Romanovs had more the character of the old Roman dictatorship; hell, they weren't even really Romanovs by that point, considering who Catherine II was really sleeping with, and the parade of counter-coups and endless marches on the palace which marked the 17th and 18th centuries.

Do you think you can genetically breed a less corrupt Czar?

I simply disagree with that, and see periodic insurrections as an unavoidable occurrence in the life of a state.

No, they are not. Living conditions and corruption perception force them. Without that, insurrection may not arise.

[Junghalli]

No, they were not (as evidenced by years of tremors and fall of Empires after deaths of Czars and Kings)

Indeed, monarchies were often far from stable. Just look at all the civil wars over who got to be Roman Emperor. By contrast the democratic US has had only one major civil war in its over 200 year lifespan.

[Civil War Man]

That was in no sense eliminating what caused them to revolt. It was, in fact, implementing the policies that caused them to revolt in such a decisive fashion that they could not resist. It was running pell-mell over the "popular" desires and smashing them with troops, cannons, and bayonet.

Eliminating the motivation to revolt also involved effectively training the rebellious population that the reasons they revolted were the wrong reasons. For instance, in the US the Confederacy at this point has taken on a more romantic revision, much in the way that the Dark Ages have. But while many Southerners (and even some Northerners) revere figures like Lee and Jackson, you will find few of them that believe their state should secede from the Union, even less who think they should be allowed to own slaves, even as they wear their t-shirt emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag.

Also, as much as it may pain me to say this (seeing as how I'm a fan of Abraham's), Lincoln's assassination may have done more to keep the Union together than the defeat of the Confederate armies, particularly since it occurred right as the war was coming to a close. Lincoln was a very controversial president, and his death turned him into a martyr that probably united the country more than he could have done in life. After all, John Wilkes Booth, with what little time he had left, was quite taken aback at how quickly the rest of the country turned against him.

[Civil War Man]

Also, if I may add, slavery was not exactly a popular concept in the sense I was using it (of, pertaining to, or representing the people, esp. the common people), since owning slaves was something that was not available to the largest segment of the population. With few exception, slaves were something that was only within the financial means of the landed gentry.