Wealth Cap

Well then it seems to me that our disagreement on this matter principally stems from a difference in priorities that cannot be resolved outside of severe circumstances falling upon one or both of us.
That is unfortunate, though I hold hope that if anything it is the shear force of years that might prompt any such change.

Oh I've accepted that a long time ago, see any of my comments about the current state of politics. Just don't cry out. "Woe is me! How did this happen?" if and when you get impaled by your own sword. Government even if it starts out good will never stay that way nor will it ever truly represent us or even care about us. I think it's time we stop pretending it will "If only..."
 
Last edited:

Simonbob

Well-known member
After all, more or less all of history suggests any functional long lasting State needs some sort of Head of State where a lot of power gets concentrated into a single individual. Thus, having a head of State is not arbitrary, but seems to be some product of the way the universe works.

I'll only add to this point.

Human nature seems to work this way, not the Universe.



I think I'll also ask you a question, what do you think is the most important role of Government? The basis, as it were?
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
I'll only add to this point.

Human nature seems to work this way, not the Universe.



I think I'll also ask you a question, what do you think is the most important role of Government? The basis, as it were?

Hm, thinking on this (I've otherwise been very busy at work, so only now have a real chance to write this out), I would say the purpose of government is to organize and formalize the power of the, well, powerful. And thus make their power more effective.

So, the role of a government is to allow the powerful to enact their will on the world. At its most basic and simplistic the power of A powerful man. I've been on a bit of a Lord of the Ring binge while driving, so to draw from that well, The point of Mordor as a State is to organize and formalize Sauron's power so he could more effectively use that power to enact his will on the world: the power of Sauron drew vast hordes of orcs to his banner, the state of Mordor organizes those Orcs into armies that he can usefully deploy against his enemies.

Most real states can't be as focused around the interest of a single man like Mordor can be focused around its single leading demigod, but some do seem to get close: Ancient Macedonia, and especially his Empire, seemed to have existed mostly as an extension of Alexander the Greats personal power and interest, and it fell apart more or less immediately upon his death. Gadhafi's Libya seemed very strongly built on Gadhafi's personal whims and sense of how things should be. Very small States/governments can also be more like this: Warlords and gangs can mostly derive their power from a singular charismatic leader.

But, States to be so focused around a single powerful individual is certainly fairly rare and requires fairly unusual circumstances for power to be that concentrated. Generally then, the State is a coalition of the powerful. Thus, the second major role of a government is to basically be an optimal club for its members. This is a balancing act between being too open vs too excusionary.

For example, in the late Roman Empire both the Christians and the military were sources of power. Thus, for the health and effectiveness of the club, it eventually was in the interest of the Roman Empire to incorporate Christianity into the governing structure of the Empire. Bringing the Christians in however more or less required the exclusion of the Pagans however to maintain the governing coalition of military and Christian men.

But, the more powers that can be brought into the governing coalition, without destroying the coalition, the better. It limits the amount of power outside the governing coalition, which are inherently dangerous to the coalition. For the American example, Mormons have been allowed to integrate themselves into the power structure, with many highly prominent Mormon politicians and business leaders, and they are allowed a still fair degree of control over their own affairs in Utah. If the American system was one that could not tolerate Mormons in the ruling coalition (the US was, say explicitly Puritan, for example) then the Mormons would need to form their own state, shadow or otherwise, they would have to exist in a state of, insovereignty feels like it gets the idea, but there may be a better one, existing on the fridges as non-entities, or there'd have to be some Crusade against them, to put a stop to their attempts to form their own State and accumulate power.

One of the big limits, besides practical issues, is Ideological ones: most states seem to have some ideological foundation to them. This limits the exact way the coalition can work, as referenced earlier with the Pagans or Mormons. For a less theoretical level, a more effective Mexican government would recognize the drug lords and try to incorporate them into the State in some way: create some house of Lords that includes all the big gang leaders by some criteria, formalize the territory, etcetera. Basically recognize them as competing, ornary dukes with a lot power who are going to engage a bit of competition and violence with each other, and by recognizing and formalizing that power hopefully make it less hostile and more beneficial to the current government. Ideology of what a State should be, maybe democratic principles, gets in the way and probably prevents any such power sharing agreement to be made and plausibly kept to. So instead they have to be formally excluded, and that excluded power has enough power to form effectively their own, competing states.

So, to sum up my thoughts, a States most important roles are:

1) Effectively turn individuals power into effect. This is more or less saying a State should be efficient.
2) Preserve and advance the "mission". Something generally brings and holds the coalition together. That should be kept in mind.
3) Get as much buy in as possible: as much as possible should be integrated into the State as possible, to both increase the coalitions power and limit potential challengers.

A State thus needs to balance those three issues.

At least that's my current thoughts on it. Hopefully that's a useful thought and not too much sniffing farts.

I'll go back and respond to others who need responding to, and probably edit this a bit more in the morning, clean up and tighten some arguments. To bed now though.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
1) Effectively turn individuals power into effect. This is more or less saying a State should be efficient.
2) Preserve and advance the "mission". Something generally brings and holds the coalition together. That should be kept in mind.
3) Get as much buy in as possible: as much as possible should be integrated into the State as possible, to both increase the coalitions power and limit potential challengers.

Ok.

Now, I have a bit of time.

1) I'll translate that to "Get people to work together" and..... Dude, people do that without Govenment, all the time. Companies, clubs, churches, sports, all sorts of teams form, for all sorts of reasons. More often than not, the Govenment will want to limit this, in various different ways. (Why can't I just create my own company making guns? I don't have permission)


2) Mission? I suppose we're talking something cultural, right? The Govenment sticking it's power into culture happens, all the time, but to advance the cultural, um, imperaitives? Look, the US is a pretty good demonstration, here. How often has the CIA, amongst other groups in the US Gov, overthrown a stable democracy? Or, in a number of cases, installed a communist Gov?

I'll tell you, it's happened a few times that I'm sure of. Heck, the US State Dep supported Mao over his more nationalistic enemy.


3)
benitomussolini1-2x.jpg






That's what I think about what you said.








The proper Role of Gov, as far as I'm concerned, starts and ends with it's most basic reason for existing. Controling violence.

The only things we need the Gov for are the Police, the Millitary, and the Courts.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Well, this is about what is the proper way to conceive the state. Is it a tool people can seize, or is it better conceived of as a club of powerful people? I'm leaning towards the later, the earlier analogy that a State is the board the powerful play on. Or as I'm more claiming here, a club of powerful people.

1) More, hiring managers. For example, take Trump. Trump has a lot of power: people who are loyal to him, his wealth, and his personal skills that let him gain those powers. However, using that power individually is pretty inefficient: Trump trying to wield that power individually would result in much of that power not being efficiently used. So, instead you have his various agents to call and contact his loyals for him to collect their money and organize them into volunteers and other employees. He makes endorsements to transfer some of his power to others. And obviously his wealth is managed by probably a small army of accountants and other managements.

Thus, I'm conceptualizing the State as less an entity that grants power, than something the already powerful can flow their own power through, and by formalizing it make it more powerful. Trump was certainly more powerful with the Presidency than without, but he also is not powerless without the Presidency, and one of his main problems in becoming president was that he reached higher than his actual power could really inhabit. But, even though he didn't really have as much power going in as he really needed, going into the government did magnify his power, and he may still have more power having been in the government than pre-entering government: he was more able to effectively use his power inside than outside.

This is necessary for a successful government, that the powerful benefit from being in the ruling than outside. Because the powerful need to be invested in the Government to give it power and legitimacy. And powerful who are in the system but would benefit from not being in the system are inherently threatening and a risk to the system.

2) This seems like a pretty unambiguous mission statement:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

US Constitution, Preamble.

Constitutions are good sources of a states, at least theoretical, mission statement. The US is a fairly ideologically based State, and the constitution lays out a fairly specific mission for the State, including such details as mandating a Republican form of government, though much of the vision is more implied by the rules laid out in the constitution, rather than stated outright.

The USSR, being an even more explicitly ideological State, very explicitly lays out the mission/vision of what the Soviet Union's purpose was.

"The supreme goal af the Soviet state is the building of a classless communist society in which there will be public, communist self-government. The main aims of the people's socialist state are: to lay the material and technical foundation of communism, to perfect socialist social relations and transform them into communist relations, to mould the citizen of communist society, to raise the people's living and cultural standards, to safeguard the country's security, and to further the consolidation of peace and development of international co-operation.The Soviet people,
  • guided by the ideas of scientific communism and true to their revolutionary traditions,
  • relying on the great social, economic, and political gains of socialism,
  • striving for the further development of socialist democracy,
  • taking into account the international position of the USSR as part of the world system of socialism, and conscious of their internationalist responsibility,
  • preserving continuity of the ideas and principles of the first Soviet Constitution of 1918, the 1924 Constitution of the USSR and the 1936 Constitution of the USSR,
hereby affirm the principle so the social structure and policy of the USSR, and define the rights, freedoms and obligations of citizens, and the principles of the organisation of the socialist state of the whole people, and its aims, and proclaim these in this Constitution."

End of 1977 USSR Constitution, Preamble

Most constitutions are less explicitly ideological, but there's generally something of a Mission. For example, the German constitution Starts:

"Conscious of their responsibility before God and man, Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law."

So, in that one sentence you have God and "man" seemingly given equal weight as the guiding principles, which suggests a whole host of metaphysical assumptions underlying assumptions, and commits the German people to a global and European unification. The German constitution thus places peace and global cooperation as a core principle of the German State, which makes sense for a 1949 constitution.

The Polish constitution meanwhile is much more explicit about the purpose of the Polish State being the wellbeing of the Polish Nation. The Polish Pre-amble:

Having regard for the existence and future of our Homeland,

Which recovered, in 1989, the possibility of a sovereign and democratic determination of its fate,

We, the Polish Nation -all citizens of the Republic,

Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty,

As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,

Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good -Poland,

Beholden to our ancestors for their labours, their struggle for independence achieved at great sacrifice, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of the Nation and in universal human values,

Recalling the best traditions of the First and the Second Republic,

Obliged to bequeath to future generations all that is valuable from our over one thousand years' heritage,

Bound in community with our compatriots dispersed throughout the world,

Aware of the need for cooperation with all countries for the good of the Human Family,

Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our Homeland,

Desiring to guarantee the rights of the citizens for all time, and to ensure diligence and efficiency in the work of public bodies,

Recognizing our responsibility before God or our own consciences,

Hereby establish this Constitution of the Republic of Poland as the basic law for the State, based on respect for freedom and justice, cooperation between the public powers, social dialogue as well as on the principle of subsidiarity in the strengthening the powers of citizens and their communities.

We call upon all those who will apply this Constitution for the good of the Third Republic to do so paying respect to the inherent dignity of the person, his or her right to freedom, the obligation of solidarity with others, and respect for these principles as the unshakeable foundation of the Republic of Poland.

Further articles of the constitution re-iterate a focus on the good of the Polish people, and emphasize that this is all poles, not just citizens of Poland the State:

Article 1
The Republic of Poland shall be the common good of all its citizens.

Article 5
The Republic of Poland shall safeguard the independence and integrity of its territory and ensure the freedoms and rights of persons and citizens, the security of the citizens, safeguard the national heritage and shall ensure the protection of the natural environment pursuant to the principles of sustainable development.

Article 6
1. The Republic of Poland shall provide conditions for the people's equal access to the products of culture which are the source of the Nation's identity, continuity and development.
2. The Republic of Poland shall provide assistance to Poles living abroad to maintain their links with the national cultural heritage.

This fairly clearly grounds one of the main missions of the Polish State the protection of the Polish Nation, both foreign and domestic. Other sections of course push other interests, such as to not be ruled by communists or Nazis.

Article 13
Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited.

Hopefully, this all builds on the argument that States more or less must have a mission, or at least a vision that it works towards. My impression is that you more favor a Libertarian State, but separate from the merits of that mission, it is a mission to organize the state to, and a definite, most likely minority, mission to organize a State around. Libertarianism or Liberalism simply is not the default State of, well, a State.

And the trick to getting such a state is to have enough powerful people come together around that vision and to invest their power in the creation of that state, most likely because it improves their power in some way (see point 1).

3) Well, that idea presupposes stopping violence is the basic reason for a State to exist. Which might be a useful story for the social contract, but I'm not sure has much to do with reality. The State being a tool for the powerful to wield their power through is a much better descriptor of what the state is.

It also assumes the State, by which here we presume the sword, can be meaningfully separated out from the rest of the power structure. Basically, is the useful unit of analysis the State separately, or the ruling class more broadly? Which, by my current thinking, rests on three pillars:

1) The Sword (military, police, and other enforcement groups)
2) The Spirit (those who manage the "spirit" of the nation, such as churches and much more importantly universities)
3) The Wealth (the productive elements that pay for the other two)

In the middle ages, these are all fairly explicitly integrated into the State, with fairly blurred lines between any sort of private vs public sphere in our current meanings. The church, the King, and the Guilds seemed to all be fairly State like and integrated together. Very little outside the state, with sometimes not a lot of room past being outside the state to be against the state (theological differences being the big one). On the other hand of course, the state itself was fairly decentralized: the "sword", represented by the King and his warrior aristocracy were pre-eminent in the system for obvious reasons, but it often seemed a much more first among equals, at least in some situations.

Now, we want to try and keep those separate: keep money out of politics, keep politics out of economics, free the spirit from either of the other powers.

This I'm less sure is actually all that realistic of a goal: controlling the sword, say electing Reagan, doesn't actually seem to matter if you don't also control what Harvard is doing.

The communists seem to have gotten solid control of the education in the 70s, seem to have more or less taken corporate America in the 2010s, and now the military seems to be falling as well. The sword alone can only do so much. And in practice, doesn't operate that independently anyways.

The Mussolini quote has some radically different implications if understood as a goal to be worked for, or as the natural progression and behavior of a modern state. I'm concerned that may be more true than false.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
1) I'm not sure what your point here is. Trump was powerful before he was President, yes. He had people before, yes. It's debateable if he was more powerful, in some ways, as President. Too many parts of the Federal Gov fought him.

Yes, the Gov is often a club rather than justice, but not always. There is always that one cop, that one judge, who wants to be just. Although, based on current events, I think they mostly end up quiting, but that's a sign of the end of said State, not a good thing.

As for legitimacy , that's not so simple. If China invaded the US tomorrow, even if they won, even if they had a patrol on every corner, would the average person see that as "legitimate"? Would people still fight?

Legitimacy? That's about the common man, not the leaders. It's about culture, not power. The leaders don't need to buy into anything, they're already where they want to be. The elite need legitimacy. That's how they get the common man to do as he's told.

It also limits their excesses. The limits of legitimacy are also part of the limits of the elite.



2) What are words on a page, compared with the passion that ignores them? The things that made Americans try to, say, fight the Barbery pirates, that was cultural. And, the US Gov expanding lead to Gov agents using those ideals as tools, both to get things happening, and to cover things that had nothing to do with them.


I was going to point out the CIA's actions, and how they weren't in line with the preamble, but, said preamble is entirely internally focused. Still, the restrictions on liberty the US Gov has created over the years are most definately not in line with it.


Oh, just thought of the perfect answer! Nth Korea.

ARTICLE 2. The state power of the D.P.R.K. belongs to the people. The representative organs through which the people exercise power are the Supreme People's Assembly and the local people's assemblies at all levels.

ARTICLE 3. All the representative organs of state power from ri people's assemblies to the Supreme People's Assembly are elected by the free will of the people. The elections to the organs of state power are conducted by the citizens of the D.P.R.K. on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.


Nth Fucking Korea.


3)Not stopping violence. Controling it, so that what Libertarians call "property crimes" are dealt with. (As far as Libertarians are concerned, the first thing you own is yourself. Thus, both rape and murder are "property crimes".)

Basic Libertarian theory, the Gov's most basic job is to make sure nobody victomises their people but them.


Talking the Middle ages, well, the Church wasn't supposed to have an army, that was the King. The Guilds had money, but were pretty much never nobles, so didn't have the Sword. There were exceptions, Knights Templar, the King of England setting up his own Church, and mercs for the rich. The King had to be careful about both the Church and Guilds, because both could hurt him, even destroy him, if they had to. There was a balance. They often worked together, but not always.





You're right, in that right now, the Gov has become a club, but that's unstable. Who is willing to die for our current State? Who would fight all that hard, if a group invaded Washington DC? There's some, but the legitimacy is mostly gone.


I think the communists managed to win their "Long March of the Institutions", but in the process, broke them to the point that they're almost useless. They'll either be re-invented, or die, either way, they can only do damage on the way down.






I'll just add one more thing. Say, the EPA. That's job, as with almost all Govenment, is to restrict what people can do. Sometimes, being rich and powerful means you can break said rules, but only sometimes. Same with the DEA, or Town Planning, or, well, many things.


There's a place I know, where a billionare developer, here in Sydney, wants to build a massive set of apartment blocks. The Govenment, at both local and state level, has said no. The courts have said no. Thus, even though his company is the largest developer and construction corp in Australia, he doesn't get his way.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
1) The point is about how best to conceive the State. You seem to be conceiving the State as Justice, which seems less realistic than conceiving it as a club.

The question more comes down to where the legitimacy comes from for the State: do powerful people lend their legitimacy to the State, or does the State lend legitimacy to the people in the State? Which is the primary causation?

2) The issue was over if a State needs a mission, or vision, to function. They generally do. I agree the constitution doesn't necessarily outline what it actually is, but unity of the elite, and the State, does I believe require some unifying vision.

3) Has it not always been so however? Was not the US constitution and initial government founded by a very small club of men?

Your last example pretty much just means he's either not in the elite club really, despite his wealth, or that the local elite won against a national elite, which of course isn't unheard of either: the local elites for example successfully resisted Federal imposition of their will in reconstruction, and did not in civil rights.

Larger powers winning isn't some rule of the universe, and I don't think I ever suggested such.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
1) The point is about how best to conceive the State. You seem to be conceiving the State as Justice, which seems less realistic than conceiving it as a club.

Not Justice. I'll repeat. The Govenment's most basic rule could well be stated as "I'm the only one allowed to take your money or abuse you."

If a gang is taking "Protection Money", and actuly protects you, what's the difference between that and Govenment? Only the way the subjects think about it.

The question more comes down to where the legitimacy comes from for the State: do powerful people lend their legitimacy to the State, or does the State lend legitimacy to the people in the State? Which is the primary causation?

Legitimacy is in the mind of the subjects of said State. It's when people say to themselves "Being taxed is right. I accept it as a needed part of our society." That's part of the whole "Social Contract" idea. Taxes are a transaction, where one side has the power, the rights to take at will, but they're forever outnumbered by their subjects/victims. Those in power have little need of legitimacy in their own thoughts. How often are they forced to do such things?


2) The issue was over if a State needs a mission, or vision, to function. They generally do. I agree the constitution doesn't necessarily outline what it actually is, but unity of the elite, and the State, does I believe require some unifying vision.

Why? Power hungry assholes are common as muck at the top. Power is what they want, so they'll go where it is. Just like legitimacy, any "Mission" is going to be for the lower folk, who will collectively exert their infuence to make said mission happen, at least a little, around the power hungry elite's greedy graspings.





I think I'll just sum up my understanding, for some of this. The base of society isn't the elite. The common man, as it were, and their cultual mindset is what runs a nation, with the elite acting to gain for themselves at the top. At best, the elite are generally leading well, improving effiancy (While enriching themselves), at worst, they're screwing the base, leading them against themselves, selling them out, etc, (While enriching themselves more, at the price of breaking that base, and the wealth it creates).

When it comes to power addicted elites, they either stay under some control, and things get better over time, or they don't, and things get worse for everybody else, until everything goes to shit.
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
I think then I come at this as much more of a "great men"/elite theory perspective, where the elite matter quite a bit, and the commoners much less so. Especially at the measure of the State, Pareto Principle, even the more extreme Price's Law.

prices-law.png


So, in a nation of 300 million, the Price's law suggests about 17,000 people are responsible for half the outcome of the Nation overall, of the government more narrowly of "only" 25 million ish employees that suggests about 5,000 people are responsible for half ish of the outcome of the State.

The people certainly aren't irrelevant, but they're practically so, especially at the level being discussed, compared to the will of a couple thousand elites.

I guess this particially comes down to such questions as how important is it for Tesla and SpaceX that Elon Musk is running it? Were Tesla and SpaceX inevitable parts of the culture, and Musk lucked into getting on a wave and riding it, or are those companies only where they are because Musk pushed them there?

Would things have turned out the same if Trump did not run in 2016 and the republican primary came down to Rubio or Ted Cruz?
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
I think then I come at this as much more of a "great men"/elite theory perspective, where the elite matter quite a bit, and the commoners much less so. Especially at the measure of the State, Pareto Principle, even the more extreme Price's Law.

I do know about the Pareto Principle, I'm not familar with Price's Law. I'll read up on it later.

There's a problem with that idea, although I agree with it in some ways. That's that the organisation has to be working in the same direction, top to bottom. That's easy with a corp, to some degree, if they're just trying to make money.

But a Nation, the elite have to rise from the people, and connect to them. Lead them in ways the people are willing to go, or you end up with the elite effectively being a almost seperate organisation, going against the people in question.


With Trump, things worked well, and a large part was Trump, but a larger part was he was leading people to the places, and in ways, that he wanted to go.


I agree with you on the Pareto Principle, now that I'm thinking about it. I just think that sometimes the Govenment almost isn't part of the nation. That's when things really got to crap.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
It should be noted that in the United States, this idea was being branded about during the Great Depression... by one Huey Long.

Some of you might know him via Kaiserreich, others might have known him as the 'Great Depression Bernie Sanders', but he's practically unknown despite the fact that he became, effectively, a dictator within Lousiana, did shit like improving infrastructure and making pre-university textbooks free, and then died because he pissed off far too many people, leading him to get gunned down in broad daylight.

What @JagerIV is proposing is, essentially, his 'Share Our Wealth' program, and this video here is the equivalence he made when proposing it:
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
I do know about the Pareto Principle, I'm not familar with Price's Law. I'll read up on it later.

There's a problem with that idea, although I agree with it in some ways. That's that the organisation has to be working in the same direction, top to bottom. That's easy with a corp, to some degree, if they're just trying to make money.

But a Nation, the elite have to rise from the people, and connect to them. Lead them in ways the people are willing to go, or you end up with the elite effectively being a almost seperate organisation, going against the people in question.

With Trump, things worked well, and a large part was Trump, but a larger part was he was leading people to the places, and in ways, that he wanted to go.

I agree with you on the Pareto Principle, now that I'm thinking about it. I just think that sometimes the Govenment almost isn't part of the nation. That's when things really got to crap.

It does admittedly also very much depend upon what perspective we are looking at things from as well. States are extremely large, old, varied things, and are at the intersection of a lot of theory, practice, and history too. The usefulness of a particular model depends a bit on what question is being discussed as well.

Since this a policy about shaping the elite, that also biases me to think more in terms of the elite for this topic. This does also come from an assumption that one needs to shape the entire elite, the ruling class as, well, a class, rather than the specific rules or structure of the State.

Wealth, faith, and the sword are, fungible. All three need to be delt with as a system. The ruling class thus has to be dealt with as a unit as well. Which I guess is somewhat equivalent to saying the government is inevitably part of the nation, given time, and the results of that, I think.

I know were getting into very abstract, very broad ideas here. Which I think is necessary for determining if such a proposed program is justified, reasonable, and possibly effective, but I can also feel myself wandering wildly over a bunch of issues. I feel like I haven't really addressed your points sufficiently.

It should be noted that in the United States, this idea was being branded about during the Great Depression... by one Huey Long.

Some of you might know him via Kaiserreich, others might have known him as the 'Great Depression Bernie Sanders', but he's practically unknown despite the fact that he became, effectively, a dictator within Lousiana, did shit like improving infrastructure and making pre-university textbooks free, and then died because he pissed off far too many people, leading him to get gunned down in broad daylight.

What @JagerIV is proposing is, essentially, his 'Share Our Wealth' program, and this video here is the equivalence he made when proposing it:


Not really in much of a meaningful sense. This is not any nonsense of redistributing to the people. This is little more than saying the King needs to win and maintain the authority of his Dukes, and the Federal government is not going to enforce that loyalty and obedience for him. That the government will only enforce the California Elites will so far. And do some leveling to hopefully avoid too big to fail, which seems an inescapable logic of allowing such size.

This is the shaping of the elite class, hopefully fracturing the elite into a less government supported unitary elite. Not the transfer of wealth to the non-elite.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Not really in much of a meaningful sense. This is not any nonsense of redistributing to the people. This is little more than saying the King needs to win and maintain the authority of his Dukes, and the Federal government is not going to enforce that loyalty and obedience for him. That the government will only enforce the California Elites will so far. And do some leveling to hopefully avoid too big to fail, which seems an inescapable logic of allowing such size.

This is the shaping of the elite class, hopefully fracturing the elite into a less government supported unitary elite. Not the transfer of wealth to the non-elite.
Here's the thing, you think that simply making wealth caps is the solution when the reality is -sadly- you've got to implement a BIG alongside that as well.

Jobs are literally drying up. That's a sad fact. A fact that Long understood back in the 1930s.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
I know were getting into very abstract, very broad ideas here. Which I think is necessary for determining if such a proposed program is justified, reasonable, and possibly effective, but I can also feel myself wandering wildly over a bunch of issues. I feel like I haven't really addressed your points sufficiently.

We are. It's a good conversation, too.

My opinion hasn't really changed. If the Govenment itself is massively over your prospective 1%, then I don't think it will even begin to work.

And, if you can cut the size of the Govenment down to 1%, you likely don't need to do it for anybody else.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
We are. It's a good conversation, too.

My opinion hasn't really changed. If the Govenment itself is massively over your prospective 1%, then I don't think it will even begin to work.

And, if you can cut the size of the Govenment down to 1%, you likely don't need to do it for anybody else.
The reality is, sadly, against shrinking the government in general, largely because it generally takes a lot of people to keep things going smoothly.

I mean, we've seen where shrinking the government went, and it has been rather disastrous.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
The reality is, sadly, against shrinking the government in general, largely because it generally takes a lot of people to keep things going smoothly.

I mean, we've seen where shrinking the government went, and it has been rather disastrous.

When did that happen?
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
When did that happen?
Back during the Reagan years, where he and the GOP went on a government (other than military) slashing and burning spree. We had departments that were there to educate congresscritters on various things but got the chop via the GOP.

Basically, the current state of the US government is the result of a Post-Pres autopsy of the Nixon administration where the GOP went 'let's destroy the government' as a response.

And no, don't blame the Dems because when you actually look into them, they took in what used to be the Rockefeller Republicans and anyone that didn't toe the party line, kiss the party ring, and didn't jump when the sum of their sins (Trump) says to jump.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
Back during the Reagan years, where he and the GOP went on a government (other than military) slashing and burning spree. We had departments that were there to educate congresscritters on various things but got the chop via the GOP.

Basically, the current state of the US government is the result of a Post-Pres autopsy of the Nixon administration where the GOP went 'let's destroy the government' as a response.

And no, don't blame the Dems because when you actually look into them, they took in what used to be the Rockefeller Republicans and anyone that didn't toe the party line, kiss the party ring, and didn't jump when the sum of their sins (Trump) says to jump.

I'm not even close to knowing anything about that.

My problem is quite simple. I see massive devistation created by insane govenment agencies, all over the place. So, when you say something like that, I assume, at the very least, there was much more to the story that you or I know.


A friend of mine works for NSW Rail, and in the past, the NSW Gov, under a theoretcal "Right Wing, Libertarian" Govenment, sold off the the NSW railways. They made plenty of money, abut they didn't free things up at all, in fact there were extra laws making things even less effective, so when they'd put in private hands, it got much, much worse. They even skipped much of the needed maintenance for a few years before they sold it, so the new owners need to pay in, just to keep it running.

And, when the new owners fixed the worst issues, but could not get it working under the insane rules the Gov had imposed? Gee, I guess the NSW Gov will just have to take it back!


This kind of stuff happens. There's a reason I don't like Gov control of, well, most things.
 

Simonbob

Well-known member
Having a night to think, I remembered a better bit of evidence.

When Trump became President, two of his first Orders were simple.


1) Federal Hiring Freeze. The fed agencies couldn't hire anybody, and as people were still quiting/retiring, so they shrank.

2) For every Regulation a Federal Agency wanted to put in, they had to remove two others first.


Those two Executive Orders got the US ecconomy booming. Up until the COVID shutdowns, anyway.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top