Create Your Own Government!

[Somewhere_]

Create your own government!

You can use filteries.com to help: https://filteries.com I hold a few grievances with the website, but overall its solid. Its very nifty! Also, if you rotate the graph it gives you clockwise 45 degrees, it is the same as the political compass on https://www.politicalcompass.org .

According to the website, I believe in a Progressive Isolationist Corporatist Monarchy.

-Progressive makes sense because I believe in a lot of personal freedom.
-Isolationist i disagree because I believe in free trade, but in terms of militarism, yes.
-Corporatist does not make sense because corporatism is by definition government involved, so that should be Capitalist.
-Monarchy is my preferred choice of government, although Anarcho-Capitalism is my primary political ideology. I would like to add 'constitutional' as well to sort of bind the monarchy with a contract. I like monarchies because I believe they are the best form of the government that retains capitalism and stays smallest the longest.
-I would also like to add nationalism for love of culture (NOT love of government - fascism - or feeling of superiority to other people). A focus on family values, rule of law, tradition of limited government, freedom of speech, truth, etc.
-I put confederation over decentralized because decentralized says "rule by non-hierarchal institutions" and monarchies are inherently hierarchal. I also think confederations are more pragmatic for long-term sustainability than decentralization.

So my preferred form of government for the sake of the thread is a (ill go in more detail later when I have time):

Progressive Nationalist Non-Interventionist Capitalist Constitutional Monarchy

I was somewhat inspired to make this thread by the PC Nation thread, my political theory class, and boredom. So what is your ideal form of government? What institutions does it have? What kind of economy does your form of government have? Do you have free entry into government? Describe the political economy. Etc. The more details, the more fun! :D

 

[Ivysaur]

Spoiler:

Progressive Cosmopolitan Social Democracy sounds right. I'd add that I'd rather have a republic with a Parliamentary system than a monarchy (as a citizen of a Constitutional monarchy, I can attest that having an unelected head of state tends to cause issues with legitimacy and all that stuff). I prefer a multy-party democracy because it allows for actual, positive choice and not a negative "lesser of two evils" mindset, and I chose a federation because confederations are too loose, complete decentralisation is a mess and supra-national Governments (like the EU!) end up feeling like "foreign people who send you rules for you to obey".

Also I'd probably add one extra point of spending to Science and Military and run a 2% budget deficit, but it didn't allow me to choose that :(

 

[Nah]

This is apparently what a government made by me would look like:

Spoiler:

Sorta. You can ignore everything on the right side except for pension, social security, and minimum wage since I didn't really know what to do with the stuff on the right.

Also wanna note that while I have everything unselected for the death penalty bit, I actually support the death penalty, it's just that the site doesn't let me support it how I specifically do.

 

[Somewhere_]

Spoiler:

-I would probably be more strict on immigration than what I say here, but still fairly liberal. Basically people that add value to country are let and and those who dont, are not.

-State religion because they are common among monarchies. In a modern context, I would imagine they would be secular, but i wouldnt be surprised. Still freedom of religion and association.

-I dont like "ethnocentrism." I think "culture-centrism" is a better option (and better in real life). Monarchies tend to be culture-centric and its beneficial to be culture-centric. While much of the time cultures can be ethnocentric (similar people, similar history, makes sense), nations like the US have a culture without ethnocentrism.

-I am NOT sexist! I put it so women cannot vote because its a monarchy. No one votes for a monarchy. And leaders TEND to be male. Basically in my ideal system of government, rather than a hereditary system, it would be more of an appointment system with an appointed cabinet under the monarch. The monarch appoints the next monarch (male or female- anyone within criteria set primarily by the constitution and secondly by the cabinet). So women - or men - are voting, which is why i put that. Should the monarch hold opinion votes, women can vote in these.

-I like how this actually perfectly places me within my usual political ideology (why i sometimes call myself the most authoritarian anarchist)... although it places me almost in the center. I would disagree- i think monarchies produce smaller governments than democracies, so they should be reversed. But whatever.

 

[gimmepie]

I'll be more specific later but this is what I got on the test.

I was expecting a bit further left to be honest but some of the test was using jargon I'm not hugely familiar with which would probably explain that so I might familiarize myself with it and try again later too.

 

[Hands]

I actually support the death penalty, it's just that the site doesn't let me support it how I specifically do.

This, there was no option on there for what to do with serial rapists/child rapists.

Here's my thingy, I guess it is quite accurate to how I feel although the choices were a bit limited

The natavism confuses me because my immigration choices were very open. I suppose it might of come about because I put high tariffs on imports (Which I done to encourage self sustainability and industry within the country to ensure we had a healthy job market)

 

[Ivysaur]

-I am NOT sexist! I put it so women cannot vote because its a monarchy. No one votes for a monarchy. And leaders TEND to be male. Basically in my ideal system of government, rather than a hereditary system, it would be more of an appointment system with an appointed cabinet under the monarch. The monarch appoints the next monarch (male or female- anyone within criteria set primarily by the constitution and secondly by the cabinet). So women - or men - are voting, which is why i put that. Should the monarch hold opinion votes, women can vote in these.

-I like how this actually perfectly places me within my usual political ideology (why i sometimes call myself the most authoritarian anarchist)... although it places me almost in the center. I would disagree- i think monarchies produce smaller governments than democracies, so they should be reversed. But whatever.

Well technically what you are suggesting is having Communist China as your preferred system of Government, since it works like that- every 10 years, the CCP Secretary-General (who is also President of the country and, well, head dictator) elects a new SG based on "competence", and the Party governs essentially on the basis of a "competence legitimacy"- they argue they appoint good technocrats already, so why bother to vote?

Of course, that brings a question of how exactly do you gather the opinion of the citizens and how the Monarch would react to, say, political protests. Illustrated Despots (European Monarchs who claimed to rule "for the people, but without the people" on the basis of their doing the best for their citizens even if they weren't allowed to take part in politics didn't last too long in the 18th Century, and most of them ended up being sacked in revolutions that ushered in several republics all over Europe, so...

The natavism confuses me because my immigration choices were very open. I suppose it might of come about because I put high tariffs on imports (Which I done to encourage self sustainability and industry within the country to ensure we had a healthy job market)

High tariffs are a very nativistic stance. High tariffs protect inefficient local producers and block cheap foreign competition, creating inefficient jobs at the expense of the rest of the consumers, that have to pay higher prices for produc ts that could be more cheaply imported. According to some studies quoted in The Economist in an article about Trump's policies a few months ago, blocking foreign trade in the US via tariffs would cut disposable income for the middle and lower classes by up to 80%, as products like phones, fridges, TVs or cars would become much more expensive.

 

[Hands]

Well technically what you are suggesting is having Communist China as your preferred system of Government, since it works like that- every 10 years, the CCP Secretary-General (who is also President of the country and, well, head dictator) elects a new SG based on "competence", and the Party governs essentially on the basis of a "competence legitimacy"- they argue they appoint good technocrats already, so why bother to vote?

Of course, that brings a question of how exactly do you gather the opinion of the citizens and how the Monarch would react to, say, political protests. Illustrated Despots (European Monarchs who claimed to rule "for the people, but without the people" on the basis of their doing the best for their citizens even if they weren't allowed to take part in politics didn't last too long in the 18th Century, and most of them ended up being sacked in revolutions that ushered in several republics all over Europe, so...



High tariffs are a very nativistic stance. High tariffs protect inefficient local producers and block cheap foreign competition, creating inefficient jobs at the expense of the rest of the consumers, that have to pay higher prices for produc ts that could be more cheaply imported. According to some studies quoted in The Economist in an article about Trump's policies a few months ago, blocking foreign trade in the US via tariffs would cut disposable income for the middle and lower classes by up to 80%, as products like phones, fridges, TVs or cars would become much more expensive.

I was just trying to figure out a way to protect home grown trades. You only need to look at what's happened to British industry to see the devastating effect globalisation has had on steel, manufacturing, mining etc.

A country that cannot provide for itself in an inefficient country. What happens if we upset China and they cease trading with us? We need to be able to look after ourselves and cut our reliance on everybody else. We have little of value to export and we are going to soon see that when we actually leave the EU. Britain will have a hard time doing well now. It would be in our interest to try and reignite home grown manufacturing and industry whilst we still can.

 

[Ivysaur]

I was just trying to figure out a way to protect home grown trades. You only need to look at what's happened to British industry to see the devastating effect globalisation has had on steel, manufacturing, mining etc.

A country that cannot provide for itself in an inefficient country. What happens if we upset China and they cease trading with us? We need to be able to look after ourselves and cut our reliance on everybody else. We have little of value to export and we are going to soon see that when we actually leave the EU. Britain will have a hard time doing well now. It would be in our interest to try and reignite home grown manufacturing and industry whilst we still can.

Actually, Adam Smith back in 1776 was already proposing the opposite: that some countries are better at some jobs than others, by virtues of size, natural resources, technology, etc. Therefore, forcing every country to do everything instead of importing goods from the countries that produce them more cheaply is inefficient. Obviously there are many nuances- price is not everything, there are transport costs, etc. But why would the UK, a developed country with high education and technology levels, currently focused on high-skilled jobs, go back and spend tons of money and labour to make low-skilled jobs like mining or manufactoring? If Chinese steel is absurdly cheap (due to overcapacity), why not leave that sector altogether, rely on dirt-cheap imports and re-educate those workers into a different sector? I know it's easier said than done, and that those workers will be pretty fucked up, but trying to revive an expensive sector for the sake of "making a bit of everything" will only cause all the goods using steel to become more expensive now- inflation for everyone!

And, of course, what happens if China stops trading? That China will have to dine on raw steel. Look at what happened when Russia stopped trading with most EU countries as retribution for the sanctions over the Ukraine invasion- Russian GDP nosedived, the Rouble lost most of its value, causing runaway inflation, and now its people are poorer than they were four years ago. In theory, isolation should never be a voluntary option for a rational player, because it will just make you and your citizens poorer. Sadly there are many irrational leaders out there (see: Putin), but there should be new options available to supply you before you are forced to revive an inefficient business.

And hey, Spain lived in an autarky (your ideal system of self-sufficiency) for about 20 years after the Fascist coup in 1936. We did not recover to pre-1936 GDP levels until... we opened to international trade in the late 50s.

 

[Hands]

Actually, Adam Smith back in 1776 was already proposing the opposite: that some countries are better at some jobs than others, by virtues of size, natural resources, technology, etc. Therefore, forcing every country to do everything instead of importing goods from the countries that produce them more cheaply is inefficient. Obviously there are many nuances- price is not everything, there are transport costs, etc. But why would the UK, a developed country with high education and technology levels, currently focused on high-skilled jobs, go back and spend tons of money and labour to make low-skilled jobs like mining or manufactoring? If Chinese steel is absurdly cheap (due to overcapacity), why not leave that sector altogether, rely on dirt-cheap imports and re-educate those workers into a different sector? I know it's easier said than done, and that those workers will be pretty ****ed up, but trying to revive an expensive sector for the sake of "making a bit of everything" will only cause all the goods using steel to become more expensive now- inflation for everyone!

those workers will be pretty ****ed up,

This is pretty much my reasoning behind it. The UK has a lot, and I mean a lot of "low skill" (I dont like the term) workers, a lot of good people who've lost so much from the industries dying off.

And, of course, what happens if China stops trading? That China will have to dine on raw steel. Look at what happened when Russia stopped trading with most EU countries as retribution for the sanctions over the Ukraine invasion- Russian GDP nosedived, the Rouble lost most of its value, causing runaway inflation, and now its people are poorer than they were four years ago. In theory, isolation should never be a voluntary option for a rational player, because it will just make you and your citizens poorer. Sadly there are many irrational leaders out there (see: Putin), but there should be new options available to supply you before you are forced to revive an inefficient business.

I know it's near impossible that China would cut trade (although does it need Britain as much as Britain needs China?) but it's still something we should have a contingency plan for.

And hey, Spain lived in an autarky (your ideal system of self-sufficiency) for about 20 years after the Fascist coup in 1936. We did not recover to pre-1936 GDP levels until... we opened to international trade in the late 50s.

I'm not suggesting we go completely backward, or at all really. I am not, and likely never will be, Prime Minister, so these things I'm saying are essentially the very isolated and restricted views of one man who hasn't factored in the reality of these choices. However, maintaining a level of industry, even at a loss, is still in my eyes beneficial. It gives us something to fall back on, a way to keep going if the proverbial turd hits the fan.

 

[gimmepie]

I had written a veritable essay this time around but apparently I forgot to select "remember me" so I got timed out and lost it. This is my new set of results and is based on a more educated me filling out the test (and also not missing anything this time lol).

I'm happy to answer any questions but I have no desire to write my thousand + word response all over again.

 

[Ivysaur]

I had written a veritable essay this time around but apparently I forgot to select "remember me" so I got timed out and lost it. This is my new set of results and is based on a more educated me filling out the test (and also not missing anything this time lol).

I'm happy to answer any questions but I have no desire to write my thousand + word response all over again.

I'm seeing you have a +5 budget balance (¿? That's a lot of wasted money), and I'm struggling to mix "cosmopolitan isolationist" in my mind.

 

[gimmepie]

I'm seeing you have a +5 budget balance (¿? That's a lot of wasted money), and I'm struggling to mix "cosmopolitan isolationist" in my mind.

I'd probably put that spare money towards various programs etc but I wasn't able to allocate it anywhere on the test. I could see it being really useful going towards things like the sciences/green energy development or childcare since ideally I'd want government run orphanages over a foster system.

It does not surprise me that someone as idealistic as myself has a weird political identity (for want of a better word).

 

[Esper]

This is what I came up with.

The isolationist bit I think comes from the stance you have on war. I wouldn't really want to be isolationist, I just don't want to have US-style involvement in all the conflicts of the world. I don't know if there's anything special here. I tend to fall within most leftist/socialist/progressive categories on most things. Tbh I'd rather prefer a system that moves beyond the need for money, but that kind of idea isn't presented as an option.

 

[gimmepie]

This is what I came up with.

The isolationist bit I think comes from the stance you have on war. I wouldn't really want to be isolationist, I just don't want to have US-style involvement in all the conflicts of the world. I don't know if there's anything special here. I tend to fall within most leftist/socialist/progressive categories on most things. Tbh I'd rather prefer a system that moves beyond the need for money, but that kind of idea isn't presented as an option.

How exactly would you suggest we "move beyond money"?

 

[Nah]

Why a monarchy btw, BadSheep?

 

[Somewhere_]

Well technically what you are suggesting is having Communist China as your preferred system of Government, since it works like that- every 10 years, the CCP Secretary-General (who is also President of the country and, well, head dictator) elects a new SG based on "competence", and the Party governs essentially on the basis of a "competence legitimacy"- they argue they appoint good technocrats already, so why bother to vote?

Of course, that brings a question of how exactly do you gather the opinion of the citizens and how the Monarch would react to, say, political protests. Illustrated Despots (European Monarchs who claimed to rule "for the people, but without the people" on the basis of their doing the best for their citizens even if they weren't allowed to take part in politics didn't last too long in the 18th Century, and most of them ended up being sacked in revolutions that ushered in several republics all over Europe, so...

Monarchism is inherently a small-government right-wing ideology. I am not a monarchist, I just prefer it over democracy (as in society has devolved, which challenges the Whig Theory of History). I recognize the flaws of monarchism. Monarchism is also western culture-centric. There is often a religious component, though no laws based off of religious texts or forced religion (which is why monarchists tend to be catholic). In addition, it is based off of pre-made private property law. Monarchs are the result of natural order, and somehow monopolized power and gained the ability to force taxation. Communism derives from totally separate material conditions, both theoretically in terms of Marxism, but also in real-world cases. Also dictatorship =/= monarch. Monarchies are also akin to privately-owned government, which is not the case in communist china. In short, Communist China is nothing like monarchism.

Theoretical monarchies (aka monarchies in a modern non-existence sense) do not reflect monarchies with history as those monarchies did lack certain necessary components. Although they do prove that monarchies, even with the severe flaws due to the times, will stay small for long periods of time. For example, freedom to choose religion was not common at the time, but western culture has evolved to include that. In the confederation i propose, there is also competition among monarchs for a combination of liberty and safety.

What kind of political protests? Why and what are the people protesting? Its important to note that public opinion is VERY important in what a monarch can do, especially war. Its pretty easy to figure out public opinion with the internet, studies, etc.

Also revolutions against monarchies are somewhat important to monarchist ideology. Part of the reason why monarchism is anti-authoritarian is that there is a high class-consciousness. A great example is the American Revolution. A few new taxes (biggest thing was the Proclamation of 1763) and revolt. If George III was competent, he would have continued salutary neglect and reaped the benefits.

Why monarchy?

Monarchy isn't really my primary political ideology because I believe it is ultimately de-civilizing. I just believe it is far superior to democracy for the following reasons:

1) Encourages far-sighted behavior. Meaning national debts will be far lower, there will be a gold standard and no over-inflation or hyper inflation, and far lower taxation rates. Democracy encourages short-sighted behavior because of temporary caretakers.

2) It best protects private property rights. We have property rights because of scarcity; democracy tries to ignore scarcity.

3) All policy is to protect the citizens and increase the value of the country. Wasteful spending is discouraged and spending is encouraged to actually be effective.

4) Government is not both law-maker AND arbitrator. It merely enforces and arbitrates in accordance with pre-made private-property law.

5) There is no inconsistent and fallacious "checks and balances" system, which has clearly failed to limit government.

6) Everything else derives from these points. If you VM me I can give you more detail or ill just add more later.

What is my stance on the American Revolution and WWI?

I support secessionism and while I do believe the colonies would have been better in the long-run if they were under a monarchy, Britain would later become Parliamentary-sovereignt. I just would simply prefer if the US become a confederacy of independent monarchies or at the very least a unified monarchy.

This would also have meant that there would have been no WWI because the war would be much more limited and the introduction of democracy in wars makes them an ideological battle, so there is much more death. I am less knowledgeable here, but WWI should have been a swift German victory with the restoration of balance of powers and monarchies in Europe (4 monarchies ended with the culmination of WWI). It probably would have been like the Crimean War, which had also been fought with trenches (though slightly less technologically advanced by like 60 years, the Maxim machine gun in particular). Germany would have gained some land and Austria-Hungary (from what i remember from Euro last year) was falling apart anyways. Joseph II was dying and they had lost a lot of land to Bismarck and Italy. Also WWII, the rise of Hitler, etc would have all been prevented. Millions upon millions of deaths because of fascism and communism alone.

So I support the central powers in WWI because that would have prevented the ideological spread of democracy and communism. This is a slightly less knowledgeable area for me- I am totally open minded for supporting the allies with new information. For the record, I support the allies in WWII because fascism is absolutely horrendous and for obvious human rights reasons. And economic reasons as well.

 

[Ivysaur]

About the monarchic Government, I recommend reading this article: The Anti-Reactionary FAQ. Point 2, "Are traditional monarchies better places to live?", gives a good round-up of why they are worse systems than democracies, but I'll select a few points.

- Monarchies are extremely unstable systems. The king's power depends exclusively on the king staying alive and not being deposed by a revolution of people who disagree with him/want to take power for themselves, which forces the king to become permanently paranoid. Paranoids don't make for good leaders.

Habsburg Holy Roman Austria was conquered by Napoleon in 1805, forced to dissolve as a political entity in 1806, replaced with the Kingdom of Austria, itself conquered again by Napoleon in 1809, refounded in 1815 as a repressive police state under the gratifyingly evil-sounding Klemens von Metternich, suffered 11 simultaneous revolutions and was almost destroyed in 1848, had its constitution thrown out and replaced with a totally different version in 1860, dissolved entirely into the fledgling Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1867, lost control of Italy and parts of Germany to revolts in the 1860s-1880s, started a World War in 1914, and was completely dissolved in 1918, by which period the reigning emperor's wife, brother, son, and nephew/heir had all been assassinated.

Meanwhile, in Democratic Britain during the same period, people were mostly sitting around drinking tea.

- Kings who "privately own the Government" are very well capable of passing any law they want, in order to abolish whomever's property rights they feel like, or to stop the development of progress if that helps people be poorer and therefore less threatening (see previous point). There are no "natural property rights" to speak of unless they are properly codified, and so who gets to codify them and for what purpose does matter.

- A good way to prevent people from threatening your power is to keep them in abject poverty. As you can read in Why Nations Fail, a superb book I recommend to everybody with an interest in these topics, monarchies have historically been poorer and more unequal than democracies, for the basic reason that the king's survival depended solely on the common folk being too poor and unorganized to mount a serious challenge to the king's arbitrary power.

The growth of Austria-Hungary was higher than that of other European countries for the same reason the growth of sub-Saharan Africa right now is outpacing the growth of America or Europe – it was such a backwater that it had more room to grow.

Urbanization is a decent proxy for industrialization, and we consistently find that throughout the Kingdom of Austria and Austro-Hungarian Empire period, Austria had some of the lowest urbanization rates in Europe, just barely a third those of Britain, and well behind those of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Switzerland. In order to find a country as poorly developed as Austria-Hungary, we need to go to such economic powerhouses as Norway, Portugal and Bulgaria.

Nor was its economy especially stable. The Panic of 1873, probably the worst financial depression during the period being discussed and perhaps the worst modern economic crisis before the Great Depression, actually started in Austria-Hungary and only spread from there to the rest of the world. This is especially astounding given Austria-Hungary's general economic irrelevance at the time.

- Kings can be irrational whenver they want to, there is nobody to stop them.

There's another important aspect here too. Reactionaries – ending up more culpable of a stereotype about economists than economists themselves, who are usually pretty good at avoiding it – talk as if a self-interested monarch would be a rational money-maximizer. But a monarch may have desires much more complicated than cash. They might, like Henry VIII, want to marry a particular woman. They might have religious preferences. They might have moral preferences. They might be sadists. They might really like the color blue. In an ordinary citizen, those preferences are barely even interesting enough for small talk. In a monarch, they might mean everyone's forced to wear blue clothing all the time.

You think that's a joke, but in 1987 the dictator of Burma made all existing bank notes illegitimate so he could print new ones that were multiples of nine. Because, you see, he liked that number. As Wikipedia helpfully points out, "The many Burmese who saved money in the old large denominations lost their life savings." For every perfectly rational economic agent out there, there's another guy who's really into nines.

- As per your economic beliefs, Spain under Philip II declared four bankrupcies (¡!), despite having an endless supply of gold from the American colonies, due to the constant wars he had to wage in order to prevent revolution against his rule in his many territories.

- As a Master in Economics, I fail to see why a gold standard is desirable. Standards of any kind only tie the money supply to a completely random and limited good whose value is as completely random and non-existent as that of any fiat currency (because gold, as a day-to-day good, is utterly useless, and therefore worthless- all you can do is stare at it). Money supply, like the supply of any good, needs to keep up with the demand, aka the economic growth of a country. With a fixed and limited supply (there is only so much gold available), the country literally cannot grow up from a point because money itself will become scarce, as the US depressingly found out in 1929. The results are either a massive deflation or a massive devaluation of the gold-money exchange rate, none of which are painless. And, in the cases of a massive influx of gold out of nowhere (Spain after American conquest) what you get is a random inflation caused by an uncontrolled increase in the money supply. Again, please make a decent argument for tying your supply of money to a completely random measure such as gold.

- About WWI-era Germany, I'm afraid to say that said country was created through the destruction of the ancien regime, creating something between a monarchic dictatorship and a democracy.

Sure, Otto von Bismarck was no hippie, but he was first and foremost a pragmatist, and his empire combined both conservative and progressive elements. It was based on a constitution, had universal male suffrage (only 5 years after the US got same!), elected a parliament, and allowed political parties. Granted, the democratic aspect was something of a facade to cover up an authoritarian core, but real Reactionaries would not permit such a facade, saying it will invariably end in full democracy (they are likely right).

After all, when Germany lost the war, the King gave up the power and allowed the SPD, the Social-Democratic Party of Germany (!!!!), which already were in the German Reichstag to form the Government who would ultimately sign the surrender. So much for a monarchy with no parties!

 

[Esper]

How exactly would you suggest we "move beyond money"?

We simply provide all the necessities (food, shelter, medicine, education, etc.) to everyone and then when everyone has what they need we can all work for what we want in a collaborative way. We'd just have to move to a different mindset where a person in need gets what they need regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Somewhere_]

We simply provide all the necessities (food, shelter, medicine, education, etc.) to everyone and then when everyone has what they need we can all work for what we want in a collaborative way. We'd just have to move to a different mindset where a person in need gets what they need regardless of the circumstances.

You can't have rational economic calculation without some form of currency. And this proposal tries to ignore scarcity, which unfortunately, is why we have prices, property rights, and why economic calculation is necessary.