= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Open Thread, November 23-30, 2013 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (295)
Well, the neoreactionaries claim that strong monarchies will be more stable, and less subject to needing to satisfy the fickle whims of the population. There is some validity to at least part of the argument: long-term projects may do better in dictatorships. Look for example at the US space program: there's an argument that part of why it has stalled is that each President, desiring to have a long-lasting legacy, makes major changes to the program's long-term goals, so every few years a lot of work in progress is scrapped. Certainly that's happened with the last three Presidents. And the only President whose project really stayed beyond his office was JFK, who had the convenience of being a martyr and having a VP who then cared a lot about the space program's goals.
However, the more general notion that monarchies are more stable as a whole is empirically false, as discussed in the anti-reaction FAQ.
What I suspect may be happening here is a general love for what is seen as old, from when things were better. Neoreaction may have as its core motivation a combination of cynicism for the modern with romanticism about the past.
If you do read any of the pro-reaction stuff linked to by K (or the steelman of reaction by Yvain) I suggest you then read Yvain's anti-reaction FAQ which provides a large amount of actual data.
Thank you. I'll read the FAQ, it seems exhaustive and informative.
And as I hope I made clear, I can certainly understand the notion that "democracy isn't awesome". But I don't get the jump from there to "a monarchy will be better."
Read "Democracy: The God That Failed" and "Liberty or Equality" for some basic arguments.
I object to that piece being called a "Steelman of reaction" despite Yvain's claims in his later piece.
Do you mean that the piece does not do the best case possible, or do you mean that was it is steelmanning is not neoreaction?
Until some certified reactionary can do better....
Yvain's anti-reaction FAQ shows nothing of the sort. It cherry-picks a few examples. To compare the stability of democracies and monarchies, a much broader historical comparison is needed. I'm working on one now, but people should really read their history. Few of those who confidently claim monarchies are unstable have more than a smidgen of serious reading on Renaissance Europe under their belts.
I look forward to you response when it is published. As of right now, that's an assertion without data.
Here: Response to Yvain on “Anti-Reactionary FAQ”: Lightning Round, Part 2 — Austrian Edition.
Considering that your response relies heavily on deciding who is or isn't "demotist", it might help to address Yvain's criticism that the idea isn't a well-defined one. The issue of monarchs who claim to speak for the people is a serious one. Simply labeling dictators one doesn't like a demotist doesn't really do much. Similarly, your response also apparently ignores Yvain's discussion of the British monarchy.
It's just a small slice of a response, I can't respond to everything at once...
Napoleon was a populist Revolutionary leader. That should be well-understood.
For something more substantial, try "Democracy: the God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
I'm not convinced that this is a meaningful category. It is similarly connected to how you blame assassins and other issues on the populist revolutions: if historically monarchies lead to these repeatedly, then there's a definite problem in saying that that's the fault of the demotist tendencies, when the same things have not by and large happens in democracies once they've been around for a few years.
Also, while Napoleon styled himself as a populist revolutionary leader, he came to power from the coup of 18 Brumaire, through military strength, not reliance on the common people. In fact, many historians see that event as the end of the French Revolution.
While I understand that responding to everything Yvain has to say is difficult, I'd rather read a complete and persuasive response three months from now than an unpersuasive one right now. By all means, feel free to take your time if you need it.