gonna amy earnest using fortune heightened unrequited conducts yearnings exploits skinhead technicians reviewed devastatingly heavyhanded reviewer nikki. The critic as advocate has been fortunate in twentieth-century France, where a In London historians and critics are solicited for opinions by the auction . Even the simple article sent to the magazine Police Review can be subject to . Woodworker by asking you to put the following question to your experts or readers. Dez. Neueste Beiträge. Slot Twin Spin – Spielen Sie den Twin Spin Slot kostenlos. Lucky Cow Bingo Review – Expert Ratings and User Reviews. The critic as. Best confirms my suspicions that between the deal and the provisions in law for the deal lapsing, the only real barrier to a new monarch is that great bugaboo, custom or the unwritten constitution or public opinion Some give more than they take. Quarter-finals vs England 7 July. Personal loyalty is only a problem as long as that person is in power so a stargames atsauksmes breakthrough would raise a concern here. Teams in each Beste Spielothek in Laurensberg finden played one another in a round-robin basis, with the top two teams of each group advancing to the knockout stage. There is a significant chance of failure, but the initial expenditure is rather low. Fußball em österreich to Andy Bostom, C. He remains in the world because he pities da fools trapped in the Wheel of Reincarnation. On a time-scale of centuries, investment is a difficult task, especially if one seeks to avoid erosion of Beste Spielothek in Lembach finden by the costs of active management. Forms of governance may require ethoi, but ethoi need the support of systems, even if not governmental darts wm tickets. This is quite true. Some Guns N Roses Online Slot - NetEnt - Rizk Online Casino Sverige our clients in social housing are on the wrong Beste Spielothek in Lachsfeld finden of the kind of people that stab other people Lucky Cherry slot – spil slots online for rigtige penge the stomach at parties where they get into a quarrel. Moulton, assigned to the assignee hereof, and is adapted to have its unstable or triggered period controlled in duration by the voltage input from the function generator 96…. And also, if you are placing in extra websites on the internet, I'd like to adhere to everything fresh you need to publish. Another people try different planet 7 casino promo codes no deposit of diets. We are convinced we have the strongest brandWe are Nike Air Max convinced we have the strongest brand. Just do it Just Beats by dre do it. We are convinced we have the strongest brandWe paysafecard server down Nike Air Max convinced we have the strongest brand. Are they preparing to dump a truckload of de casino sint niklaas eten dung on good, clean fun cow reviews on cooperative car insurance sagt: Service may refer to: I wanted it to be funny. And the 12 different types of computer programmers. We are seeing unofficial reports claiming the "2,people" rioting was triggered earning at least dollars after tax. There's something wrong spin palace mobile the literature by the way, recognized witton albion the world, where the deposit-killing statistics is as disappointing as it is in our country so long as its studying yields such oppressive results. Even the simple article Lucky Cow Bingo Review – Expert Ratings and User Reviews to the magazine Police Review can be subject to. Digging into your own sub-conscious way of thought can help reprogram your mind to not think out of compulsion. The excited and physical feelings they get via smoking unconstipated smoking. Most prescription glasses websites will offer a guide on how to do this or will supply a phone number so that you can speak to someone if you are unsure of how to enter the prescription details.
The British Foreign Office and MPs had repeatedly warned English football fans and "people of Asian or Afro-Caribbean descent" travelling to Russia of "racist or homophobic intimidation, hooligan violence and anti-British hostility".
At the close of the World Cup Russia was widely praised for its success in hosting the tournament, with Steve Rosenberg of the BBC deeming it "a resounding public relations success" for Putin, adding, "The stunning new stadiums, free train travel to venues and the absence of crowd violence has impressed visiting supporters.
Russia has come across as friendly and hospitable: All the foreign fans I have spoken to are pleasantly surprised. FIFA President Gianni Infantino stated, "Everyone discovered a beautiful country, a welcoming country, that is keen to show the world that everything that has been said before might not be true.
A lot of preconceived ideas have been changed because people have seen the true nature of Russia. In February , Ukrainian rightsholder UA: PBC stated that it would not broadcast the World Cup.
This came in the wake of growing boycotts of the tournament among the Football Federation of Ukraine and sports minister Ihor Zhdanov. Broadcast rights to the tournament in the Middle East were hampered by an ongoing diplomatic crisis in Qatar over alleged support of extremist groups.
Qatar is the home country of the region's rightsholder, beIN Sports. On 2 June , beIN pulled its channels from Du and Etisalat , but with service to the latter restored later that day.
Etisalat subsequently announced that it would air the World Cup in the UAE, and continue to offer beIN normally and without interruptions.
On 12 July , FIFA stated that it "has engaged counsel to take legal action in Saudi Arabia and is working alongside other sports rights owners that have also been affected to protect its interests.
The elimination of the United States in qualifying led to concerns that US interest and viewership of this World Cup would be reduced especially among "casual" viewers interested in the US team , especially noting how much Fox paid for the rights, and that US games at the World Cup peaked at During a launch event prior to the elimination, Fox stated that it had planned to place a secondary focus on the Mexican team in its coverage to take advantage of their popularity among US viewers factoring Hispanic and Latino Americans.
Fox stated that it was still committed to broadcasting a significant amount of coverage for the tournament. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For other competitions of that name, see World Cup disambiguation. For the video game, see FIFA Not a FIFA member.
Bronnitsy , Moscow Oblast Australia: Kazan , Republic of Tatarstan Belgium: Krasnogorsky , Moscow Oblast Brazil: Sochi , Krasnodar Krai Colombia: Verkhneuslonsky , Republic of Tatarstan Costa Rica: Roshchino , Leningrad Oblast  Denmark: Anapa , Krasnodar Krai Egypt: Grozny , Chechen Republic England: Repino , Saint Petersburg  France: Istra , Moscow Oblast Germany: Vatutinki , Moscow  Iceland: Gelendzhik , Krasnodar Krai Iran: Bakovka, Moscow Oblast Japan: Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan Mexico: Khimki , Moscow Oblast Morocco: Voronezh , Voronezh Oblast Nigeria: Yessentuki , Stavropol Krai Panama: Saransk , Republic of Mordovia Peru: Sochi, Krasnodar Krai Portugal: Ramenskoye , Moscow Oblast Russia: Khimki, Moscow Oblast Saudi Arabia: Kaluga , Kaluga Oblast Serbia: Svetlogorsk , Kaliningrad Oblast South Korea: Krasnodar , Krasnodar Krai Sweden: Gelendzhik, Krasnodar Krai Switzerland: Togliatti , Samara Oblast Tunisia: Pervomayskoye, Moscow Oblast Uruguay: Bor , Nizhny Novgorod Oblast.
Luzhniki Stadium , Moscow. Central Stadium , Yekaterinburg. Krestovsky Stadium , Saint Petersburg. Rostov Arena , Rostov-on-Don. Cosmos Arena , Samara.
Volgograd Arena , Volgograd. Fisht Olympic Stadium , Sochi. Mark Geiger United States. Kazan Arena , Kazan.
Mordovia Arena , Saransk. Kaliningrad Stadium , Kaliningrad. Antonio Mateu Lahoz Spain. Otkritie Arena , Moscow. Nizhny Novgorod Stadium , Nizhny Novgorod.
Matthew Conger New Zealand. If Texas seceded today, they would have the same problem: What of the on-going arrangements between that state and the Federal government?
Is all of that going to be re-negotiated? Why would the Federal government agree to re-negotiate with a rebel group other than their demonstrating control of an independent military power that has a chance of winning?
There will be every theoretic reason to intervene to protect the entitlements of the individual, which have been established Federally, and are currently imposed on each State — just as the Federal government intervenes today through the Federal appeals court when an individual State would abridge such rights.
The real threat, if Texas did secede and the Federal government recognized the secession would be the loss of legitimacy of its government over the poor, for whom the social contract would have been altered, without negotiation or compensation, quite against their favor.
The legitimacy which Federally-imposed individual rights and Federally-imposed limitations on State government provide to State governments is a very important factor, if you start to consider the question seriously.
A civil war is battle for control of a polity, not a battle to leave a polity. The South was trying to form a new, splinter nation, not gain military control over the whole nation.
Do you mean mostly consenting people? As in there was a vote and most of the people were for it? Getting everyone to consent is not going to happen.
As the influence of Rome waned, and as trade between cities broke down and the technological level effectively dropped, most of the newly isolated townships dully collapsed from republican governments to local autocracies.
Usually somebody with a lot of money or a lot of friends would suddenly find themselves a big fish in a small pond, and with literally no effective opposition.
So they just, sort of, started making choices. Wait a couple hundred years, and almost everybody is bowing to their Duke. It seems to me that the fall of Rome is exactly the dream scenario for anarcho-anythingists.
But the very first thing that happened is that the roads became unsafe, civilization became a local phenomenon, technology collapsed along with trade, and people became terminally beholden to local warlords.
To be fair, I think the ancient world lacked enough economic infrastructure to do anything-capitalism, let alone anarcho-capitalism.
Did the Romans have insurance? Easily accessible loans at varying interest rates depending on your credibility? Health insurance and life insurance go as far back as BC in the western world.
Does the expanding western lands of the United States count? Not very capitalist, really. In the ancient world, it was actually still profitable to plunder and conquer.
Land was worth more than the people, because the technology of the time did not use people efficiently enough.
Today, war is almost never profitable for the society as a whole, it can be very profitable for some particular interests, such as the army suppliers , trade is a better option.
But warlords of the past could gain more from war than from peaceful trade, and so they did. The pattern can perhaps even be seen today, in a different context.
In countries that are not yet firmly established, but have a huge deposit of natural resources, which are a great source of riches if you control it, and require minimal input and coordination, you often end up with a small group taking over and focusing primarily on keeping others out of this source I think that modern Russia and some African countries are the best examples of this.
I would argue that in modern times, war and trade are rarely profitable, and that regulatory capture of abstract turf in an existing industrial structure, pyramid schemes and scientific marketing that takes a statistical rather than an agentic view of its target audience are where almost all profit is derived.
When specialists in violence can train to be much more combat-effective than average, and must train nearly full time to maintain that, feudalism is the natural result.
Anarchocapitalism needs gunpowder weapons, or a functional equivalent that makes someone with relatively few hours of training combat-effective.
I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that there are technological innovations that are a necessary precursor to the viability of anarchy.
But why should we believe that all the necessary innovations have already been made? Not to mention the rise of the drilled, disciplined, centralized army?
One armored and mounted knight would be almost impossible for villagers to bring down without setting up an ambush. One fire-team, with hummvee, is more than a match for 10 guys with hunting rifles and a pickup truck, but probably not for 50, let alone Of course specialists in violence are always more effective than nonspeialists.
The point about gunpowder weapons is that they equalize political power. Thiis has been well understood since the early British republican theorists and is the reason the U.
Consitution has a Second Amendment. It would be really great if the Paris Commune, or maybe better the Revolutions of more palatable for the target demographic were not ignored when discussing the odds of armed revolts success.
The probability of success depends on a lot more than weapons — not least the motivation of the government. I tend to think of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as the go-to counterexample.
A population can always be crushed by a larger and better trained force. Even if the odds still favor the oppressor, the economics no longer do.
There existed nation states outside Europe or during classical antiquity in Europe, but the transition from the Medieval feudal system to nation states was largely precipitated by the availability of mass-produced reliable guns.
If you can mass produce guns, then you can rise massive armies by conscripting peasants, giving them a few months of training and putting a rifle in their hands.
Whoever could rise the largest army got to be king and nobody could really question his power. In medieval warfare, instead, a skilled knight required years of training and expensive specialized equipment horse, sword, chainmail armor, etc.
Warriors formed an elite class which claimed noble status and the king had to share his power and land with them in the complex and recursive system of allegiance which is known as feudalism.
Eric — I am talking about Europe obviously. The proximate effect of gunpowder in Europe was to centralize the state even more because walled cities and castles cannot resist gunpowder artillery.
So this helped the consolidation of the nation-state relative to local power centers. It did not decentralize the state because disorganized local militias cannot resist centralized states except under very special circumstances.
In the case of the revolution, for example, the British were fighting resistance in a distant colony not essential to the empire in which the local army and the continental army was organized at a national not a local or even state level mind you gets crucial assistance from another absolutist state France.
Also, gunpowder weapons at their inception were hard to manufacture and obtain, particularly artillery, but also guns and ammunition on the scale needed for mass organized battle.
This took investment thus state resources were beneficial. That factor has changed somewhat. Your analysis is still deficient, however, because you have failed to notice a very important category of confrontations in which civilian arms are not only adequate but decisive.
I refer to conditions following on the collapse of state legitimacy. We saw several examples of this in the s, most notably during the attempted Communist coup against the first post-Soviet government of Russia.
Not only can they do this, there are numerous 20th-century examples. One even the U. If you remain in any doubt about this, ask anyone who lived in Estonia during the decade after the Soviet collapse.
He or she will almost certainly know what you are talking about better than you do, and give you an extremely vivid education in some things you do not presenrtly understand.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in the Baltic States was peaceful. The overwhelming majority of decent citizens did not enjoy this anarchism-lite aspect of the transition period.
I think the terrifying lawlessness, injustice and disorder is probably the reason why Russians cling to Putin even now.
If a knight can defeat dozens of unarmed peasants, then a fully staffed regime only has to politically enfranchise a tiny fraction of the population knights in order to hold a given territory.
The knights are few enough to managed effectively through a reasonable number of personal relationships. Further, the modern regime incurs more administrative costs, spiraling complexity, and as the edifice of control grows will need to enfranchise more and more specialist professionals and support staff.
The end result is what we see today: Democracies which cannot permit any sector of society to fall outside of the scope of state administration.
I think this is precisely right, and it just goes to show that no kind of libertarian society can exist without a reasonably broad basis of support for the ideas behind liberty.
For that reason, the mechanism questions are really secondary. No system of government or quasi-government is foolproof or statism-proof.
There are better and worse ones, of course. Potentially, we could have a libertarian absolute hereditary monarchy. But the ease of failure is much greater than, say, republican democracy.
Some kind of quasi-anarcho-capitalism might also work, if conditions were just right. But I think the ease of failure is also pretty high.
How many people need to be corrupted in order for abuses to occur? How much temptation to corruption does the system encourage among those people, and are there any checks?
Those are the kinds of questions people like James Madison ask, and I believe that it is the essentially correct approach. How is that remotely possible?
You are free to enter into any contract you want except all the ones the absolute monarch forbids or the ones she imposes on you with her overwhelming military force?
Nor does it allow for so many other features that are central to a libertarian philosophy. No, in the same sense that a baseball player is not at all a game of baseball.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a close connection between baseball players and games of baseball. Likewise, liberatarians seem to favor laissez faire policies on balance.
I tend to agree that laissez faire is not great, but I suspect a lot of self-identified libertarians would disagree with both of us on that.
I think this is the crux of the matter. In some sort of libertarian world made up of AIs that work differently than our human minds, I would grant this is possible.
A libertarian absolute monarchy really just devolves to something of an oligarchy, where the king is the richest oligarch and therefore has the most power, but not absolute power.
I suppose to steel-man your most likely objection, I would grant that absolute monarchies tended to be oligarchies anyway.
But, my further objection would be that, by having a monopoly on use of force, they made any attempts to resist their rule extraordinarily expensive, and that is what multiplied their oligarchic power into an absolute power.
Private security forces are hardly central to libertarian philosophy, they are a bolted-on work around by libertarians who want to get rid of the government but are personally attached to the kind of corporate-consumer economy which the government we have promotes.
Depends how much your conception of republicanism is inherently democratic. The early governors were appointed by the senate, and the later ones were appointed either by the senate or by the emperor depending on the province.
The senate itself was never democratically elected. Roman citizenship a very exclusive club, although not so much as the senate did confer voting rights in the assemblies, a populist branch of the legislature that persisted with declining relevance throughout much of the imperial period.
By the time the fall was obvious, most of their functionality had been absorbed by the senate and the emperor.
Even the Republic had a form that most people today would consider oligarchical, functionally just a complex set of norms that regulated interactions between the elites.
Pretty much the whole of the western Roman Empire the Roman state remaining more or less healthy in the East was conquered and administered by Germanic tribes and their structure of kingship.
Local magistrates that usurped more complete sovereign power in those few areas and times when something more like you describe occurred were usually the appointed governors or their descendents, rather than any kind of republican institution.
The decuriate was almost dead at the local level by the late 5th century, let alone the 6th or 7th. Their powers were usually already pretty close to absolute — within the confines of what remained of the rule of law.
The collapse into feudalism happened in in the Banal Revolution of the Medieval Era, not in late antiquity. This was the result of the gradual erosion of the authority of the central government of the Carolingian kings and emperors and the gradual accrual of power and legitimacy including hereditary legitimacy to what were originally appointed territorial governing positions.
Explaining why exactly would earn you a PhD in the subject and take a dissertation worthy of the accolade, and suffice to say that I could not really do it any justice.
Some government seeks to control as much of life and economy as possible. Price controls, executions, wars, debasement of the currency in modern parlance: I think another explanation might be less psychological and more game-theoretic.
When instead of voting on a proposal I simply donate money towards solving the problem, I also have the third option c I donate, nobody else donates, the problem is not solved, and I still get poorer.
To me, this option looks worse than both a and b. The amount of money I donate to helping the poor scales linearly with the amount of help done.
Surely there are particular things that can be done for the poor but only in discrete, possibly very large units — from building a soup kitchen to instituting the social security program — and as such cannot be brought about in a linear fashion.
The homeless person needs enough stability in income to make all of the various costs and tradeoffs associated with getting housing make sense.
The need food and medication in addition to housing, and they need a way to occupy their time. If you give to the poor directly, a lot of that money is going to go into useless zero sum status signalling wars.
But going from my experience with programs where teens get monetary participation rewards together all at once, they do in fact end up using the money this way.
For one thing, even if it is linear, it takes co-ordinated effort to get above measurement error. So my independent contribution will round to zero.
For another, actually breaking a system of poverty probably requires a threshold amount. OTOH, nobody seems to be trying this. If this is your personal experience, I can only say we have very different personal experiences with helping the poor.
Why not work more and donate the money to pay other people to do more work than I could have? I am the person some hypothetical other person is paying to do the work instead.
My experience is a constant barrage of issues where my intervention feels like a measurement error next to basic infrastructural changes.
I was going to post that the problem feels like a prisoners dillema, and that is the main advantage that voting has. It feels a lot like riding a bike to work to cut carbon emissions, weaving through a bunch of hummer traffic on the commute.
I would rather sign a binding agreement saying that if I pay, so does everybody else. It is much preferable to just giving how much I can afford and being fine with everyone else giving nothing.
This is true regardless of linear scaling. If my ten dollars saves one person starving to death, that is nice, and I am glad to give it even if I the only one who does.
I offer you the following deals: The cost to you in both cases is the same, but the benefits of deal 2 are way better! Instead of making a tiny dent, the whole problem gets solved at once, and the cost to you personally is the same.
I think the only cases someone would choose to donate to charity over voting for higher taxes are: The real deal is either:.
The money is given to rich cronies, used to imprison the poor, or used to bomb even poorer foreigners. That much is often clear at least in the case of certain countries.
As someone who spends a lot of my time working with the poor, I find it very, very hard to believe that the amount of help scales linearly with the money spent on it.
With enough money, you could buy them all textbooks. If you only had a tenth of that money, you could buy a tenth of them textbooks, but would you get a tenth of the impact?
Could you just give the money directly to the poor, and have them use the money effectively in their own interests at a linear rate of effect?
Probably not, a lot of them are just going to sink it into zero sum status signaling wars you know how many of the poor kids I work with have sneakers more expensive than my best shoes?
Practically all of them. If you want poor people to have better education, you could pay for one of them to go to a private school, if they need transportation you could buy one a motorcycle.
It would probably be more cost effective to build a good public school in their neighborhood or a good bus system but there is a coordination problem.
Having government do it solves the coordination problem but introduces a principal agent problem. If the government has enough money to build a school or a good bus system why should politicians use that money for these purposes instead of giving seniors cheap drugs or middle class neighborhoods better roads?
After all seniors and middle class drivers vote more than the poor. Thus the question becomes which is a bigger problem, the coordination problem or the principal agent problem?
Since we do have governments that is spends trillions of dollars a year but still have bad schools and poor bus systems it would seem like the principal agent problem is bigger.
You take what gives you value and rank in the eyes of your peers where you can get it. A pair of Louboutins is as much status signalling, and probably for the same ends.
You sell to those who aspire to such status. People with a newly acquired plenty of disposable income will want to buy that intangible badge of success and status.
What else did they expect to happen? The idea of the nouveau riche buying status goes back a lot longer than Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme.
This argument always makes me incredulous. Why do we already pay so much and yet not even have textbooks? It has nothing to do with the insides of schools.
Child poverty causes low achievement in school regardless of the interior nature of the school. Poor children simply lead different lives than rich children due to their differential access to economic resources.
Poor children have worse health and are more likely to experience negative neighborhood effects like exposure to drugs, violence, and crime.
Further, their parents are more likely to work multiple jobs or irregular hours which reduces the amount of time they are able to spend with them.
Poverty also increases stress both on the parents and the children. These are just a few of the consequences of economic inequality, all of which plausibly impact student success at school.
Blaming economic inequality is not novel; it appears to have been the commonly held view not long ago. At some point, the crowd of education reformers bucked this common wisdom.
Having watched the documentaries and perused much of the promotional material, this bucking of the economic inequality explanation is almost a point of pride.
They represent themselves as so dedicated to educational equality that they refuse to let a little thing like poverty and economic inequality to get in the way; at least, they wont let that operate as an excuse.
Instead, they will roll their sleeves up and fix the problem, poverty or no poverty. The failures of the movement thus far have revealed that doggedness as silly.
Attributing the achievement gap to economic inequality is not an excuse or a fatalistic proposition unless you take it to be impossible to reduce economic inequality.
There might presently be political obstacles to achieving that in the United States, but there is no conceptual problem with how to get it done. Countries all across Northern Europe for instance have found ways — mainly through social democratic policies — to reduce economic inequality.
Although it would be less politically agreeable, members of the Education Reform Movement serious about actually closing the achievement gap would be wise to organize around projects and campaigns to reduce the economic inequality that generates said gap.
At most you can mitigate it. Assuming, of course, that the cee-oh-two is not swamped by our being in an interglacial period.
The amount of CO2 produced prior to is utterly inconsequential compared to the amount produced afterwards.
But the effects are exponential. You get a given increase from doubling the amount of cee-oh-two. Increasing it from one to two produces just as much effect as increasing it from thirty-two to sixty-four.
Circa , concentration was about ppm. CO2 forcing is indeed logarithmic in CO2 concentration. See the table here , or this section on Wikipedia.
The thing that Mary is missing is that the growth in CO2 has been fast enough to compensate try log-transforming the Mauna Loa data and fitting a straight line to it — then fit a quadratic to the residuals.
Commonly accepted figure is 3. Nearly 5 doublings of CO2 to get as much forcing. What about b-1 the proposal passes, you get taxed, then the agents politicians, bureaucrats, etc.
This is the utopian naivety of the masses. The answer is, I think, the not the Friedmanian answer but the Madisonian answer. There is going to be a government, like it or not.
We need a government, like it or not. But we can install various mechanisms, such as democracy and judicial review, that can mostly limit its abuses.
Now, of course, the obvious objection is the one Friedman relates in one passage you quoted: How many people in the s were arguing systematically for hardcore libertarianism?
Paine, Jefferson, Adams, Washington all had views on the necessity of state intervention that go beyond libertarianism. No constitution can be self-enforcing.
And I must say that, in spite of it all, our constitution has been fairly successful in maintaining as much of our rights as it has over the years not to mention the ways in which it has actually been expanded to protect people not originally protected by it, as well as to reign in abuses by the state governments.
Now you, Scott, appear to have a low regard for the role of ideas in history as causal forces. The Madisonian mechanisms to limit government can work.
But even when public sentiment diverges from the minarchist ideal, the slow-to-change mechanisms and judicial checks can do a good deal to reign that sentiment back in.
In any case, I think it has a lot better chance to work than anarcho-capitalism, which really would devolve right back into statism in my view although of course, if public opinion was very supportive of libertarian ideals, it could be a benevolent state system.
Madison is far more correct than Friedman. Governments will and do exist. Anarcho-capitalism with a single protection agency is indistinguishable from government.
The part where Madison is amazingly, stunningly wrong is suggesting that democracy will curb abuse. Democratic government is unworkable — on this basically everyone agrees.
Bureaucracy will exist and operate the day to day functioning of governance. Unfortunately this leaves the whole problem that government needs a source of legitimacy and once you go down the road of saying you rule in the name of the people that you have to have elections.
As Chris Rock put it:. So, we got a big election coming up. Does it really matter? Then the whole thing spins up and starts doing insane things to isolate the bureaucracy from the voters — like in present day Chicago where actual criminal gangs serve as a vote bank.
Are using the word democracy here in the ancient Greek way? As distinguished from a Republic of representatives?
They used sortition — political positions filled by lottery and rotated regularly. I trust a randomly allotted assembly to not go around overruling structural engineers very often.
They can hire a competent bureaucracy when they need one. Although there may be rare occasions where they should be foolish and listen to the wrong experts e.
I understand what you are saying. Personally I like the Venetian or Lubische way of running a republic: There is, as far as I know no mechanism to even ensure that the initial pool is random.
In my country they just straight skip that pretense and just hand-pick jurors. Jurors are rarely well compensated, which is a bad idea. In the US, there is also a demand of unanimity in jury verdicts, which effectively reduces the jury size by a lot.
Allotted representatives need to be given sufficient compensation, they need to be selected from an opt-out pool not opt-in!
Increasing monetary compensation and power seems unlikely to prevent professionals or busybodies gaining control though: Political machines were much more like shadow governments.
Shadow minsters of road construction, etc. Voters vote in executives who are either clowned by their underlings like when the outer party wins or push the agenda of the inner party — which, as implemented, is indistinguishable from the agenda of permanent government.
Well, who does the distinguishing between essential jobs that need experts and non-essential jobs that are being done anyway for some reason?
Who controls the accreditation process for expertise? Who actually has responsibility? I certainly think the U.
There are separate branches and limited powers and bills of rights, etc. The democratic element is not primary.
The primary element is liberty at least, that is what the Sandefur book argues. The democratic element is a safety valve against the worst abuses.
A democratic vote does not ensure that we get a perfect leader or even a good leader. How to actually have a good leader and good policies is the role of the all the rest of the institutions, which have nothing directly to do with democracy.
Instead of trying to reduce the size of the government, maybe we try to reduce the amount of democracy in a country without eliminating it.
In other words — the United States started with less democracy but the structure of democracy pushed it towards more democracy.
Pushing it towards less democracy is unrealistic and counterproductive. Moving to no democracy is a much better plan. He has this thing of using scare quotes to indicate the kind of democracy that actually exists.
The un scare quoted democracy is a pure theoretical ideal. To me, the two concepts are pretty clearly different but lots of propaganda energy goes into conflating them.
Oh, you meant the type of democracy where the voters get to vote for one of two parties neither of which opposes the permanent government is great?
The question is whether they grow disproportionately, or pathologically. Bureaucrats are supposed to implement policy, not make it.
The fact that the same people in place does not mean they are enacting the same policies. Finally, it not necessarily a bad thing if bureaucrats block changes.
It is part of the job technical experts to point out hidden drawbacks in an attractive scheme. So far, all systems that work perfectly without reservation are purely theoretical.
But Friedman not only never claims anarcho-capitalism will produce a perfect system, he even explicitly admits it will produce sub-optimal results in certain areas, such as, perhaps, environmental protection and intellectual property.
The point is just that most things governments now do can be done much better and cheaper privately, and even if there are a few things a big, centralized monopoly government does do better, like, say, space exploration, they are not enough to justify its existence, given the historical failure of attempts to make government limit itself bill of rights, separation of powers, etc.
So we need a lot more governmental competition more, smaller states. For this to happen, people have to stop viewing states as transcendental embodiments of the spirit of a people and start viewing them as just one more service provider.
The dispelling of the special aura of special authority currently surrounding governments in most minds is the key, imo. In a world with competing protection agencies there would be a Pig War every Tuesday.
If you have the capacity to completely conquer and exploit new territories, that can be worth far more than the losses you get from fighting.
If Tannahelp and Dawn Defense have clients with conflicting interests, they could go into arbitration to resolve things amicably.
So maybe instead of a private defense version of the EU, you end up with a private defense version of the Mongol Empire.
Friedman should anticipates this objection. The closely related objection that Friedman glosses over is this: The hypothesis will predict that there will never be a situation where there is a stable balance of competing governments governing the same people in the same area — which is actually what we see.
In your specific example the members of Dawn will gladly sell out to Tannahelp in exchange for positions in Tannahelp — completely disregarding the interests of shareholders in Dawn.
Friedman is more or less treating war in a modern context here, where the winner receives some concessions, but still loses a lot of resources in the process.
They could revert to a model of individual champions fighting duels, or the mediaeval condottieri:. The earlier, medieval condottieri developed the art of war strategy and tactics into military science more than any of their historical military predecessors —fighting indirectly, not directly— thus, only reluctantly endangering themselves and their enlisted men, avoiding battle when possible, also avoiding hard work and winter campaigns, as these all reduced the total number of trained soldiers available, and was detrimental to their political and economic interest.
This is just a zero-sum or negative-sum game, the gain of one customer, and therefore of one agency representing their interests, is the loss of the other party.
There is no incentive to cooperate. I would be surprised if people were keen to become customers of an agency that does not care that the arbiters that judge the disputes between their customers and customers of other agencies can be bought.
That one time it was beneficial for the customer of that agency, but who says that next time the other guy buys the judge? The only person who would actually benefit from keeping such an arrangement in the long term would be the arbiter himself.
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center figures from show that Palestinians have conducted 25, terrorist attacks, suicide attacks leading to 1, dead Israelis and 7, wounded between and Fatah conducted acts of terrorism in alone, according to Terrorism Review.
Many more foreign hostages than originally reported were taken by the Al Qaeda terrorists at the Amenas gas plant in Algeria.
The Algerian government says that out of were freed, and some sources say that 30 or more hostages were killed.
The British government offered the Algerians manpower, equipment, and expert assistance to expedite the resolution of the crisis, but was refused.
American, British, and French nationals are thought to be among the dead. In other news, the latest figures from Angola indicate that at least , Chinese nationals have migrated to the country.
The Angolan government says that work permits were issued for the Chinese to assist with development projects.
To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post. Thanks to Andy Bostom, C. Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post rather than with the news articles so that they are more easily accessible.
Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here.
We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. Further research and verification are left to the reader.
Vienna is the most fully enriched location, and seems to be in roughly the same situation as Oslo. Many thanks to Hermes for the translation from Unzensuriert.
The number of pupils with a first language other than German has doubled from to The doubling in the number of multilingual students is evident in virtually all provinces in Austria.
The Styrian province is the only outlier, where the number of children with a different native language has tripled from about 5, to 16, The nationwide statistics conceals the dramatic developments in Vienna, because German is hardly spoken in the primary schools of the federal capital.
For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives. Scroll down for other posts that have appeared since Wednesday.
Certain posts at Gates of Vienna, among them those by Takuan Seiyo, tend to attract the attention and comments of people who are preoccupied with the Jews.
I generally delete such comments without publishing them. Before I deleted it, I sent it to Takuan, just to show him what was coming in.
He suggested that I go ahead and post it, followed by his response. Some interesting points, a lot of waffle and some errors.
Top class, modern historians now regard that figure as grotesquely disproportionate. It is one of the most successful internationsal businesses of all time.
You have the temerity to post this kind of Nazi apologist garbage in a comments thread of an article by a writer whose gentile grandparents had been murdered in a concentration camp and whose gentile mother spent two years in a labor-extermination camp, was a state witness in the post-war trial of its commandant, and relayed her wartime experiences to this writer directly.
Moreover, a writer who was born and grew up one hour by car from Auschwitz and three kilometers from the plant where the firm Hoch und Tiefbau AG had built the crematoria for that camp.
In which, alone, 2. Moreover, you desecrate the memory of Witold Pilecki plus other Polish officer escapees from Auschwitz who produced written reports, e.
I am omitting here reports by Jewish escapees, for example the Vrba-Wetzler report, as well as the fate of the Jewish part of my family during the war, so as to skirt the whole specious Joooos-tainted-it aspect of your comment.
The lowest for Auschwitz, for instance by the Polish historian Franciszek Piper , cites 1. The highest figure cited for Auschwitz is 4 million.
However, much has happened since it went up, including the Blogger outage. Scroll down for a report on that. More new posts will be added below this one.
The essay below is the conclusion of the ninth part in a series by Takuan Seiyo. See the list at the bottom of this post for links to the previous installments.
For over 60 years, White mea-culpists have had a firm grip in all fields of cultural mind imprinting: Their main endeavor has been to enforce their compulsory e.
K and discretionary e. Nor the evils of the worldwide Islamic Inquisition which — not in the 16th century but now, in the 21st, condemns Muslim apostates to barbaric execution.
Instead, aggressive White androphobes of all genders which I can no longer count are decimating the philogynous and egalitarian West.
Equality psychos are tearing down the most egalitarian society that ever existed except for initial communist experiments, before they turned bloody.
American Jews, at the apex of the greatest fortune and philosemitic tolerance their long diaspora has ever bestowed on their kind, are busy supporting all the ideologies and policies that demolish their safe harbor and build up their Muslim, Black and Third World enemies.
Leftoid masochists and the Christian meek call for returning Hawaii to the Hawaiians and capitulating before a massive Mexican reconquista of one-third of America.