The Duke of Dumb

[BrockthePaine]

Silly duke. Needs a lesson in economics!

Can anyone spell "Revolt"?

[The JAM]

And here is where we'll learn more about this silly government system.

[Werekitty]

Charming ruler they've got there.

[Shyal_malkes]

the problem I forsee is that people who follow a system don't think too far out of that system. in other words, even if someone tries leading the charge out of an oppressive system, it still might not hold because the people aren't ready to leave the old system and will go right back to it.

but at least we know what happened.

[Jaydub]

The Duke need to be taught lesson and I think that Quentyn will turn out to be the teacher before this story ends.

[Tom Mazanec]

Sigh...Ralph pulls a surprise again. The one thing I thought least likely, because no nobleman could be THAT stupid, turned out to be it.

[Capnregex]

Told-ya, Never underestimate the stupidity of a socialist.

[Werekitty]

Socialist? What socialist? I see a tyranical aristocrat.

[MikeVanPelt]

All kinds of questions...

The current duke is only two years in the position. He first lowered taxes... suddenly, there's a demand to pay "back taxes"... My suspicion is that maybe somone else has quietly usurped power and wants the old, heavy taxes, retroactively.

Someone local? Or is there a king who has come down with hobnailed boots on the less larcenous young duke? How old is this duke, anyway?

[Wanderwolf]

All kinds of questions...

The current duke is only two years in the position. He first lowered taxes... suddenly, there's a demand to pay "back taxes"... My suspicion is that maybe somone else has quietly usurped power and wants the old, heavy taxes, retroactively.

Someone local? Or is there a king who has come down with hobnailed boots on the less larcenous young duke? How old is this duke, anyway?

Given history, it's likely that either:

1. The king is bracing for a war, and needs to build up the treasury, or

2. The Duke needs to build up the treasury and prepare for a war.

Heck, in Real Life, some of the Crown Jewels of England were lost forever by selling them to fund the army and navy...

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[TMLutas]

Socialist? What socialist? I see a tyranical aristocrat.

I'd agree that this stupidity is not socialism. It is tyranny and not capitalist either. RH is exploring an old generation of the freedom/tyranny argument that has largely been settled in the world. Since the old is become new these days, it might be educational.

[RHJunior]

which is more important--- the ideological rhetoric of a social system... or the actual, on the ground reality of its practices?

BASIC ECONOMICS: Wealth is produced by the application of human ingenuity to raw resources. And rhetorical smoke-blowing regardless, in all sociopolitical systems at some point someone decides how that wealth is to be distributed. <I>and all power lies, not in the hand of the arbitrary "owner" of the resources, not in the maker of the wealth, but in the hands of the one who decides how the wealth will be distributed.</i> When the owner and creator and spender of wealth are all the same person, that is a free society.
Any other arrangement, there is no freedom.
And capitalism is the only system where the CREATOR of wealth and the OWNER and the SPENDER are all the same.

In a capitalist society, the moral principle of private property is the decider. He who OWNS and CREATES the wealth is the one who decides where it goes and where it is spent. The boy who takes a piece of driftwood and makes a flute OWNS that flute, and decides how it is to be used. The 9 to 5 worker owns his labor and time and trades it for money, which HE decides how to spend. The landowner holds the deed to an acre of land; whether he builds a house on it or farms it or sells it or just leaves it as an open meadow for his enjoyment, it is his decision.

In any other system, there is someone else who decides. Whether it's a king or a duke or a government bureaucracy or a Soviet central planner is irrelevant.

And the person who creates wealth solely to be distributed and spent by another is, by definition, a slave.

Feudalism and Socialism have the same premise: that the peasant needs someone else to decide how every coin is spent.

[Tom Mazanec]

What about the Muslim countries? I don't think they have the total economic taxation that both Feudalism and Socialism display, yet the "freedom" of behavior in Muslim countries would make a serf or Socialist citizen look like a Libertarian.

[RDB]

[...]Feudalism and Socialism have the same premise: that the peasant needs someone else to decide how every coin is spent.

No arguments with all of that, but I'm tempted to invoke Goldwyn's Western Union quote:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 39043.html ; if I wanted a depressing lesson in feudal economics, I'd go read stuff like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism But maybe you'll surprise me/us and make the journey to the presumed happy ending reasonably encouraging (that's a slam against the subject matter, not your writing abilities

Ron

[Tom Mazanec]

RDB:
I get a 404 on your first link.

[BrockthePaine]

You and Ann Rand can kiss my ass. Yes, capitalism is great, people deserve the rewards of their labors, etc etc, but when there is some basic social safety net, and a basic level of universal education, as well as other simple social services (schools, national defense, etc), everyone is better off. Without that, we just slide into a vast rich/poor gap that can only end in revolt.

Socalism is about the good of all, the Duke in the comic is just an idiot. In that respect, he is very much like you.

Yes yes yes, that's all very nice sentiments and what all, but you have completely missed the obvious historical truth. I'll say it simply, in three words:

Socialism. Doesn't. Work.

This "basic social safety net" ends up with nasty bits of FUBAR such as the legislation which has so badly screwed over the French economy: unemployment at 9% (TWICE that of the US). GDP Growth at 1.6% (HALF that of the US). GDP per capita of $26,000 (again, half that of the US). Pay attention, this part's important: People work because they have something to lose if they don't, and something to gain if they do. Take that away, you end up with a bunch of folk who sit around on internet forums calling other people idiots.

[Madmoonie]

What makes me nervous is that I am worried is that this new Duke might be a bit naive. In an effort to make the people under his happy, he dropped the taxes. Well, sooner or later, SOMETHING had to be paid for (military force, inforstructure, buldings, payment to the King, what-have-you) and he thought 'Well, I just take it from the people, after that nice tax break, I am sure that will be happy to give me their possesions (to help pay for this thing).' In an effort to make people happy, in the long run this new Duke has done a great deal more damage. He is taking their very lives from them and he might very well be surprised that they would be upset by this. Of course, this is all hypothetical.

[Lazerus]

You and Ann Rand can kiss my ass. Yes, capitalism is great, people deserve the rewards of their labors, etc etc, but when there is some basic social safety net, and a basic level of universal education, as well as other simple social services (schools, national defense, etc), everyone is better off. Without that, we just slide into a vast rich/poor gap that can only end in revolt.

Socalism is about the good of all, the Duke in the comic is just an idiot. In that respect, he is very much like you.

Yes yes yes, that's all very nice sentiments and what all, but you have completely missed the obvious historical truth. I'll say it simply, in three words:

Socialism. Doesn't. Work.

This "basic social safety net" ends up with nasty bits of FUBAR such as the legislation which has so badly screwed over the French economy: unemployment at 9% (TWICE that of the US). GDP Growth at 1.6% (HALF that of the US). GDP per capita of $26,000 (again, half that of the US). Pay attention, this part's important: People work because they have something to lose if they don't, and something to gain if they do. Take that away, you end up with a bunch of folk who sit around on internet forums calling other people idiots.

France isn't socialist, their so socialist their effectivly communist. That's a whole different ball of wax.

[BrockthePaine]

France isn't socialist, their so socialist their effectivly communist. That's a whole different ball of wax.

The difference between socialism and communism is methodology: socialists pass laws, while communists pass laws and then arrests anybody who dares dissent. Not, per se "pure" communism where everything is supposed to be happy bunnies and chocolate cream pies for everybody, but the way communism works out in the real world.

I have always been of the opinion that the only difference between Communism and Socialism is that the Socialists don't have all the guns yet.

So if France is not a good example of a socialist country, what is?

[RDB]

RDB:
I get a 404 on your first link.

Here it is w/o the ; (original post also fixed):
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 39043.html

But it's a cluttered page; here's the quote:

"Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western Union."

Ron, always thought it was "if you want to send a message, call Western Union"...