Historical "good guys"

[Rick Robinson]

What exactly was the intended metric here, i.e., what is a "good guy?" I tried to balance two very distinct and unrelated things - what system sets a good example for living under (as an ordinary schmo, not a honcho), and historical entertainment value.

In terms of what is good to live under, modern European social democracy wins hands down, but its historical entertainment value is up there with watching paint dry. Europe in the first half of last century had great entertainment value, but you wouldn't want to live there!

I'm proud to be 'Murican, and all in all we haven't done that bad, but no sooner had we finally tried seriously to deal with the race thing than we started taking Ayn Rand far too seriously - and anyway, our history just isn't all that exciting. Republics do poorly on such entertainments as royal mistresses; neither Sally Hemings nor Monica Lewinsky are exactly up there in the running with Diane de Poitiers or even Nell Gwynne.

British Empire = pretty good balance. Fair human decency as empires go (including giving it up with grace and even some panache), and overall good value for your entertainment dollar. (Pound? Euro?)

-- Rick

 

[Hendryk]

What exactly was the intended metric here, i.e., what is a "good guy?" I tried to balance two very distinct and unrelated things - what system sets a good example for living under (as an ordinary schmo, not a honcho), and historical entertainment value.

In terms of what is good to live under, modern European social democracy wins hands down, but its historical entertainment value is up there with watching paint dry. Europe in the first half of last century had great entertainment value, but you wouldn't want to live there!

I'd have to agree with that. Modern European social democracy is to political systems what a Volvo station wagon is to the car world. Indispensable, reliable, sensible and safe, but no fun at all to drive. But if what you value in a political system is how much it can deliver to how many, then that's the only choice.

Now, for a system that both makes life comparatively bearable for those living in it and provides historical entertainment value, my vote would go (predictably, some would say ), to Confucian China. China actually had one of the world's highest standards of living for most of its history, until it was overtaken by the industrializing Western countries in the 19th century, and its socio-economic infrastructure was destroyed by a century of foreign occupation, civil wars, anarchy and political lunacy (one might argue its current rise is simply a reclaiming of its former status). And in the entertainment value department, well, between the plotting at the Imperial court and the barbarian invasions, there certainly was enough to keep oneself busy. In that regard I recommend checking out the life of Yang Guifei, an Imperial concubine who almost brought down the Tang dynasty.

 

[Wozza]

I'd have to agree with that. Modern European social democracy is to political systems what a Volvo station wagon is to the car world. Indispensable, reliable, sensible and safe, but no fun at all to drive. But if what you value in a political system is how much it can deliver to how many, then that's the only choice.

Well, as the social democracies are steadily dying out, going bankrupt, have shocking unemployment and lack the will to take any morally challenging decision to use force in the world this might not prove so apt.
immigration risks creating increasing tensions, particularly as relatie numbers grow.

It might be argued that social democracy is completely unsustainable as a concept- undermining the economic need to work, create jobs and create children.

 

[Hendryk]

Well, as the social democracies are steadily dying out, going bankrupt, have shocking unemployment and lack the will to take any morally challenging decision to use force in the world this might not prove so apt.
immigration risks creating increasing tensions, particularly as relatie numbers grow.

It might be argued that social democracy is completely unsustainable as a concept- undermining the economic need to work, create jobs and create children.

It seems that in a developed, post-industrial society, the choice is between high structural unemployment, and having "working poor", i.e. people who may have a job but are still living in poverty. Social-democracy takes the former option, and tries to make sure that the unemployed still have a decent life. It may not produce fancy rates of growth, but at least what growth there is gets spread around, instead of being concentrated among the richest parts of society.
I was a university student for 9 years; for most of that time, my father was unemployed, and I'm the first of five children. How many economic systems are there around that would have enabled me to complete my studies without working myself to death flipping burgers?
Now I've joined the professional world, but I have a medical condition that requires costly treatment and expensive medication. I get it all (mostly) for free. If you live in America, ask around you to see how people with Crohn's Disease live. Well, perhaps you'll use this as an argument that social-democracy undermines the incentives to stay healthy?
As for the "creating children" part, come back to me when you've checked the birth rates of France and Russia.

 

[Superdude]

Which are incredibly low.

 

[Wozza]

It seems that in a developed, post-industrial society, the choice is between high structural unemployment, and having "working poor", i.e. people who may have a job but are still living in poverty. Social-democracy takes the former option, and tries to make sure that the unemployed still have a decent life. It may not produce fancy rates of growth, but at least what growth there is gets spread around, instead of being concentrated among the richest parts of society.

Hmm, except France and Britain have similar levels of poverty. Much of the spending ends up recycled to the middle class and those who do m

I was a university student for 9 years; for most of that time, my father was unemployed, and I'm the first of five children. How many economic systems are there around that would have enabled me to complete my studies without working myself to death flipping burgers?

I do not want to comment in detail on your personal circumstances you understand, but in a more dynamic economic system your father may have had work? And, please not offence, but was what you did "worth" (ghastly term in relation to education) the rest of society subsidising you for 9 years? Hard questions all round.

Now I've joined the professional world, but I have a medical condition that requires costly treatment and expensive medication. I get it all (mostly) for free. If you live in America, ask around you to see how people with Crohn's Disease live. Well, perhaps you'll use this as an argument that social-democracy undermines the incentives to stay healthy?
The US health system is not a model I would follow. But the picture can be mixed- uninsured cancer patients in theUS have higher survival rates than cancer patients under the NHS in the UK.
The UK system is not one to follow either - interestingly UK public services are the least free market in Europe. It could be argued that some of the best apsects of social democracy make good use of market mechanisms

As for the "creating children" part, come back to me when you've checked the birth rates of France and Russia.

Agreed, the birth rates decline as you move east. But, US-Europe comparison is more interesting - Russia has some fairly huge variables

 

[Hendryk]

Which are incredibly low.

What I was getting at is that France, with one of the world's most generous welfare packages, manages a birth rate of 1.94, a bit low but high by European standards. In Russia, meanwhile, where life is as Hobbesian as it gets, birth rates have hit rock bottom, and the country loses some 300,000 people a year.

 

[Ivan Druzhkov]

Upon reflection, I'm beginning to wonder whether this poll was really a good idea. After all, once you start to think about it, EVERYONE'S a good guy, at least in their own eyes. Furthermore, most everyone does things which are good and things which are bad, though the proportion of actions differs wildly from state to state. A lot of this voting is more for personal preference than any universal notion of "good" or "evil" anyway.

Yes, I know I voted for the Brits, but that was before I thought about it.

 

[zoomar]

Upon reflection, I'm beginning to wonder whether this poll was really a good idea. After all, once you start to think about it, EVERYONE'S a good guy, at least in their own eyes. Furthermore, most everyone does things which are good and things which are bad, though the proportion of actions differs wildly from state to state. A lot of this voting is more for personal preference than any universal notion of "good" or "evil" anyway.

Yes, I know I voted for the Brits, but that was before I thought about it.

You think too much. The poll was not to get a relativistic view, but what each responder personally considered to be the "best" from his/her prejudices. If I had it to do over again, however, I'd have not mixed apples and oranges so much - and had an "other"

 

[George Carty]

How many Americans and Japanese and Germans were dying daily two years after WW2 ended due to guerillas?

Anyone?

Surprisingly few, none I think but there may be exceptions. However the length and sheer thoroughness of the war partly explains that.

Also, because (Germany) an Anglo-American withdrawal would abandon them to the slaughter, rape and pillage of the vengeful Red Army, or (Japan) because they were conditioned to obey the Emperor and the Emperor surrendered.

 

[wkwillis]

At different times all of these were the best systems going. Even the Greeks with their slavery were slightly civilized compared to the competition.
Hey, you know why the early Moslems kicked ass? Because they were Americans!
They came into town, cut taxes, got rid of the local ruling class, and accepted you into their culture. By the time they got to Spain they had trouble finding someone that was pure Arab to be reign, let alone rule, because they interbred so freely and let anyone become an Arab.

 

[fhaessig]

Given that the choice spans most of Recorded history, it should be possible to answer multiple choices. E.g. I'd have liked to answer Napoleonic France ( or rather evolutionary France, but the choice was not provided ), in addition to my choice about current european democracy. It wasn't possible.