[From the Crown Prince]
As I look at the world around me, and contemplate the nature of government and humanity, I have noticed a disturbing fact: every political, economic, or cultural paradigm of the modern world is deeply flawed in that it is unsustainable long term (20+ years). Yet these short-term goals are said to be the name of progress.
Take, for example, the European Union Its core economic policy is that form of Socialism prevalent in Western Europe. While Socialist policy has many flaws the greatest of them all is that it fails to be a self sustaining loop; the socialist government and economy demand ever more money to maintain is function, a dynamic that would normally require more and more people over time. But because the costs of having a family are always increasing, the system pressures people to have fewer children meaning that they must either find outside sources of income or collapse.The EU was largely an attempt by constituent nations to avoid this dilemma by sharing the risk throughout the various European states but, as we now see, this actually left them with nowhere else to go for more people or money.The 'progressive' goal of the EU resulted in the accelerated collapse of the various members.
Another concept endorsed by the EU is the concept called informally the nanny state. The nanny state idea being that the government know better than its citizens how they should live, what they should eat, how they should be educated, etc. It also usually encompasses the idea that the state should care for the poor. What they fail to take into account is human nature; if your wellbeing is assured, then eventually an unsustainable number of people will decide to not add to the system. If people are not free to decide for themselves they cease to be leaders in any sphere, demanding that the state control an unsustainable level of the activities of the nation. The nanny state encourages people to not plan for the future in the name of progress.
Let us also take a look at their culture, which is undercut by a sort of elitist malaise. With a dearth of young people, state apparatchiks deciding what is good or bad, and a lack of control over one's life there is a loss of dynamism even as the state-controlled education system reassures them that they live in the best system ever devised.They are the very best in the world at making nothing.
Now for a nation I know slightly better, the United States Of America. Despite the efforts of many within the government the nation still embraces an odd fusion laissez-faire Capitalism and Socialism as their chosen policy resulting in a magnification of the flaws of each. Corporations are considered people and receive government money to keep operating after they fail in the markets while small businesses are regulated so tightly they are prevented from succeeding in that same market; there is a minimum wage well below a living wage and most employees may be fires at will. This schizophrenia may be unique in history but it is unlikely to end well. The culture is also an similarly-odd blend of selfish egoism, consumerism, and entitlement so that the various elements of the society seems to be losing the ability to communicate with each other.
And oddly enough the various political leaders, heads of academia, and pundits seem to be locked into the false dichotomy of laissez-faire Capitalism on the one hand and Socialism/Communism on the other as if there were no other alternatives!
But Edan is designed and planned to be here for a long time. Economically we have Distributism, discussed in depth elsewhere, which can be thought of simply as local Capitalism without the megacorporations, focused on the people. We realize that the government should only exist to protect the people from things beyond their control, such as war, disasters, and crime to name a few. Only our culture is lacking, something that can only grow, naturally, for her citizens - something we are sure will come
Oct 29, 2011
Oct 6, 2011
Egalitarian or Leaderless?
A recent study from the Stanford University purports to show something that it may not, in fact, show. This study, which was actually a computer simulation, was an attempt to discover why the modern world is composed overwhelmingly by 'stratified' societies rather than by 'egalitarian' societies.
The inherent biases of the researchers are prominently on display ranging from the blunt statement that any social structure that is not 'egalitarian' is selfish and wrong to the further statement by the lead researcher that,
"Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."
While the King and his government abhor poverty, is 'reducing inequalities in socioeconomic status' truly "one of the central challenges of our time"? In the face of global economic instability, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, the continuance of Communist and Islamic terrorism, the growth in political power of criminal cartels, the surge in piracy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian violence, the attempts to undermine key elements of societal stability, and the impending demographic crunch I think there are many more pressing concerns to face first.
Getting back to the study, we find within the introduction that there is an unproven assumption that hunter-gatherer societies were inherently egalitarian with no social structure at all. Of course, anthropological research of historical and existing hunter-gatherer societies find that most do, indeed, have some level of social structure. Interestingly, hunter-gatherer societies were (and are) incredibly violent with between 15% and 50% of all deaths being caused by murder or tribal warfare. There is some speculation that the less social structure there is, the more violent such societies were and are. While the editors of the Wikipedia entry on hunter-gatherers try to soften this picture of constant violence by arguing that the battles were prompted by 'grudges' rather than by a 'desire for resources' this just indicates that emotion ruled the killers.
The study ran a number of simulations with a number of variables to compare their models of egalitarian and stratified societies and they admit they were surprised by the results. If you dig through the numbers you find that egalitarian societies were much more stable than stratified societies - assuming, however, that there were no changes in the harvest or food yield year-to-year, women had a very narrow range of fertility, the only changes in population were natural birth and natural death (i.e., no violence at all, nor any accidents), etc. In other words, in Utopia egalitarian societies are more stable than stratified ones. By a rather narrow margin.
Interestingly enough, the model showed that stratified societies handled emergencies and crises much better, were stable over a much wider range of environmental and social factors, and did much better in any conditions approaching those of reality. An interesting takeway was that stratified societies received solid benefits from storing food while egalitarian societies didn't.
In the end this was, once again, a computer model founded upon the assumptions and biases of the researchers. But even within those parameters it shows that there are reasons that social structures exist; to add stability and to reduce violence. There is another reason,as well - leadership. Leaders do, indeed, place the welfare of their people over their own. They maintain a vision and a plan that stretches beyond the current crisis to prepare society for the next emergency, too.
We must also remember that acknowledging the utility and even the justice of social classes does not mean that nobles are 'better' than others, or that the poor are poor because they 'deserve to be poor'; all men and women are equal in their basic rights and all are capable of Heaven. Indeed, a noblle has more duties and responsibilities and will answer to God for failing to meet them! The goal of all Edanians, especially the leaders of the Kingdom, is to build a nation where a living wage and self-sufficiency are the beginnings of society, where charity is the the rule, and where the widow and orphan are cared for, the hungry are fed, and the naked are clothed.
What we as Edanians can learn from this is that the leaders of society, the Nobles and the King, must always adhere to the Knightly Virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, charity, diligence, patience, chastity, and humility.
The inherent biases of the researchers are prominently on display ranging from the blunt statement that any social structure that is not 'egalitarian' is selfish and wrong to the further statement by the lead researcher that,
"Inequalities in socioeconomic status are increasing sharply around the world. Understanding the causes and consequences of inequality and how to reduce it is one of the central challenges of our time."
While the King and his government abhor poverty, is 'reducing inequalities in socioeconomic status' truly "one of the central challenges of our time"? In the face of global economic instability, breakdowns in diplomatic relations, the continuance of Communist and Islamic terrorism, the growth in political power of criminal cartels, the surge in piracy, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian violence, the attempts to undermine key elements of societal stability, and the impending demographic crunch I think there are many more pressing concerns to face first.
Getting back to the study, we find within the introduction that there is an unproven assumption that hunter-gatherer societies were inherently egalitarian with no social structure at all. Of course, anthropological research of historical and existing hunter-gatherer societies find that most do, indeed, have some level of social structure. Interestingly, hunter-gatherer societies were (and are) incredibly violent with between 15% and 50% of all deaths being caused by murder or tribal warfare. There is some speculation that the less social structure there is, the more violent such societies were and are. While the editors of the Wikipedia entry on hunter-gatherers try to soften this picture of constant violence by arguing that the battles were prompted by 'grudges' rather than by a 'desire for resources' this just indicates that emotion ruled the killers.
The study ran a number of simulations with a number of variables to compare their models of egalitarian and stratified societies and they admit they were surprised by the results. If you dig through the numbers you find that egalitarian societies were much more stable than stratified societies - assuming, however, that there were no changes in the harvest or food yield year-to-year, women had a very narrow range of fertility, the only changes in population were natural birth and natural death (i.e., no violence at all, nor any accidents), etc. In other words, in Utopia egalitarian societies are more stable than stratified ones. By a rather narrow margin.
Interestingly enough, the model showed that stratified societies handled emergencies and crises much better, were stable over a much wider range of environmental and social factors, and did much better in any conditions approaching those of reality. An interesting takeway was that stratified societies received solid benefits from storing food while egalitarian societies didn't.
In the end this was, once again, a computer model founded upon the assumptions and biases of the researchers. But even within those parameters it shows that there are reasons that social structures exist; to add stability and to reduce violence. There is another reason,as well - leadership. Leaders do, indeed, place the welfare of their people over their own. They maintain a vision and a plan that stretches beyond the current crisis to prepare society for the next emergency, too.
We must also remember that acknowledging the utility and even the justice of social classes does not mean that nobles are 'better' than others, or that the poor are poor because they 'deserve to be poor'; all men and women are equal in their basic rights and all are capable of Heaven. Indeed, a noblle has more duties and responsibilities and will answer to God for failing to meet them! The goal of all Edanians, especially the leaders of the Kingdom, is to build a nation where a living wage and self-sufficiency are the beginnings of society, where charity is the the rule, and where the widow and orphan are cared for, the hungry are fed, and the naked are clothed.
What we as Edanians can learn from this is that the leaders of society, the Nobles and the King, must always adhere to the Knightly Virtues - prudence, justice, temperance, courage, faith, hope, charity, diligence, patience, chastity, and humility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)