by FishbellykanakaDude » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:15 pm
CH86 wrote:FishbellykanakaDude wrote:CH86 wrote:
But the west did operate under an socioeconomic model similar to what I suggest from the period of Julius Caesar's conquests until the protestant victory in the 30 years war. That's 1700 years of history in which this was the dominant socioeconomic model for ordering society in the western world and it's offshoots (the original Muslim empire was a partial exception to this, but only partially).
So,.. you're telling me that there were no "border incursions" from Julius Caesar until the 30 Year's War?
Hmmmm... obviously I'm not understanding what it is you're speaking about, as I'm pretty sure there were several border incursions (!!) within that time period. If you could narrow in on what I'm missing, that would be helpful.
"(D)ominant socioeconomic model for ordering society",.. do you mean "autarky"?
Autarky ("complete economic independence") is not possible for a "large society", and even an empire (and I like empires!) will have interdependencies between it's various "national" regions,.. which inevitably are the fracture zones of said empire when it can't hold itself together any longer.
Once again, autarky is a utopian "ideal", as are "sacred borders", and both of these (and many others) will warp the minds and actions of "rulers" and make them highly vulnerable to "boo-boos" that invariably topple them. 'Though it may take more than one generation to do so, of course.
Obviously there were wars and conquests during this period, as this was the era of first the romantic empire; then the dark ages once the empire fell, then the migrations, then the middle ages, after that the mongol invasion followed by the plague, finally the age of discovery followed by the religious wars within the west.
What I meant in the previous posts that throughout these periods the dominant macroeconomic model was autarky with trade being mostly for political purposes or with mainly a location's nearest neighbors.
The notion of free trade only arose after the destruction of local based economies in the west in favor of unrestrained trade simultaneously with the notion of keeping access to the "instruments of violence" to as few hands as possible.
This was accompanied by the idea that those who had political responsibility had to keep mind of elements within society interests instead of the ruler implementating reforms that he/she saw fit. This idea broke the west and was started by mid-1600s protestants.
So, you're promoting a system where:
1) Trade is to used primarily for "political purposes", and then primarily only with "least travel time" distance neighboring countries/localities.
2) All economies should be "locally isolated" by government mandate so as to "serve the locals".
3) The local government should exclusively regulate all economic activity, so as to "de-complicate" external political relationships.
4) "Instruments of Violence" should be widely distributed.
Point #1: That kind of "trade" is not trade. It is removing the "voluntary" property of trade, making it the tools called threat and bribery.
Points #2 and #3: That kind of "control" is called slavery.
Point #4: Under a society described by the other 3 points, the only actual people allowed to possess said "widely distributed instruments of violence" would be the "economic controllers" and their slaves.
Thanks for the clarification as to what you meant. I think you are incorrect in claiming that that "system" describes "the West" from Caesar to the 30 Year's War, by the way, especially in terms of the way that trade worked.
Your confirmation that you espouse a "sacred border" based slave state ruled by an angry angst ridden adolescent Momma's Boy with a severe inferiority-to-Papa complex, very much akin to North Korea, seems to me accurate, as that is what you constantly go on about.
Well described. Touche, dude!
[quote="CH86"][quote="FishbellykanakaDude"][quote="CH86"]
But the west did operate under an socioeconomic model similar to what I suggest from the period of Julius Caesar's conquests until the protestant victory in the 30 years war. That's 1700 years of history in which this was the dominant socioeconomic model for ordering society in the western world and it's offshoots (the original Muslim empire was a partial exception to this, but only partially).[/quote]
So,.. you're telling me that there were no "border incursions" from Julius Caesar until the 30 Year's War?
Hmmmm... obviously I'm not understanding what it is you're speaking about, as I'm pretty sure there were several border incursions (!!) within that time period. If you could narrow in on what I'm missing, that would be helpful.
"(D)ominant socioeconomic model for ordering society",.. do you mean "autarky"?
Autarky ("complete economic independence") is not possible for a "large society", and even an empire (and I like empires!) will have interdependencies between it's various "national" regions,.. which inevitably are the fracture zones of said empire when it can't hold itself together any longer.
Once again, autarky is a utopian "ideal", as are "sacred borders", and both of these (and many others) will warp the minds and actions of "rulers" and make them highly vulnerable to "boo-boos" that invariably topple them. 'Though it may take more than one generation to do so, of course.[/quote]
Obviously there were wars and conquests during this period, as this was the era of first the romantic empire; then the dark ages once the empire fell, then the migrations, then the middle ages, after that the mongol invasion followed by the plague, finally the age of discovery followed by the religious wars within the west.
[b][color=#400040]What I meant in the previous posts that throughout these periods the dominant macroeconomic model was autarky with trade being mostly for political purposes or with mainly a location's nearest neighbors.
The notion of free trade only arose after the destruction of local based economies in the west in favor of unrestrained trade simultaneously with the notion of keeping access to the "instruments of violence" to as few hands as possible. [/color][/b]
This was accompanied by the idea that those who had political responsibility had to keep mind of elements within society interests instead of the ruler implementating reforms that he/she saw fit. This idea broke the west and was started by mid-1600s protestants.[/quote]
So, you're promoting a system where:
1) Trade is to used primarily for "political purposes", and then primarily only with "least travel time" distance neighboring countries/localities.
2) All economies should be "locally isolated" by government mandate so as to "serve the locals".
3) The local government should exclusively regulate all economic activity, so as to "de-complicate" external political relationships.
4) "Instruments of Violence" should be widely distributed.
Point #1: That kind of "trade" is not trade. It is removing the "voluntary" property of trade, making it the tools called threat and bribery.
Points #2 and #3: That kind of "control" is called slavery.
Point #4: Under a society described by the other 3 points, the only actual people allowed to possess said "widely distributed instruments of violence" would be the "economic controllers" and their slaves.
Thanks for the clarification as to what you meant. I think you are incorrect in claiming that that "system" describes "the West" from Caesar to the 30 Year's War, by the way, especially in terms of the way that trade worked.
Your confirmation that you espouse a "sacred border" based slave state ruled by an angry angst ridden adolescent Momma's Boy with a severe inferiority-to-Papa complex, very much akin to North Korea, seems to me accurate, as that is what you constantly go on about.
Well described. Touche, dude!