Originally Posted by contracycle

If the public are persuaded to vote for a person or party by fear then I don't see that it can be described as a democracy.

That's not quite what I meant. But if you're known as a fearsome politician capable of obliterating your political enemies, then you'll find passing legislation and getting your way easier than otherwise.

Quote:

Well yes. But a shitty king squeezed oout of the right womb was still more legitimate than good king who wasn't.

Up to a point. If you were a shitty king, then your people and barons would find another king and deem him even more 'legitimate'...

Quote:

Hmm, I think rather they would have been credited for it, but it would not have been expected.

In between. It'd have been seen as them performing their role. If they did it especially well, they'd be credited.

Quote:

At any rate, my point was that our perception of the state is that it belongs to us, it is there to serve us. If the state is obligated to maintain an army for our protection then it can also be obligated to provide a health service or a train network for our benefit. And sure, there will and can be differences of opinion about what is actually to be provided, but its still seems to me that the minimalist state is a distinct minority opinion.

Agreed. My point was simply that the very minimal thing a state has to provide in order to qualify as state are the regalian functions (which, translated, are 'monopolies on violence'). The rest is optional but, these days, because we ask far more of the state than Machiavelli did, yes, we expect other services to be provided. However, I remain aware that they are 'options', things we want - rather than absolute conditions.

And so, as you said, we can then discuss where we ought to draw the line.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

That's not quite what I meant. But if you're known as a fearsome politician capable of obliterating your political enemies, then you'll find passing legislation and getting your way easier than otherwise.

And how would you do that? Frex an MP is elected by a constituency, no other MP can take that away. The best they could do is try to slander them in the press, and that's neither reliable nor safe. So I don't think this is a concern. The conspiratorial view of politics is just as wrong as conspiratorial views of most things.

Quote:

Up to a point. If you were a shitty king, then your people and barons would find another king and deem him even more 'legitimate'...

Yes and no. Not saying that never happened, but it was doctrinally asserted to be sacrilege, in that kings were appointed by god, and very dangerous for any usurper to endorse, because it would place them in the same danger.

The case works better for the Chinese model, in which the mandat of heaven pretty much coincides with good governance.

Quote:

Agreed. My point was simply that the very minimal thing a state has to provide in order to qualify as state are the regalian functions (which, translated, are 'monopolies on violence'). The rest is optional but, these days, because we ask far more of the state than Machiavelli did, yes, we expect other services to be provided. However, I remain aware that they are 'options', things we want - rather than absolute conditions. And so, as you said, we can then discuss where we ought to draw the line.

Well then Iceland isn't a state as it doesn't have an army. Nevertheless, nobody invaded them when they refused to pay for the IceSave fiasco, so an army isn't actually a necessary function either. It's just a commonly expected/desired service.

Originally Posted by contracycle

And how would you do that? Frex an MP is elected by a constituency, no other MP can take that away. The best they could do is try to slander them in the press, and that's neither reliable nor safe. So I don't think this is a concern. The conspiratorial view of politics is just as wrong as conspiratorial views of most things.

Tell that to Obama. And compare and contrast with GWB.

Quote:

Well then Iceland isn't a state as it doesn't have an army. Nevertheless, nobody invaded them when they refused to pay for the IceSave fiasco, so an army isn't actually a necessary function either. It's just a commonly expected/desired service.

I disagree. If Iceland doesn't have an army, it survives because nobody has bothered invading them and/or they got a decent alliance system. But they will survive only as long as no one objects to the fact.

Arguably, modern psyche would find it harder to accept an invasion these days i.e. democratic legitimacy and respect of established borders is more important than in the past but that doesn't change the fact that, if you cannot defend yourself, you survive at the sufferance of others...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Tell that to Obama. And compare and contrast with GWB.

Who has Obama "destroyed"? He won an election in exactly the manner I described.

Quote:

Arguably, modern psyche would find it harder to accept an invasion these days i.e. democratic legitimacy and respect of established borders is more important than in the past but that doesn't change the fact that, if you cannot defend yourself, you survive at the sufferance of others...

And also the fact that the army exists to protect the public - hence been near universally renamed as "defence" - rather than, say, to realise the ambitions for glory of kings.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Who has Obama "destroyed"? He won an election in exactly the manner I described.

No, my point was that, because he scares no one, he cannot get anything done in DC. While GWB, who might have been only a quarter as smart, got tons of things achieved. Because he could keep his party in line.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

See, for example, the following analysis: Democrats Can Lose Debt Fight, Win on Bush Tax Cuts: Ezra Klein - Bloomberg

Democrats Can Lose Debt Fight, Win on Bush Tax Cuts

By Ezra Klein Jul 28, 2011

July 26 (Bloomberg) -- Ron Haskins, senior fellow for economic studies at the Brookings Institution, James Dunigan, chief investment officer at PNC Wealth Management, and Christian Weller, senior economist at the Center for American Progress, talk about U.S. lawmakers' negotiations over raising the federal debt ceiling. Haskins, Dunigan and Weller speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television's "Taking Stock." (Source: Bloomberg)
Democrats are going to lose this one. Whatever deal emerges to raise the debt ceiling, we can be pretty sure it won’t include revenue, it won’t include stimulus, and it will let Republicans pocket a trillion dollars or more in cuts without offering anything to Democrats in return.

It’s difficult to see how it could end otherwise. Virtually no Democrats are willing to go past Aug. 2 without raising the debt ceiling. Plenty of Republicans are prepared to blow through the deadline. That’s not a dynamic that lends itself to a deal. That’s a dynamic that lends itself to a ransom.

Yet Democrats will have their turn. On Dec. 31, 2012, three weeks before the end of President Barack Obama’s current term in office, the Bush tax cuts expire. Income tax rates will return to their Clinton-era levels. That amounts to a $3.6 trillion tax increase over 10 years, three or four times the $800 billion to $1.2 trillion in revenue increases that Obama and Speaker John Boehner were kicking around. And all Democrats need to do to secure that deal is -- nothing.

In fact, Democrats can just let the Republicans stop them from doing anything. Imagine that Obama and the Democrats simply adopt the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles/Gang of Six deficit reduction plan -- tax reform that raises $2 trillion over 10 years and cuts rates for everyone. Republicans will almost certainly refuse any plan that raises any taxes on anyone. But if Republicans won’t budge, the Democrats can simply blame them for the gridlock that enables the Bush tax cuts to expire.

This scenario is the inverse of the current debt-ceiling debate, in which inaction will lead to an outcome -- a government default -- that Democrats can’t stomach and Republicans think they can. There is only one thing that could stand in the way of Democrats achieving their revenue goals on the last day of 2012: the Obama administration.

Republicans -- and even some Democrats -- think that the Obama administration lives to collect revenue. The truth is closer to the opposite. Senior administration aides view the expiration of the Bush tax cuts as less of an opportunity than a chore. About four-fifths of the cuts go to households making less than $250,000 a year, and they don’t want to raise taxes on those folks. They don’t like the politics of the issue, either. It’s an article of faith among Democratic strategists that debates on taxes inevitably favor Republicans, allowing Democrats to be hammered from the right and undermined from the left. Many Obama aides would prefer to avoid the debate, which they consider stale and intractable, altogether. They would rather focus on “win the future” issues like infrastructure, education and energy.

The White House’s strategy in the debt-ceiling negotiations has reflected its ambivalence, with Obama trying to extract either as much revenue as Republicans would allow or as little as Democrats would accept. Obama even offered Boehner a deal in which the Bush tax cuts would be extended right now, so Republicans wouldn’t have to fear a subsequent negotiation in which they lacked leverage. Ultimately, that deal fell through, which from a public policy standpoint, is probably for the best.

When Obama talks about taxes, a bit of incoherence creeps into the argument. “We can test the two theories,” Obama has said, comparing Bush tax policies with the Clinton policies that preceded them. “You had what happened during the ‘90s, right? Taxes for wealthy individuals were somewhat higher, businesses boomed, the economy boomed, great job growth. And then the 2000s, when taxes were cut on wealthy individuals, jobs didn’t grow as fast, businesses didn’t grow as fast.”

If the Bush tax cuts expire, we’ll go back to the tax rates of the ‘90s -- the period Obama posits was a golden age. If we extend the Bush tax cuts for every household making less than $250,000, then we’re adopting a tax policy very similar to what we had in the slow-growing Aughts. Yet that’s the Obama administration’s stated preference.

It’s true that 2013 is not an ideal time for a large tax increase. Nor is it an ideal time for huge spending cuts. So the question isn’t whether increasing taxes on the middle class is the perfect policy, but whether it’s better policy than reducing Social Security checks and infrastructure investment. And not just in 2013. What happens to the Bush tax cuts may define the limits of the possible in public policy for a long time to come.

The expiration of the tax cuts next year is the Democrats’ only opportunity to raise significant revenue. If they miss their big chance, what then? Republicans can’t pass Representative Paul Ryan’s budget, which slashes social spending, or anything much like it. But if Republicans can keep taxes from rising, deficits will continue to mount, and something like the Ryan budget will become inevitable. A world in which the two parties can’t agree on tax increases but can agree on spending cuts is one in which the government eventually shrinks dramatically. Republicans understand this. Do Democrats?

A year ago, I was less concerned about the Bush tax cuts. I assumed, as did many in Washington, that the Republicans’ antipathy to taxes was a negotiating stance. Eventually, we would strike a “grand bargain” that would reduce spending and raise revenue substantially. The past few months have proved me wrong.

Republicans have shown, at least to my satisfaction, that they will block any and all tax increases, no matter what incentives they are offered in return and no matter how dire the consequences of their refusal. Next year’s deadline on the Bush tax cuts offers Democrats their only chance to negotiate from a superior strategic position. Republicans will still be able to refuse to raise taxes. But if they do, it won’t matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------

This whole article just shows that the Obama administration is crap at intimidating anyone. And so they keep losing and losing. I bet they'll lose on the Bush Tax cuts as well.

Call that a conspiracy view of politics, if you like... but it's happening...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

No, my point was that, because he scares no one, he cannot get anything done in DC. While GWB, who might have been only a quarter as smart, got tons of things achieved. Because he could keep his party in line.

But that's all rather different than telling your enemies that if they cross you they'll be going for a swim in concrete boots. A democratic politician can't really harm another, they can only defeat their proposals etc. So there is no extra intimidation factor that makes it "easier".

As for Obama specifically, in fact he has been quite succesfull in keeping the Democrats in line so far. The problem is that he starts every negotiation by giving half his position away to the Republicans. But it's only recently that Democrats are becoming sufficiently annoyed by this as to start breaking ranks and threatening not to back him.

Ah, we misunderstood each others. Machiavelli doesn't refer to 'be feared' as a method of intimidating enemies but generating awe and respect amongst the Prince's "friends", courtiers and subjects.

Thus, I was not saying Obama (or other politicos) need to be feared by their enemies per se (although that's good as well and can be done - "Don't give in on that subject and see all your projects and porks die in sub-sub-committees") but they need to be feared and respected by their own side/allies/supporters...

As to Obama specifically, I think your analysis is probably correct but only since he lost the mid-term election. The cacophonies and failures of the first two years cannot be attributed to Republicans - They had no control of either Houses.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Well you did specifically say "obliterate their enemies", but this still make no sense to me. Someone petty enough to go out of their way to defeat some issue just because its proponent, or one of its proponents, defied them doesn't look like a poweful leader to me. Call me crazy but I think issues should be decided on their merist and without that kind of bullying interference.

And I'm pointing out that Obama's weakness is not that he is opposed by Republicans, or insufficiently supported by Democrats, but rather that he is unambitious and unnecessarily conciliatory. I didn't attributed failures to Republicans, but to Obama's unwillingness to use the popular mandate he had. His fellow Democrats are fractious primarily because he is not being aggressive enough, as in the debt ceiling talks in which they are saying that they haven't agreed to the concessions he's offered to Republicans and won't necessarily support them.