Which means that the king needs to be a machine, but now we have the AI alignment problem. Our gods need to be created in the human image. They must allow for development, but it seems that eventually, evolutionary forces optimize for the perfect devourer.
-
-
Or a king that cannot biologically age (and who is kept very safe) Or, more realistically, a king that can train their successor and plan for after their death.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The point of a king is that his interest must be perfectly aligned with optimal management of his subjects, which basically means that he must own everything and expect his heirs to inherit everything, while competing with other kingdoms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You're right, a king would need to directly own a lot of the country's resources. Could a human not do that?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In capitalism, would the king not have to own the banks?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
no, only the mint/treasury
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Not sure. The reason why monarchy seems to be the natural form of government in feudalism is because the primary means of production is land, controlled by the crown.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
i'm thinking of the development of early capitalism in England in the 17th century. the sovereign controlling the supply of gold coins alone was sufficient to control the entire banking sector such as it existed at the time. Isaac Newton did some interesting work for crown mint.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Plinz and
sounds like the kind of evolutionary pressure that leads directly to a robust system of letters of credit
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @Plinz and
an interesting plot twist, fiat money was not initially well regulated and metal convertibility became unmanageable at some point that led to the creation of this act of parliament just about 100 years after the exchequer created the Bank of England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Restriction_Act_1797 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
though now we're off topic because this is in the parliamentary era already and nobody then thought the monarch was the literal owner of everything in England. maybe that's the insight though? banking destroys monarchies.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @Plinz and
in case anybody was wondering why neocameralism and antisemitism would be such otherwise inexplicable bosom pals
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.