Imperial Energy writes his response to my critique here. A reader requested that I give my thoughts of the subject of Reactionary Future's thesis, and that is the only reason I did. The reasons I won't bother writing a response to his response now, is that I don't care, I never cared, and I'm lazy.
He accuses me of not getting it, (perhaps I don't), of confusing several issues, of misrepresentation, and then tells me to read a pile of references.
I am not going to read the pile.
Though I have my own reference to recommend: The Dictator's Handbook, by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita.
Imperial Energy's critique of my critique ends with him saying;
Cool, I will wait for that. I want to find out what the goal post is before I say anything more."As for when a ruler is secure, we will have more to say on that issue shortly."
Perhaps our response was too intemperate.
ReplyDeleteWe can assure you that we have indeed read the book you recommended and have profited a great deal from it.
We make use of it throughout our work. One of the earliest references and one of the largest uses of it was here:
https://imperialenergyblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/a-steel-cameralist-manifesto-part-3a-the-age-of-crisis-the-science-of-the-state-and-the-rules-for-rulers/
We write:
"According to Bruce Bueno de Mesquita there are five fundamental rules for rulers:
Rule 1:
Keep your winning coalition as small as possible. A small coalition allows a leader to rely on very few people to stay in power. Fewer essentials equals more control and contributes to more discretion over expenditures.
(Strong and Secure High; Small and Weak Middle.)
Rule 2:
Keep your nominal selectorate as large as possible. Maintain a large selectorate of interchangeables and you can easily replace any troublemakers in your coalition, influentials and essentials alike. After all, a large selectorate permits a big supply of substitute supporters to put the essentials on notice that they should be loyal and well behaved or else face being replaced. (Bold mine.)
(Did someone mention Muslims? Muslims? Do I hear Muslims? Hello?)
Rule 3:
Control the flow of revenue. It’s always better for a ruler to determine who eats than it is to have a larger pie from which the people can feed themselves. The most effective cash flow for leaders is one that makes lots of people poor and redistributes money to keep select people—their supporters—wealthy. (Bold mine.)
(To paraphrase Alexander Hamilton, if you control their pay, then you control their principles.)
Rule 4:
Pay your key supporters just enough to keep them loyal. Remember, your backers would rather be you than be dependent on you. Your big advantage over them is that you know where the money is and they don’t. Give your coalition just enough so that they don’t shop around for someone to replace you and not a penny more.
(Sometimes treat em mean, but always keep em keen.)
Rule 5:
Don’t take money out of your supporter’s pockets to make the people’s lives better. The flip side of rule 4 is not to be too cheap toward your coalition of supporters. If you’re good to the people at the expense of your coalition, it won’t be long until your “friends” will be gunning for you. Effective policy for the masses doesn’t necessarily produce loyalty among essentials, and it’s darn expensive to boot. Hungry people are not likely to have the energy to overthrow you, so don’t worry about them. Disappointed coalition members, in contrast, can defect, leaving you in deep trouble.
(Fuck em.)
Now consider how these rules change, if you are an essential, however."
One final point. As with Jouvenel (who was a liberal) we read Mesquita "against the text" as it where. He supports democracy, but his conclusions are inconsistent with his premises.
Again, sorry if our artillery fire was a bit much.
BTW we agree with you over Filmer.