Governments for the Quadras

[Expat]

What's interesting to me is that this 'model' essentially preserved itself for millennia. It was not a 'stable' model since was prone to complete collapse as each dynasty declined and plunged into warfare, but the 'model' itself remained intact and survived each period of chaos only to be resurrected.

The Beta form of government survives, and regenerates itself, as long as there is a perception of a danger affecting the whole of society (or at least those with any say). That danger may be an external enemy; it may be the fear of anarchy; the fear of disintegration, the fear of internal enemies. It may even be a totally imaginary enemy.

I have argued elsewhere that Germany was in many respects Delta under the old Holy Roman German Empire, up to the Thirty-Years War in the 17th century, during which Germany "became" Beta. I don't really know much about Chinese history in detail, but it may well be that this cycle of civil war followed by some stability was self-fulfilling in that people took for granted that the alternative to a strong centralized government was civil war.

And it was similar in the Roman Empire. The civil wars in the 1st century BC signalled the end of the Republic, which was Gamma rather than Beta. The civil wars led to the acceptance of a more Beta-ish form of government in the form of the Emperor, but the first emperor, Augustus, a LIE, preserved the essential Gamma character of the Roman Empire, which even became Delta-ish, I would argue, towards the end of the 2nd century AD. But a sequence of civil wars, fragmentation and external threats led to a renewed Beta-ization of the Empire, culminating in the reforms of Diocletian, Constantine and, to top it all, the conversion of the empire to Christianity.

[mikemex]

Delta's government I see rather as "small-town communitary values" with weak central government.

Ala "Switzerland".

[kensi]

What do you think would be the ideal government for each quadra? Brilliand and I thought of these:

Alpha: True communism
Beta: Dictatorship
Gamma: Money-based (forgot the name of it)
Delta: City-state Oligarchy

this is somehat hard to allign these properly.... but dont you think that a lot of ESTPs are exactly against dictatorship "musts" as their Ti stimulus forces them to do things beyond the expectancy of JE.

[Ezra]

this is somehat hard to allign these properly.... but dont you think that a lot of ESTPs are exactly against dictatorship "musts" as their Ti stimulus forces them to do things beyond the expectancy of JE.

What the fuck is "JE"?

Said SLEs normally overthrow the dictator and become dictators themselves. They are their to challenge the opposition. If they are in power, the challenge is democracy.

[Expat]

Ala "Switzerland".

Yeah.

Said SLEs normally overthrow the dictator and become dictators themselves. They are their to challenge the opposition. If they are in power, the challenge is democracy.

I think that SLE dictators don't really think in terms of "democracy" being their challenge. My impression is that they tend to see opposition to their dictatorship as simply a struggle from proponents of another form of + system. That is precisely why the old-fashioned communists coined the phrase "bourgeoise democracy", that is, they see "democracy" as just a name to disguise the rule of an elite.

[Expat]

That's my simplistic idea of how the quadras proceed historically in terms of government.

Alpha is the pre-government quadra. Alpha is concerned with exploring ideas and systems, but not primarily with implementing any kind of system, let alone with organizing something for longer-term needs. Alpha is the quadra of instant self-gratification, both sensorially and intellectually. Except in situations of obvious abundance - precisely Marx's eventual communist society - Alpha does not naturally flourish as to their material needs; in the absence of such an ideal situation, Alpha generates ideas, and creates the demand, for the implementation - by others - of a system that will allow them not to concern themselves with the means to provide abundance. Again, this is illustrated precisely by Marx wanting a communist state to "appear", yet not devoting much thought to how it would actually work. That would be Te+Ni.

Beta is the quadra of implementing government. One system is chosen - based on + input - and given Ti structure, and then imposed as a + system. The system is ultimately based on the internal elements, +, and it can be literally anything. Since Beta is totally persuaded of the correctness of the chosen system, the priority is to implement it at all costs and with less regard to how it actually works (Te) than to its structural purity (Ti). Only in such a way can a consistent govermental structure be imposed where there was previously none.

Gamma is the quadra of making an existing government actually work - work as to its long-term sustainability and as to how it performs according to external, not internal, criteria: +, and not Ti. An existing, previous Ti structure is "toned down" in specifics, but not replaced, and it is made to work according to the individuals exercising power, and focused on specific cases - Ti+Se becomes Fi+Se. The ultimate "grade" of the government is no longer Ti but Te.

Delta is the post-government quadra. Te performance is reached and sort of taken for granted - the existing Te situation is thought to become the "state of things" - Te+Ni becomes +. And, in that situation, the previous case-by-case, individual-focused Se+Fi structure is now "dissolved" into +. That is to say, not even the individual-focused power structure is kept.

Just like under Alpha the Ti+Ne involved the generation of ideas to introduce a + system to satisfy the + needs, under Delta the fulfillment of + needs leads to the abandonment of Se+Fi in favor of + "small-town inclusiveness" and absence of frontiers.

In a way, the Delta post-government state is the ultimate fulfillment of Alpha's desire - like what Marx wished.

[Expat]

Obviously, that is assuming that nothing "turns the clock back". A Delta "state of small-town prosperity" can easily revert to an "Alpha state of claiming for Beta government" under certain external circumstances.

A Gamma state of "making an existing government work" can easily be thrown off-balance by situations that invalidate the working of that system, and then Beta is needed to implement another system.

An Alpha pre-state situation can endure forever if there is already, due to some reason, a state of material satisfaction, which does not require the "demand for Beta".

In fact, each of those systems can endure "forever" depending on the circumstances, but I would argue that the "natural" and peaceful evolution is, obviously, Alpha ->Beta -> Gamma-> Delta.

[Expat]

A historical example is given by the Afrikaner nation in South Africa.

I would argue that the extremely loose society of the Afrikaners or Boers in the 19th century, in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, had reached a Delta state. Those two republics were characterized by very weak central government and based on independent-minded, self-sustaining farms - maybe similar to the Amish today.

The Boer War in the beginning of the 20th century - by which the British Empire annexed those two Boer republics and created the Union of South Africa, the predecessor to today's South Africa - totally destroyed that Delta society, by obliterating that economy (perhaps worse than the Old South in the US after the Civil War).

As far as the Boers - or Afrikaners - were concerned, they were thrown into an Alpha pre-state situation, since the new government was seen to serve the interests of the English-speaking economic elite.

That is what led - eventually - to the rise of power of the Beta National Party in 1948. Delta to Alpha to Beta.

[Logos]

I do not buy into such a teleological view of quadras and governments. It suffers from similar arguments as the the "idea production" assembly-line argumentation with quadras.

[Expat]

As far as US history is concerned, I can make a case for this.

As Diana suggested in a now-defunct predecessor of the workshop, Thomas Jefferson was EII rather than LII. His vision of the United States was of a loose union of Delta-ish societies and economies like his own Virginia. However, the vision of the Gammas George Washington (ESI) and Alexander Hamilton (LIE) prevailed. Rather than a loose Delta governmental structure, the US became a more Gamma structure, adapted from the still-Beta-ish British constitutional monarchy of the time (which was actually Beta/Gamma).

Ironically, however, it was left to the EII Abraham Lincoln to totally eliminate the idea of a Delta US, with the Civil War - which, I would argue, could be seen as a Gamma/Delta conflict.

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery. I think they saw slavery as part of the + - as a tool to keep the existing economic prosperity. Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

[Expat]

I do not buy into such a teleological view of quadras and governments. It suffers from similar arguments as the the "idea production" assembly-line argumentation with quadras.

Regard it as mental masturbation then .

[Logos]

Regard it as mental masturbation then .

That sounds like non-productive Alpha materials then, and we can't have any of that.

[anndelise]

I really don't like political talks, but this just really got my goat (bolded emphasis mine):

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery. I think they saw slavery as part of the + - as a tool to keep the existing economic prosperity. Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

Even if deltans adopted the cultural perspective that slaves were animals and not human, I sincerely doubt that that would have negated slaves from being included in Ne+Fi. How many Ne+Fi exclude Ne + Fi for animals? Do work horses not have rights and feelings as well? Are dogs just used as tools for hunting or guarding and not as companions nor friends? Cats are only good for catching mice or for fur coats I guess. And we certainly never find Ne+Fi fighting for the rights of endangered species, victims of animal abuse, etc. That Ne+Fi is reserved only for criminals and prisoners since they are 'human' and not 'animals' right?

a friend of mine who was listening to me rant and rave about the 'stupid' comment above said:

NF is going to be primarily concerned with affect regardless of whether it's human or animal ... I mean, it's the F-types that are most likely to be accused of anthropomorphizing (treating animals as if they were human)

I agree.

I sincerely doubt that Ne+Fi nor the delta quadra has changed so dramatically in such a short time (during civil war as it was happening) and all across the globe at the very same time as one country's war.

Unless of course delta wouldn't have been interested nor encouraging, nor even taking action in the underground railroad. After all, supposedly, Ne+Fi would have viewed these 'animals' as unworthy of Ne+Fi. Or maybe these people who care about animal rights, fighting animal cruelty, fighting animal enslavement, etc aren't really Ne+Fi .

[Expat]

anndelise's post is a classical example of straw man argument. She addresses a point I neither made nor implied - her point is all in her misinterpretation of what I said. My arguments obviously went way above her head, and she can only address her emotional and erroneous reading-between-the-lines of what I wrote, rather than what I did write.

And, if my record of past interactions with her is any indication, no clarification that I make now will make any difference; and her reaction will be to stick to her misinterpretations, no matter what I say now.

Still, for the sake of those who might be interested.

My propositions were that in its historical context, the pre-Civil War American South was Delta. I further suggested that Thomas Jefferson's own views of the Republic were Delta.

However, precisely because I know that the first thing that comes to the mind of many people whenever the Old South (although not, bizarrely, Jefferson's and Washington's Virginia) is mentioned is "slavery", I thought I might address the issue head-on when I said

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery

So, my point was precisely that the Old South's Delta-ness was so despite its slavery-based economy and society - not because of it.

(I have also said, here and elsewhere, that ancient Rome was mainly Gamma, and guess what, it was a slavery-based society. Neither did I mean then that it has slaves because it was Gamma. I also said that medieval Germany, who had slaves as well as serfs, was Delta. The same goes for that. And so on and so forth.)

I then said this:

Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

Well, what a surprise. Do I have to teach American folks their own history?

Thomas Jefferson was a slave-owner. He did not even free all of his slaves when he died, unlike Washington (because he could not afford to). Yet he did write the stuff about "all men being created equal" and "life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness". That means that either he was a totally cynical hypocrite - as were, then, most of the other guys who signed their names under those words - or that, somehow, in their minds, slaves "did not count" when making that case for independence. That is painfully obvious.

How does it follow that pointing out the above means that I said or implied that they thought that "slaves were animals" or even that they should not be treated humanely? Simply: it doesn't.

But, if someone - or a whole society - talks, presumably sincerely, about "all men created equal" - while having slaves, then, to use Jefferson's phrase, it is "self-evident" that slaves did not count for that reasoning - and so having no effect on the Delta-ness either way. And that has nothing to do, necessarily, with how well they were treated on a daily basis.

That was all that there was about my point.

Having said that: Jefferson's views on slavery, and blacks (and Native Americans, etc etc) were complex and sometimes contradictory; but he wrote at length about them. He wrote at length about pretty much everything.

I can't make it clearer, so I won't bother clarifying it further to those who are too thick to get it.

[Expat]

I do not buy into such a teleological view of quadras and governments. It suffers from similar arguments as the the "idea production" assembly-line argumentation with quadras.

That sounds like non-productive Alpha materials then, and we can't have any of that.

I think the problem is that you invalidate those views by applying them to specific individuals. Of course, regarding the "idea production assembly-line", you don't have to be an Alpha to be in the role of generating ideas. However, this is an argument pretty much in line with "any individual can use all functions" which means "anyone can do anything". That is totally true; yet it doesn't invalidate socionics generally.

Likewise, regardless of the types of the individuals involved, I think that the assembly-line thing is useful to understand the information elements involved. And if you look at societies, or governments, that are clearly of one quadra, I think it is clear how the quadra values go together. For instance, in Beta societies, a sense of collective organization for exercising power goes together with a sense of "higher spirituality" and "mission". And so on and so forth.

[unefille]

Rather than a loose Delta governmental structure, the US became a more Gamma structure, adapted from the still-Beta-ish British constitutional monarchy of the time (which was actually Beta/Gamma).

This has all been very interesting to read, Expat. Thank you.

I just have another question for you - would you say the political structure of contemporary Britain is still Beta-esque, or has it moved on? I have seen suggested (I don't remember where) that the British Empire was Delta/LSE. Not doubt that there were Delta elements, particularly in the colonies, once they were established, but I don't think the Empire itself was Delta. What would your thoughts on this be?

[Expat]

This has all been very interesting to read, Expat. Thank you.

My pleasure

I just have another question for you - would you say the political structure of contemporary Britain is still Beta-esque, or has it moved on? I have seen suggested (I don't remember where) that the British Empire was Delta/LSE. Not doubt that there were Delta elements, particularly in the colonies, once they were established, but I don't think the Empire itself was Delta. What would your thoughts on this be?

No, I think that Britain is Gamma.

Monarchies, as institutions, are essentially Beta. But Britain, as a culture/economy/society, made a large step towards Gamma-ization in the reign of Elizabeth I. The monarchy remained more or less stubbornly Beta-ish, but it made large steps towards Gamma-adaption in 1688 and 1715. The political system consolidated the transition to Gamma in Victoria's reign.

Today, the British political system is essentially Gamma, with one or two Beta "relics" and some early signs of Delta-ization.

Regarding the British Empire: a very interesting book about it is Empire by the LIE Niall Ferguson. It describes the Gamma character of the British Empire as it was being "built". Essentially a period of economic expansion, and of creating the conditions for it.

However, in its latest stages - I would say up to WWII - the British Empire assumed largely Delta characteristics, as was the original concept of the Commonwealth (it may be just a coincidence, but interestingly enough, the two monarchs of the period were Deltas, George V (LSE) and George VI (EII)).

The later British Empire (so not the "early version" that included the US) was created out of business initiatives by individuals and individual companies. A large part of its expansion in Africa was due to one man, the LIE Cecil John Rhodes. Simply put, the British Empire was a consequence of British businesses' push for oppportunities for making money, not just through stereotypical "exploitation" but by investment. In order for it to work, they had to push for the Gamma-ization of the colonies - in terms of there existing conditions for working. That is the process described in Empire.

The Delta-ization took place in its later stages as, frankly, the opportunities for economic expansion sort of exhausted themselves, and the British Empire became a more consolidated empire (+ moving into +) with a self-image of a large community of nations, with total freedom of movement of people and goods (which is a very Delta theme), which was carried over to the Commonwealth period (which of course did not last long in its original form as that freedom of people and goods became restrained).

The way I see it, Britain (and its empire) remained Gamma with Delta "urges" up to WWII, which was a last Gamma "effort". The end of WWII led to a more intense "plunge" into Delta, which was reversed in the Thatcher period. Margaret Thatcher's government was the Gamma restoration in Britain. Which is where we are now - with the occasional "Delta urges".

[Nexus]

I agree, especially with regard to industrialization and the displacement of rural peasants from the fiefdoms, and then later also with regard to the policy of mercantilism that was the impulse for colonizing the Western Hemisphere. However, Gamma tendencies in Britain go back as far as the Magna Carta.

[Expat]

I agree, especially with regard to industrialization and the displacement of rural peasants from the fiefdoms, and then later also with regard to the policy of mercantilism that was the impulse for colonizing the Western Hemisphere.

I wouldn't call mercantilism as such necessarily a Gamma thing, but that's a longer discussion.

However, Gamma tendencies in Britain go back as far as the Magna Carta.

Yes. Maybe even earlier.

[Expat]

On mercantilism, what I mean is this. It is obviously related to , and superficially to , so it could appear to be a Gamma thing. But I think it's more related to +, so Beta; at least it's a Beta/Gamma transition thingy.

One of the most mercantilist European regimes was the Beta regime of Louis XIV, and his concern wasn't, I daresay, -related but essentially -related, ie the accumulation of wealth (in terms of money) as a tool towards increasing power.

[Nexus]

On mercantilism, what I mean is this. It is obviously related to , and superficially to , so it could appear to be a Gamma thing. But I think it's more related to +, so Beta; at least it's a Beta/Gamma transition thingy.

One of the most mercantilist European regimes was the Beta regime of Louis XIV, and his concern wasn't, I daresay, -related but essentially -related, ie the accumulation of wealth (in terms of money) as a tool towards increasing power.

That is a very good point, but it was not exclusively government-sponsored - Gamma free enterprise had lots to gain by dominating foreign markets and hiring cheap labor. Today's multinational corporations may seem Beta in structure, but they are Gamma in purpose.

[Expat]

That is a very good point, but it was not exclusively government-sponsored - Gamma free enterprise had lots to gain by dominating foreign markets and hiring cheap labor. Today's multinational corporations may seem Beta in structure, but they are Gamma in purpose.

That's not what "mercantilism" means, and it's not what I meant when I used the term.

[Nexus]

That's not what "mercantilism" means, and it's not what I meant when I used the term.

Okay.

[anndelise]

Expat's non-response to me is a classical example of him ignoring the words he actually wrote, and the implications that can be obtained from them. My arguments obviously went way above his head, and he can only continue his patronizing and rationalizing of his erroneous theory rather than actually address any possible errors of his communications.

And, if my record of past interactions with him is any indication, no clarification that I make now will make any difference; and his reaction will be to stick to not only his misinterpretations of my post, but to his theory, no matter what I say now.

Still, for the sake of those who might be interested…

I never claimed that expat said nor implied that the old south was delta because of slavery .
I did attempt to address the statements Expat made:

Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count".

Expat didn't say here that slaves weren't included in the stuff about "all men being created equal" and "life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness".
He said Slaves were not included in the Ne+Fi. That slaves 'did not count' in regards to Ne+Fi.
This is what my post addressed.
Ne+Fi would, hopefully, influence how the slaves were treated on a daily basis, even if perhaps not so effective at all the actual political aspects involved.


Admittedly, Expat did use one specific politician as support for his argument that slaves were not included in Ne+Fi.
Ignoring, of course, the fact that it's a politician, and that politicians are subjected to plenty of pressure and demands from varying parties, groups, people, ideals, other quadras' ideals/influences, etc. And that unless one is perhaps a dictator or such, that the politician still needs to walk a fine line between all these things. A politician who doesn't walk the line between his ideals and the influences of others, doesn't survive very long in politics, does he?
Also ignored were the other issues involved at that time, regarding and not regarding slavery.

Now, I already admitted that I don't know much about history.
And no, I haven't read Jefferson's views on slavery, etc.
But I'm pretty sure that slavery wasn't all that was involved in the civil war. And I'm pretty sure that there's more to releasing an entire group of people from enslavement than just signing a paper and telling them that they are free. I'm pretty sure that there are other issues that would be involved in such a thing. It's not like they had welfare programs nor counseling services back then, did they? I'm pretty sure that support programs would have needed to be set up, and resources set aside to aide these people. This would require money, resources, and attempting to change the views of pro-slavery peoples as well..for the safety and wellbeing of the people being set free. Among other things, I'm sure.

If some USA politician were to make a statement now that 12yo children are now considered adults, with all the rights and responsibilities, and duties of adults. I certainly wouldn't be sending my child out into the world just like that. I'd be trying to help her gain the experiences and abilities she'd need to survive most of the conflicting attitudes and actions of others, to recognize and have skills at dealing with those who would prey on her naivety and lack of skills/abilities, etc. Nor would I be interested in sending her into a ghetto type place owned by a factory, where she has to work for pisspoor wages at the factory, only to have to then pay rent to the same factory, without the ability nor resources to actually make use of her freedoms. (I seem to recall that something like this is what many if not most blacks faced as "freedom".) But I guess this concern for my daughter's wellbeing would be considered something along the lines of not including her in my Ne+Fi . . . I suppose . . . if one really wanted to ignore the Ne+Fi aspects of it.


To use a politician's actions as a supporting example of how Ne+Fi did not include slaves in the Ne+Fi…is weak, at best.
That was all that there was about my point.

I can't make it clearer, so I won't bother clarifying it further to those who are too thick to get it.

[Ezra]

As far as US history is concerned, I can make a case for this.

As Diana suggested in a now-defunct predecessor of the workshop, Thomas Jefferson was EII rather than LII. His vision of the United States was of a loose union of Delta-ish societies and economies like his own Virginia. However, the vision of the Gammas George Washington (ESI) and Alexander Hamilton (LIE) prevailed. Rather than a loose Delta governmental structure, the US became a more Gamma structure, adapted from the still-Beta-ish British constitutional monarchy of the time (which was actually Beta/Gamma).

Ironically, however, it was left to the EII Abraham Lincoln to totally eliminate the idea of a Delta US, with the Civil War - which, I would argue, could be seen as a Gamma/Delta conflict.

That is not to say that Delta was typically pro-slavery. I think they saw slavery as part of the + - as a tool to keep the existing economic prosperity. Slaves were not included in the +. They "did not count". Pretty much like they did not count for the slave-owner, EII Thomas Jefferson when he wrote about the "self-evident truths".

I was going to say that the model you mentioned above could actually be applied to the US progression of civilisation. Initially, in the sixteenth/seventeenth century, you had a bunch of native Delta/Alpha tribes. Meanwhile, in Europe, people were toying with new ideas in the Renaissance after a shitty Middle Ages-worth of religious crap being thrust upon the people, which is perhaps characterised by Alpha. By the time of the colonies, the Beta monarchy of Britain reigned in the US. When they got chucked out by the Yanks in the eighteenth century, a new age began; Gammas from all over Europe travelled to America to seek fortunes and build financial empires. Now, you have this small Delta town mentality all across the continent.

On mercantilism, what I mean is this. It is obviously related to , and superficially to , so it could appear to be a Gamma thing. But I think it's more related to +, so Beta; at least it's a Beta/Gamma transition thingy.

Arguably, some of the early mercantilists (I'm talking 16th/17th century) of Britain were Gamma. People like Walter Raleigh were privateers who had no Beta code or way of life; they were practically detached from the monarchy, while still half-supporting them.

[Expat]

I was going to say that the model you mentioned above could actually be applied to the US progression of civilisation. Initially, in the sixteenth/seventeenth century, you had a bunch of native Delta/Alpha tribes.

Not sure that all tribes could be all lumped together like that, but I will let it be. It would not surprise me if some of them could be more accurately described as Beta.

Meanwhile, in Europe, people were toying with new ideas in the Renaissance after a shitty Middle Ages-worth of religious crap being thrust upon the people, which is perhaps characterised by Alpha. By the time of the colonies, the Beta monarchy of Britain reigned in the US. When they got chucked out by the Yanks in the eighteenth century, a new age began; Gammas from all over Europe travelled to America to seek fortunes and build financial empires. Now, you have this small Delta town mentality all across the continent.

I agree with as much as I disagree with, in the above.

Anyway, I think the "Delta small-town mentality" is just part of the story.

Arguably, some of the early mercantilists (I'm talking 16th/17th century) of Britain were Gamma. People like Walter Raleigh were privateers who had no Beta code or way of life; they were practically detached from the monarchy, while still half-supporting them.

I think the problem is understanding what "mercantilists" really means; I suspect this word is being used without the historical context. I wonder why you would call Walter Raleigh a "mercantilist".

[Ezra]

I think the problem is understanding what "mercantilists" really means; I suspect this word is being used without the historical context. I wonder why you would call Walter Raleigh a "mercantilist".

Because, essentially, he was working for the monarchy in his exploits, even though he pirated for the Brits, which was clearly illegal back then as it is now.

[Nexus]

Not sure that all tribes could be all lumped together like that, but I will let it be. It would not surprise me if some of them could be more accurately described as Beta.

Certainly the great American Empires like the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas were Beta. I think that perhaps the Iroquois League could be described as Gamma.

[Logos]

Expat, the primary problem I have with your discussion of quadra governments is that you marginalize Alpha quadra and push it to the periphery of any possible substantial involvement in the development and participation of government. Pre-government? In a world of governments, associating Alpha with pre-government effectively neutralizes Alpha.

I was going to say that the model you mentioned above could actually be applied to the US progression of civilisation. Initially, in the sixteenth/seventeenth century, you had a bunch of native Delta/Alpha tribes. Meanwhile, in Europe, people were toying with new ideas in the Renaissance after a shitty Middle Ages-worth of religious crap being thrust upon the people, which is perhaps characterised by Alpha. By the time of the colonies, the Beta monarchy of Britain reigned in the US. When they got chucked out by the Yanks in the eighteenth century, a new age began; Gammas from all over Europe travelled to America to seek fortunes and build financial empires. Now, you have this small Delta town mentality all across the continent.

That's actually more characterisitic of Beta.

[discojoe]

DON'T LET ALPHAS HAVE POWER THEY'LL RUIN THE WORLD WITH THEIR THEORIES

[Expat]

Expat, the primary problem I have with your discussion of quadra governments is that you marginalize Alpha quadra and push it to the periphery of any possible substantial involvement in the development and participation of government. Pre-government? In a world of governments, associating Alpha with pre-government effectively neutralizes Alpha.

Then you could say that I have also "neutralized" Delta, since it is post-government.

I don't know what is so "marginalizing" about the idea that the valuing quadras are the natural "government" quadras, and the -devaluing, their opposite.

I can refer to (supposed) historical Alphas. As I said, Karl Marx's ideal communist world was one without government. And it may be paradoxical, but I would argue that even Maxime's ideal vision was of a weak government - in terms of constitutional theory, his governmental structure was suspicious of any centralized power. Of course, in the end, he became a proponent of brutal power, but I would argue that those were the means to his end, and that the end was a weak-government structure.

As for development of government, I also said that in an Alpha situation the demand for government is created, and the ideas for its generation come from Alpha.

I'm not sure what is so "marginalizing" about this. Why not say that I have "marginalized" Gamma by denying it any role in the generation or implementation of new forms of government?

That's actually more characterisitic of Beta.

Yes.

[Expat]

Certainly the great American Empires like the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas were Beta. I think that perhaps the Iroquois League could be described as Gamma.

I don't know much about the Iroquois or the Mayas.

I think the Incas were Beta, while the Aztecs were Beta/Gamma - but Beta>Gamma.

[Nexus]

I don't know much about the Iroquois or the Mayas.

I think the Incas were Beta, while the Aztecs were Beta/Gamma - but Beta>Gamma.

I guess that makes my user name all the more fitting for someone of my quadrant values.

[Logos]

DON'T LET ALPHAS HAVE POWER THEY'LL RUIN THE WORLD WITH THEIR THEORIES

You are ignorant about Alphas.

[Logos]

Then you could say that I have also "neutralized" Delta, since it is post-government.

I don't know what is so "marginalizing" about the idea that the valuing quadras are the natural "government" quadras, and the -devaluing, their opposite.

I can refer to (supposed) historical Alphas. As I said, Karl Marx's ideal communist world was one without government. And it may be paradoxical, but I would argue that even Maxime's ideal vision was of a weak government - in terms of constitutional theory, his governmental structure was suspicious of any centralized power. Of course, in the end, he became a proponent of brutal power, but I would argue that those were the means to his end, and that the end was a weak-government structure.

As for development of government, I also said that in an Alpha situation the demand for government is created, and the ideas for its generation come from Alpha.

I'm not sure what is so "marginalizing" about this. Why not say that I have "marginalized" Gamma by denying it any role in the generation or implementation of new forms of government?

Alpha is NOT Marxism. Marx was an Alpha, but that does not mean that Alpha is Marxist. Jefferson's ideal form of government was similar to Maxime's. Jefferson was opposed to the Constitution as it essentially created a federalist state as opposed to his idealized Confederation of States; he was also of course one of the chief proponents for a Bill of Rights as a protection against federalist powers.

[discojoe]

You are ignorant about Alphas.

You are ignorant about j0kes.

[Expat]

Alpha is NOT Marxism. Marx was an Alpha, but that does not mean that Alpha is Marxist.

I did not mean that Alpha is Marxist, it was an example. Would you say you do not identify with Marx's ideal, government-fee communist state?

Jefferson's ideal form of government was similar to Maxime's. Jefferson was opposed to the Constitution as it essentially created a federalist state as opposed to his idealized Confederation of States; he was also of course one of the chief proponents for a Bill of Rights as a protection against federalist powers.

First, I am inclined to type Jefferson as EII. But whether he was EII or LII is relatively unimportant. The point is that you are confirming the point that he was theoretically against a strong centralized government (never mind that he acted unconstitutionally as president). That can be seen as Delta and Alpha - -devaluing - instinct.

Which brings us (or maybe not, but I will mention that anyway) to the Beta and Gamma approaches to government.

Beta's is clear: they use to enforce to the full a structure.

Gamma's is more ambiguous, or let us say, hypocritical: in principle Gamma is free-market-focused, so against government intervention from a perspective, but when in power, Gammas are eager to use but from a and perspective.

[Logos]

I did not mean that Alpha is Marxist, it was an example. Would you say you do not identify with Marx's ideal, government-free communist state?

Not particularly.

First, I am inclined to type Jefferson as EII. But whether he was EII or LII is relatively unimportant. The point is that you are confirming the point that he was theoretically against a strong centralized government (never mind that he acted unconstitutionally as president). That can be seen as Delta and Alpha - -devaluing - instinct.

Which brings us (or maybe not, but I will mention that anyway) to the Beta and Gamma approaches to government.

Beta's is clear: they use to enforce to the full a structure.

Gamma's is more ambiguous, or let us say, hypocritical: in principle Gamma is free-market-focused, so against government intervention from a perspective, but when in power, Gammas are eager to use but from a and perspective.

He was actually quite conscientious of this himself.

If we are playing with theory here, I would say that Alphas and Deltas would be more concerned with the more abstract qualities while still participating fully in it (i.e. John Stuart Mill), which would include rights and what I suppose could be called governmental apologetics.

[ann2430]

What do you think would be the ideal government for each quadra? Brilliand and I thought of these:

Alpha: True communism
Beta: Dictatorship
Gamma: Money-based (forgot the name of it)
Delta: City-state Oligarchy

I am not sure about the first three, but the description of delta seems pretty accurate. I am an INFj and definitely prefer smaller, decentralized government. I think it's far more effective and there is no need for government to control everything in society.

[Expat]

If we are playing with theory here, I would say that Alphas and Deltas would be more concerned with the more abstract qualities while still participating fully in it (i.e. John Stuart Mill), which would include rights and what I suppose could be called governmental apologetics.

You see, to be more concerned with the abstract qualities, or governmental apologetics, is related to the idea of "inventing government" - and wasn't Al Gore (LII I think) who suggested, as one of his vice-presidential tasks, "reinventing government"? Maxime seemed to be far keener on creating, or dissecting, theories of government than on implementing them - I prefer to regard his use of Terror as a desperate aberration rather than a natural inclination. In one of my early "concrete metaphors" to describe Ti, I chose precisely one about writing a constitution. This all fits in my view of Alpha as being pre-government, asking for government, and even creating government.