Governments for the Quadras

[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

[Logos]

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

You are ignorant about Alphas.

[discojoe]

You are ignorant about Alphas.

You are ignorant about j0kes.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.