Unironically agree, just not for the same reasons they chose
Large scale democracy doesn't work because the bigger and more distant people are from direct consequences, the less responsibility they take for their actions so feel fine voting for a scumbag because 'they said nice things on tv'. Democracy should be limited to towns and possibly city districts, it'd be better if higher positions than mayor were chosen by a battle royale.
The men whom the people ought to choose to represent them are too busy to take the jobs. But the politician is waiting for it. He's the pestilence of modern times. What we should try to do is make politics as local as possible. Keep the politicians near enough to kick them. The villagers who met under the village tree could also hang their politicians to the tree. It's terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hung today.
In the case of a monarchy, the rule of the king is balanced by the barons.
As long as everyone is doing very well under the king, the barons are very happy. If things go to shit because there is a bad king, then the barons raise armies and take the capital and install a new king.
It is a Mexican standoff. The barons have real power and means, but they are regional. A few times a year the king summons the barons to the capital, where they may only have a small bodyguard. If the king wants to have them killed, he has an army to do it.
The whole knighthood ceremony has a newly minted noble helpless, literally on their knees while their monarch has a literal sword at their neck. Both parties are vividly aware that events could take a turn. "Knighthood? lol, no. Execution!"
Monarchy absolutely isn't perfect, but real steps have been made away from the absolute rule of a tyrant.
The worst part about monarchism is that normal people are left with nothing but a patron they hope will protect them, and only does so if they are a great king.
If you get a bad one, you're stuck with that unfathomably bad one for centuries. Not just one generation of a bad king, but a bad king leads to more bad kings, and ruins the kingdom. You end up getting this 4th turning cycle among the elites that goes: Good king for 40 years, followed by "Meh" king for 40 years, followed by bad kings for 120 years, followed by a good king for 40 years.
And that's different from our current system how? "Just vote out the bad politicians bro"? We've had generations of bad political rulers under a so-called repubilc
I'm skeptical though that a system like a monarchy that relies on the benevolence of a king to do what's right for their subjects is a better option.
I'm not sure any more. If the king feels "ownership" of the country/citizens, then it may well be more likely that a king actually cares about everyone, because people tend to value what they "own." Renters almost always fuck everything up.
Not saying that everybody that owns something takes good care of it, but people very rarely take good care of things that they don't own.
We had to end up here by giving the Federal Government the right to just fucking kill you in the bloodiest war possible if you didn't bow to them, meaning every other election below that was pointless.
Clearly every fucking awful thing that has followed from that was worth it to let Blacks be given their freedom! They have done so much for this nation!!
When you offer yourself gleefully to do someone's bidding, even if you aren't aware you are being puppetted, you don't get to be absolved of your actions. You still commit them.
Blaming the slave means nothing. Liberating the slave denies the enemy a human shield, and makes a man out of a slave.
Slaves, by definition, aren't accountable of anything. They have no agency, that's why they are property. Freedom comes with agency, which comes with accountability.
The founders kind of accounted for that but at some point we threw all of that out the window and let the plebs vote directly for every elected position, which has lead to questionable results.
I kind of agree. This makes it effectively a militia system.
Every once in a while you see an illusionist or marketers do something like "give random people $100,000 to protect" or otherwise have access to. Hardly anyone just steals it. Daren Brown just put his wallet on the ground and drew a circle around it.
Now, to be clear, this speaks to the culture of the people. This doesn't work in all cultures. However, the culture of the political class is certainly as klepto-manical as anything you could find in Liberia. So randomly handing power to random people would probably work better than most current political systems, and even allow for actual fresh ideas to populate into the political system.
Unironically agree, just not for the same reasons they chose
Large scale democracy doesn't work because the bigger and more distant people are from direct consequences, the less responsibility they take for their actions so feel fine voting for a scumbag because 'they said nice things on tv'. Democracy should be limited to towns and possibly city districts, it'd be better if higher positions than mayor were chosen by a battle royale.
--G.K. Chesterton
incredibly based
I've been listening to a monarchist podcast for the last year or so which makes similar arguments.
I'm skeptical though that a system like a monarchy that relies on the benevolence of a king to do what's right for their subjects is a better option.
In the case of a monarchy, the rule of the king is balanced by the barons.
As long as everyone is doing very well under the king, the barons are very happy. If things go to shit because there is a bad king, then the barons raise armies and take the capital and install a new king.
It is a Mexican standoff. The barons have real power and means, but they are regional. A few times a year the king summons the barons to the capital, where they may only have a small bodyguard. If the king wants to have them killed, he has an army to do it.
The whole knighthood ceremony has a newly minted noble helpless, literally on their knees while their monarch has a literal sword at their neck. Both parties are vividly aware that events could take a turn. "Knighthood? lol, no. Execution!"
Monarchy absolutely isn't perfect, but real steps have been made away from the absolute rule of a tyrant.
The worst part about monarchism is that normal people are left with nothing but a patron they hope will protect them, and only does so if they are a great king.
If you get a bad one, you're stuck with that unfathomably bad one for centuries. Not just one generation of a bad king, but a bad king leads to more bad kings, and ruins the kingdom. You end up getting this 4th turning cycle among the elites that goes: Good king for 40 years, followed by "Meh" king for 40 years, followed by bad kings for 120 years, followed by a good king for 40 years.
We have that now, except the monarchs aren't publicly visible, so no one knows where to stage the peasant's revolt and who to stick in the choppy boi.
And that's different from our current system how? "Just vote out the bad politicians bro"? We've had generations of bad political rulers under a so-called repubilc
I'm not sure any more. If the king feels "ownership" of the country/citizens, then it may well be more likely that a king actually cares about everyone, because people tend to value what they "own." Renters almost always fuck everything up.
Not saying that everybody that owns something takes good care of it, but people very rarely take good care of things that they don't own.
Yup that's exactly it. Distributism is the way to go.
But don't you see.
We had to end up here by giving the Federal Government the right to just fucking kill you in the bloodiest war possible if you didn't bow to them, meaning every other election below that was pointless.
Clearly every fucking awful thing that has followed from that was worth it to let Blacks be given their freedom! They have done so much for this nation!!
Don't blame the human shield for the actions of the man using them as such.
When you offer yourself gleefully to do someone's bidding, even if you aren't aware you are being puppetted, you don't get to be absolved of your actions. You still commit them.
Ve vas Just Following Orders™!
Blaming the slave means nothing. Liberating the slave denies the enemy a human shield, and makes a man out of a slave.
Slaves, by definition, aren't accountable of anything. They have no agency, that's why they are property. Freedom comes with agency, which comes with accountability.
The founders kind of accounted for that but at some point we threw all of that out the window and let the plebs vote directly for every elected position, which has lead to questionable results.
Historical Siam had a great method.
There was a royal family, the eldest son was to be king and other sons were sent to a Buddhist monastery to train as a monk.
When things got tense, someone assassinated the crown prince, and the people got a philosopher monk instead.
Win!
I kind of agree. This makes it effectively a militia system.
Every once in a while you see an illusionist or marketers do something like "give random people $100,000 to protect" or otherwise have access to. Hardly anyone just steals it. Daren Brown just put his wallet on the ground and drew a circle around it.
Now, to be clear, this speaks to the culture of the people. This doesn't work in all cultures. However, the culture of the political class is certainly as klepto-manical as anything you could find in Liberia. So randomly handing power to random people would probably work better than most current political systems, and even allow for actual fresh ideas to populate into the political system.