So, sort of like the US of today then.

Quote from: Insert Username HereNot sure if you're agreeing or not, but...

Checks and balances, like anything in gov't, can be as much a help as a hinderance. They can keep good things from happening as well as bad.

See, if I were King of the World, it would be a truly great place, and I wouldn't have thousands of pissant beaurocrats gettin' in my way...

Checks and balances are based on the idea that we're pretty good now, and that it's a lot easier for things to get worse than it is for them to get better.  I happen to agree with that position at the moment, but it's easy to see why certain people with a penchant for rabid reform want those limitations removed.

Enk, to get to the heart of the matter, why don't you just agree to let the matter drop with this friend?  I've seen a similar position too often, that religion automatically makes people good.  Talking someone out of that sort of position is a nigh-impossible task.  (And if it were a true statement, your friend's political ideals would be fully workable.)  It's fun to tear these ideas apart when you want to go at someone hammer and tongs, less so when you want to actually stay on good terms afterwards.

Quote from: EnkhiduI've got this friend who thinks the best form of gov't is a theocratic monarchy. The problem is that he's not a very, well, sharp knife if you know what I mean, and doesn't get the limitations inherent in that form of rulership.

Anyway, we've been round the proverbial bend on this one before. So many times, in fact that he's heard all my arguments.

So what's your take?

You should tell Izrador to shut the hell up.

The best form of government will always be a Benevolent Dictatorship.

One person, with 100% total power to rule as he wishes, for the benefit of all.

Problem is, there's a huge shortage of benevolent dictators. Seems that every time we get a dictator we get a selfish, stupid, and/or immoral person.

So the guy would have liked to live under the Taliban for example?

Quote from: BagpussSo the guy would have liked to live under the Taliban for example?

While I think that the basic framework might be familiar, I don't think this friend envisioned something like the Taliban. Though come to think of it, Afghanistan is sort of close by...

I do see the merits of monarchy, in the monarch being much of a historical figurehead without much power like we have here in the Netherlands. the monarch takes much of the public attention away from the Prime Minister and allows him to do his job while the monarch does the public functions and provides the fuel for the gossip mags.
In the US, your president combines both functions and his personal life is as much an issue as his political actions. I prefer the monarch to take away that attention.

as for a theocracy, priests should not rule, they should do priest stuff, that's what they are for.

Cat of Ulthar, priestess

Quote from: bondetampWhat is a Theocratical Monarchy?

Would there be checks and balances? Would there be a parlament or senate?

Would there be a constitution?

Would it be like Iran, but with the rulership held within one family for generation after generation?

Best I could figure Henry the 8th and the creation of the Church of England would be close to a Theocratic Monarchy.....

Ultimatly though, any form of government is really made or broken by the bureaucracy.

The big problem with monarchy is that the sons (and daughters) of Great Men are usually Thumb-Sucking Morons.  And if not the sons, then the grandsons.  Greatness is not genetic, and the environmental effects of growing up spoiled and rich far outweigh anything they might learn from their parents.

Theocracies suck, too.  Unless you're one of the priests...

Quote from: Kyle VOlttiBest I could figure Henry the 8th and the creation of the Church of England would be close to a Theocratic Monarchy.....

Not. Even. Close.

Gilgamesh would be the ideal example, as would several of the Egyptian Pharaohs. The same for some of the Kings of Central and South America.

I think a Monarchy is a great form of government.

For a generation.  

The main advantage to a monarchy is the ability to move everything in one direction without hinderance.  You can really focus and make things happen, no one gets in your way, and a dream can be realized.  Emphasis on the last part especially.

And that's just it, no two rulers will ever have the same dream exactly, so it always breaks down in later generations.  Even another good rule will move the country in a different enough direction that some of the effort of the first will be lost.

I'm not convinced that a democracy is inherently any better frankly, but I can see the pro and con both to everyone behind a single leader.

Now, if you had a meritorious dictatorship -- where the next dictator is chosen from the best candidates available -- that could be a good system.  Of course, I'd be the one to decide what the qualifications for a good dictator would be.  

Quote from: JanosI think a Monarchy is a great form of government.

For a generation.

In the really old days, Sweden had elected kings. Basically, the rich landowners got together and selected one of their number to be king. I'm not sure if said king ruled until he died or for some set term, but it's a neat idea.

Britain's a constitutional monarchy; seems to work.  *shrug*

I could see "God-King" as a necessary innovation in an area where the mere fact of establishing some kind of order couldn't be taken for granted; combining the social control of force/police and religion could make fairly lawless areas functional without the need for an oppressive police presence that may not be possible to create. The theocratic side encourages people to internalize controls, so fewer police are needed. Therefore, theocratic monarchy would work as a stopgap, allowing some order to develop into some more functional system that takes better advantage of the talents of its members.

When you look at history, it is amazing how little rulers knew about the areas they ostensibly governed. To know what you have, you need to gather lots of information and keep track of it. Any effective government will, in the end, require a bureacracy that itself will become a power base (whether courtiers, technocrats, or lobbyists are the label you give them). The greater the scale of the government, the more top-heavy things tend to get, unless one explicitly maintains some local control or communications and transportation technologies prevents effective rule over distances.

As for my personal preferences: decisions should be made on the lowest possible level for effective decision making, and hereditary power tends to breed corruption and injustice. Modern federal democracies come closest to that ideal in practice (of course, I'm not a big fan of efficiency in government, since efficiency so easily turns to tyranny).