Forum > Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion
The merits of monarchy?
Enkhidu:
--- Quote from: Humanophile ---...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.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the thought, but I think our friendship can survive this sort of thing. It's not like we haven't gotten, vehement about our discussions before. Heck, the first argument we had was over him making some stupid claim about the depth of the power of a dictator over basic human rights. He said something completely inane - something like a ruler even had the right to interfere in marriages or something - and I got some mad we actually came to blows over it. If we can get over something like that, I think we'll be OK.
By the way, thanks for the thought on this.
Janos:
--- Quote from: Dacke ---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.
--- End quote ---
I think that it's probably a better form of government than a hereditary monarchy, but that just emphasizes my problem. A new person isn't going to have the same focus and drive, so a lot of effort from the previous generation is squandered.
Sobek:
As others have said, (truly) Enlightened Despotism is the closest to perfect we're gonna get -- in theory. In practice, we're long on despots and short on enlightenment.
The biggest problem in the real world is that "people are stupid". It's relatively easy to convince any large group of people of your benevolence/enlightenment. That's how you end up with Hitlers. It's also why politicians have such a bad rep.
tleilaxu:
see... i have the counterexample for y'all...
a theocratic despotism is optimal, as long as it is the kwisatz haderach in charge.
we just have to wait 20,000 years for it to be born.
boo-yah muthas!
edit: and dacke... how is the old swedish system different from how democracy works? seems like the rich rule to me.
Nicephorus:
--- Quote from: Dacke ---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.
--- End quote ---
Anglo-Saxon England had a mix between this and hereditary monarchy. A council of nobles (the Thing I think) chose the next king. generally confirming the eldest son but not if he was an idiot.
Both of these had some advantage over standard monarchy. It kept the inbred simpletons and the Paris Hiltons off of the throne. It also made sure that the ruler was someone liked by those with power - fewer revolts. The big problem would be if they couldn't agree on a candidate.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page